If Atheists and Theists were honest with themselves, they would be Agnostic.
I find it so irritating when an Atheist talks down to a Theist. Neither of them has evidence to prove his point.
In this universe, we are a tiny spec.Our planet is like a dust particle in comparison to the rest of the universe, and yet Atheists think they know for certain there's no God? Fuck off.
Agnostics are the only group of people who are honest and rational with the current scientific knowledge we have.
The man who say "I don't know" when faced with an idea that he does have knowledge on is at least honest.
tl;dr: Both Atheists and Theists are dishonest.
The problem with most atheists is that they only really look into very shallow and superstitious concepts of God.
The problem with many theists is that they follow a shallow and superstitious concept of God.
If Unicorn-deniers and Unicorn-believers were honest with themselves, they would be Unicorn-agnostic.
I find it so irritating when a Unicorn-denier talks down to a Unicorn-believer. Neither of them has evidence to prove his point.
In this universe, we are a tiny spec.Our planet is like a dust particle in comparison to the rest of the universe, and yet Unicorn-deniers think they know for certain there's no unicorns? Fuck off.
Unicorn-agnostics are the only group of people who are honest and rational with the current scientific knowledge we have.
The man who say "I don't know" when faced with an idea that he does have knowledge on is at least honest.
tl;dr: Both Unicorn-deniers and Unicorn-believers are dishonest.
>>872115
Every atheist I know or have talked to online says they are agnostic when asked. Agnosticism vs gnosticism answers a different question than theism versus atheism.
>>872125
What was the point of this post? All you've done is add 'unicorn' to the start of a few words.
>>872125
Comparing God to unicorns. Original. Nice work, sport.
>>872125
My point still stands.
>>872159
You really don't get it, OP? Or do you realize the point anon is making but you don't want to piece it all together because of how greatly it undermines the point of your thread?
The point is that no one believes in unicorns but your argument equally applies to them.
>>872115
One basic distinction: living as an agnostic and living as an atheist are pretty much the same, you don't base your life around moral lessons and doctrines that rise from an unfoubded belif in the supernatural.
>>872170
>the ground of being and sustainer of reality
>equivalent to believing in unicorns
Your idea of God is ankle-deep m8. Try again when you're out of high school
>>872171
Yeah, but the difference is that Agnostics also don't talk down to the opposing side without evidence to back up their claims.
I'm an Agnostic, and I sometimes (but rarely) pray when something bad happens. You know why? Because I don't know if there is a deity. Now, I don't think the deity would be anything like the God of organised religions, but still.
>>872172
>this defense mode
Try again when you don't have your head up your own ass.
>>872170
I'm not OP but I'll take the bait, you say unicorns can be applied to the same argument that OP is making since "no one believes in unicorns" therefore unicorns do not exist. But if there is NOTHING showing that they did NOT exist then how can you say that they are not in fact real?
It's the same concept with god no one can prove or disprove his existence therefore no one can rightfully say that there is isn't a supreme being in existence. The previous poster is using juvenile arguments to try and get his point across.
>>872115
Agnosticism and Theism vs Atheism are answers to different questions.
Theism vs Atheism is the answer to the question, is there a God?
Agnosticism is the answer to the question, can we know if there is a God?
Unless people are delusional both Atheists and Theists are normally Agnostics at the same time.
>>872115
You don't capitalize atheist or theist, dumb senpai.
>>872180
>my shallow, simplistic idea of god is the only one because otherwise my shallow, simplistic arguments topple like a house of cards
>what is the philosopher's God
Read a book dude
>>872181
Correct, so everyone must be agnostic about everything because not believing in any of the infinite things that might exist makes one irrational.
>>872190
As I said, atheism answers a different question than agnosticism.
>>872195
Not my argument, dudebro. I'm just calling you out on a shitty response to said argument.
>>872190
>bases on ther life on a scientist
That isn't inherent to atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in god, that doesn't make for a positice claim so their belief in science or whatever isn't tied to it.
Meanwhile the belief in a specific god is tied to theism.
Atheism isn't scientificism.
>>872195
>the philosopher's God
Kek. When was the last time philosophy solved anything?
>>872213
>scientificism
>Belief in or advocacy of science and the scientific method; specifically the theory or belief that all phenomena can be scientifically explained.
Why is /his/ so triggered by STEM?
>>872181
The point is not that unicorns don't exist, it's that agnostics are complete hypocrites who only apply that reasoning to god because they're too scared to commit, all the while applying standard skeptic rationality for every other facet of their life. It's incoherent as fuck, and makes agnostics look far more retarded than theists.
>>872217
I don't care.
I am just stating that atheism doesn't require scientificism and scientificism doesn't require atheism.
Now a belief in a certain god clearly requires theism. Theism doesn't require the belief in a certain god, however.
How hard is this to get?
>>872216
>inb4 b-but the first scientists were philosophers because there was literally nothing else to study except the ramblings of Aristotle back then
But seriously though, talk down about philosophy majors who think their major is as useful or relevant to understanding the world as the natural sciences, but don't belittle the path of philosophy that it took to reach the natural sciences as we know them.
>>872115
I think a more honest aproach is apatheism.
>>872218
Why should they commit to something if they don't fully know if it exists or not? For example why do most atheist's believe in the concept of other intelligent life in the universe when there is nothing out there that can with out a doubt prove the existence of intelligent life.
It's the same thing with theist's why should they believe in a single or multiple divine beings when there is nothing out there that can prove without a doubt to it's existence.
Agnosticism is honestly the only balanced approach to this.
>>872234
I don't really care for that perspective.
>>872250
Well your feelings are kind of irelevant.
>>872238
>Why should they commit to something if they don't fully know if it exists or not?
Practicality. You don't know half of the shit you base your decisions off of. All those pictures of China could be faked, China might not even exist! Saturn is a lie! Have you even ever seen Paul Mccartney? Julius Caesar never existed! Neither did your great great grandparents!
>>872259
It was a joke.
>>872265
Yes i know, I was playing along.
>>872178
>Yeah, but the difference is that Agnostics also don't talk down to the opposing side without evidence to back up their claims.
Oh please, aren't we above straw-men? What if most atheist don't give a flying shit about religious people because for them it's what they'e always been. They don't feel a need to convince someone because the religious is the oddball.
>>872267
You playing along didn't really add anything to the humor. Do you really just want to post that bad?
>>872238
>Why should they commit to something if they don't fully know if it exists or not?
Because they already do it for everything else, so just avoiding it for god smacks of fear of eternal retribution.
Also there's another point: you (I'm presuming you're op) are looking down on all atheists on the presumption that atheism itself is exclusively gnostic, which is beyond retarded and makes you look like you're baiting. Atheism as a position presents no claims, just a refusal to accept a baseless belief.
Sure, there are a few gnositc atheists and they're rather cringey, but then so are you by looking down on people making an assumption just because you're too scared to make one.
>>872178
Make sure you pray to all the gods, and also the one of the infinite gods that could be conceived. You know, to hedge your bets.
>>872264
Now you're trivializing the argument. Agnosticism isn't a universal belief held by people it's a concept in general and normally applied to to theology although you can still apply the same ideas to other aspects in life, no one is going around doing what you're saying. Stop being pedantic everything has grey areas.
>>872282
>Now you're trivializing the argument.
MAYBE! But it wasn't me you were posting with. I just disagreed with you and wanted a laugh. The argument stands though. Everything is just a best guess.
Do you base your actions off of deities existing? You are a theist. If not you are an atheist as you do not incorporate deities into your mental model of the the universe.
>>872276
I'm not OP I was the guy who countered the Unicorn argument, I'm not looking down on any one for their beliefs. I just tend to agree with agnosticism I've done things in my life that i know will get me sent to hell but how can I be for sure that, that exists since there isn't anything to prove that it does or does not. Also how do I know if my body will just rot in the ground and my soul won't be judged upon. I don't.
If people want to be fence sitters let them sit.
>>872285
You did make me laugh at with your post though, anyways. You're saying that someone either bases their actions on a higher belief or they don't is turning it into a black and white argument.
Is morality a concept based on theology or a human concept? It's debatable either way, you can make a case for either. But that's not what were arguing here. Were arguing if agnosticism is a valid ideology to follow which it is.
Sorry if this seems jumbled I'm having a hard time formulating my thoughts into words lol.
>>872287
>I've done things in my life that i know will get me sent to hell but how can I be for sure that
Fucking hell, dude? Either you are a murderer or you were raised by some bad parents who subscribed to a shitty faith.
>>872314
>it into a black and white argument
Because it is. You can have any level of assuredness, but either you include deities into your mental model of the universe or you don't. The fence you teeter on is a lot narrower and precarious than you think.
The fact of the matter is that virtuall all atheists are agnostic (because they are answers to different questions) and people who call themselves agnostics just don't want the social stigma they think comes with atheism. That or they were once a theist, argued with atheists, eventually was convinced, but didn't want to associate themselves with the assholes that convinced them... or something like that.
>>872287
>If people want to be fence sitters let them sit.
Yeah well, it's the fence sitter that called me out from his high fence to say that I'm stupid. I'm not the one going around proselitizing.
Let's put it like this then: you are as free to sit on the fence as a theist is to believe in god, but when you engage in a discussion about whether your position is rational, you need to realize that while it's not wrong, it's also irrelevant.
>>872315
Eh according to most religions I can just repent and I'll be good to go
>>872325
You bring up valid points, and I'm sure there are agnostics out there that you just described, just like there are theists who are bible thumpers, or the cringey atheist's. Every group has the stereotypes that give the whole a bad name. I for one just genuinely am unsure on whether or not there is a higher being. Morals aside.
>>872331
Look, I don't agree with with shoving your beliefs down peoples throats either. If someone wants to deny god, or if someone wants to embrace him then so be it. I for one can't put my chips in with either group. But to say that position or belief is irrelevant is the same thing that you were just complaining about in your post.
Not going to lie I'm really enjoying this, I'm usually on /fit/ /ck/ and /mu/ is /his/ usually this nice?
>>872375
>But to say that position or belief is irrelevant is the same thing that you were just complaining about in your post.
Is it? If the question is, "is there a god?", and your answer is "you can't really know", you've not answered the question. So for the purpose of the argument you've not really contributed anything relevant. There's tons of dilemmas that can't really be answered, but we have to make assumptions because choices are going to be based upon the answer. If you just don't wanna answer, why butting in to people making an effort to approximate one? Are you gonna go at CERN and tell them that they can't really be sure about x and y physical shit, so they should stop publishing papers? No you're not. Would you complain if they told you your objection is pointless? No you wouldn't, because you know it is.
>is /his/ usually this nice?
I wanna say no, but if you come from /mu/ then you'd probably find the average /his/ discussion nice, yeah.
>>872375
It's not a negative stereotype. That's what agnostics are. Some of my best friends are agnostics. It's a useful word around people who think it's weird not to believe in God. I've seen Christians take offense to me simply stating I'm an atheist. I brushed them off but it's perfectly fine for people to not want to deal with that. So yeah, I didn't mean it as a derogatory description of agnostics.
As for your lack of sureness on deities, I'm going to half jokingly (a little less than half actually) ask what your stance on leprechauns are and why? Also one more question, do you think that humans would create deities and religion if there were no actual deities?
>>872163
What point? Unicorns, if real, would leave evidence all around us to that fact. We would be digging up unicorn skeletons and what not. It is an almost universally agreed upon fact among theologians that, even if God were real, there would be no evidence in order to test faith. If the state of God existing and him not existing both result in no evidence, then we truly can not know.
>>872430
Unicorns are magical. They don't simply die, decompose, and leave skeletons. Everyone knows that.
>>872264
I think about it this way. Sure, China may not exist, but all evidence points to its existence, so it makes sense to act basically as if I am certain of its existence. Just because something can't be known doesn't mean you can't assess its likelihood. This is basically how the scientific method works; nothing is truly proven, but as one theory accumulates stores of evidence and seems more likely than any other, it is basically treated as fact until a competing theory comes forth with evidence.
>>872445
>Just because something can't be known doesn't mean you can't assess its likelihood.
That was entirely the main point of my post.
Also the the theist hypothesis fails from the start scientifically speaking because it is unfalsifiable and proud of it. I mean, they used to make a lot of claims, like how God makes all the planets orbit the Sun. Now though science has taken away so much that religion can't help but be entirely faith based.
>>872397
It still provides a third option for what some would consider a two option question. Each side has it's pro's and con's for the argument on whether god does or does not exist, and while I'd agree agnosticism has a weaker stance based solely from an argumentative stand point. It still has a place and a valid point to make.
>>872398
I don't really enjoy their cereal all that much to be honest. Anyways humans want to believe in structure that their is a purpose in life, that their is something out there and it isn't just vast emptiness with no real "cohesion" or "plan".
I don't think I worded that well so just tell me if you need me to go more in depth.
>>872471
If you recognize that the world looks just as it would if no deities existed then there isn't anything else you have to explain.
My point about the leprechauns was supposed to parallel the belief in deities. You can't prove either exists but few actually believe in them, because there is no social pressure too nor can you use said belief as a crutch in hard times.
>>872178
>Yeah, but the difference is that Agnostics also don't talk down to the opposing side
Yeah, because they talk down to every side.
>atheists are all asshoels who prosthelytize so they should all convert to agnostism
Pretty ironic thread desu.
>>872430
The point is that God has many definitions so you would need to grapple with each concept individually. Many of them do not even involve religion.
Unicorn has only one definition.
>>872161
>if it's unoriginal, it's untrue
Fuck off, butthurt menorahposter.
>>872570
Is a unicorn a horse with a horn, a goat body with a horse like head with a horn, a misinterpretation of a rhinoceros, etc? Or perhaps it has elephant feet?
Should we go through all the historical interpretations of the unicorn concepts?
>>872115
>Agnostics are the only group of people who are honest and rational with the current scientific knowledge we have.
eh, sorta. because in the discussion of metaphysics, all scientific knowledge can be disregarded as illusions brought on by our perspective as humans.
So even this term "I don't know" is too much of answer. because how do you know you don't know? maybe you do know, but don't know that you know. Agnostics are simply putting their faith into the fact that they can't know, but it is possible that we can know.
so it's basically a matter of choice. Do you choose to believe in God? do you choose to believe in No God? Do you choose to believe that we can never know?
but, since the concept of God is tightly interwoven with the concept of infinity, the real question isn't "Does God exist?" The real question is "Is reality infinite?" If it is infinite, then all things exist, including God. And I present to you the argument if anything exists, everything exists, because any barrier or wall or limit on existence must have something beyond it, otherwise it wouldn't be a limit of reality, just a limit in our ability to see beyond that barrier.
So if even all the illusions that make up reality exist, they exist within and without something. duality is also an illusion brought upon us due to use being finite in our ability to sense and analyze. Either way, that makes the concept of everything existing more likely than any other concept.
therefore, there are only 2 rational positions to take. "I don't know if there is a God, but I will keep searching." or "I am 99% certain God exists, but my own limits as a great ape prevent me from being absolutely sure."
Everything else is more wrong.
>>872125
this tired argument.
what if Unicorns do exist? What if everything humanity can make up and dream up is actually channeling things that exist somewhere else in the cosmos? afterall, if reality is infinite, then all things exist within it, including unicorns.
but your silly "Unicorns are God guiz" argument falls flat when you recognize Unicorns have nothing to do with our lives, but God could possibly have everything to do with everything in and beyond our lives.
>>872585
If you define a unicorn as a misinterpreted Rhino than we already know it exists. If it is one of the chimera animals than no it doesn't exist, at least not outside of mythology.
Trying to lump all concepts of God into one package is just being anti-intellectual. It's a way of avoiding the deeper investigations and ignoring the actual issue.
>>872593
If you don't like the analogy to unicorns, you can just go for Opposite-god, who rewards all the exact opposite actions as the Christian god. He'll have just as much evidence as the alternative, and some of his positions will even be more logical.
>>872599
>If it is one of the chimera animals than no it doesn't exist, at least not outside of mythology.
How do you know that? Have you checked every single combination? Why are you lumping them all together? Are you some kind of anti-intellectual?
>>872121
First post best post
>>872593
Unicorns cause deja vu with their magical powers. They now have something to do with your life.
For someone who is complaining about old and busted arguments, you have a pretty shitty counter argument. Relevance to the average person's life has nothing to do with it. The parallel works just the same if you made up some other unfalsifiable claim that has something to do with one's life, like that invisible gremlins will cause your plain to crash if you don't believe in them. The point is that there are an infinite number of things that you could make up that by the same logic one would have to kind of sort of have to believe in by the OP's logic.
GODS NOT REAL
GODS NOT DEAD
GOD IS KILL
>>872605
Chimera's are material, as it has been said before with the lack of physical evidense for it it can be dismissed.
Divinity is always something non-material. Think about how non-material things are investigated, say how one investigates culture, or the history of an idea.
>>872618
No the problem is that people refuse the world view of God that they grew up with as children. For Christians this means any God that is not derivative of the bible is bullshit. For atheists the only God they know about is from their own (usually Protestant) view of Christianity and a few tales of mythology. Many of them haven't even realized God can exist outside of religion.
The average fedora understands God as some sort of genie that grants miracles, or a God of Gaps, or something superstitious.
The average Christian has essentially turned God into a historical notation: that God was some guy that rose from the dead, or established the Catholic church. Or perhaps they understand him as a sock-puppet to peddle their own political and ethical views. Or some sort of idol, that if everyone worships than good deed will overflow in abundance.
If agnostics were honest to themselves, they'd admit that they're atheists and stop trying to redefine the language.
Agnostics fail, as presented in >>872125 due to a faulty premise. They are working backwards with the assumption X is somehow viable and worthy of considering.
Yet they won't do it for Unicorns, Alchemy, Aids casuing Aliens from Mars or Ugna Tini Space Faring Dongus that built the pyramids, or whatever other concept the human mind can come up with and convey through language.
If agnostics were intellectually honest they would not give credence to an idea just because it's popular.
What confuses me is why so few theists are actually omnists.
>>872668
>The average fedora understands God as some sort of genie that grants miracles, or a God of Gaps, or something superstitious.
That's what the "average" God is. Not just average, but the overwhelming majority of god concepts. And not just that, but if none of these were the case, there would still be no evidence for them, and no reason to believe in them other than emotional reasons.
The thing is thought that you really can know that God doesn't exist because God is a fictional construct of human imagination, and dreaming things up can never make them really exist. Therefore it really is impossible that God exists.
So I don't get why we are even entertaining the possibility just to avoid hurting people's feelings. It's more true to say that God doesn't exist, even if it's less popular.
>>872668
>Chimera's are material,
It is so unfortunate that you refuse to update your understanding of unicorns and are instead trapped by childhood notions of something.
A unicorn is not simply a collection of animal parts as understood by the average fedora and other unicorn non-beloevers, it has uncorn parts that merely look like combinations. It is not truly a chimera of any sort, thst is simply the best a limited human mind can approximate.
>>872125
there may, or may not be unicorns in a far away galaxy, tho, just like with god. Nice shitpost
>>872121
Boom. First post is the best post.
I'm agnostic and was and still act like a hardcore atheist. I realised all of these silly what if we are in a sim, etc ideas that researchers were throwing around (and atheist friends talking about) were literally no diffedrent from beleiving in a god. If we live in a sim it has to have a creator, a creator is 'god', etc.
I dont think we live in a sim or any of these plausible ideas but im not going to rule it out.
>>872604
Bruh you ain't qualified to dismiss every concept of a higher power ever posited throughout thousands of years of metaphysical thought with your ebin reddit "lmao unicorns XD" argument, deal with it
>>872843
>the point
>your head
>>872785
Because while we know that the god you describe doesn't exist there is a possibility that we have a creator. Not in the christian sense but in a different sense.
>>872865
And how is it relevant to anything that there could be one?
>>872871
Hahaha whatever makes you feel smart on the internet m8
>>872115
>>872844
>I'm agnostic and was and still act like a hardcore atheist.
You're an atheist. Knowledge is a subset of belief, labeling yourself strictly by what you know is at least misguided, if not dishonest.
>>872172
What does that even mean? They're the same in that they're both unprovable fantastic concepts.
>>872879
Whatever makes you feel purpose in the scary scary world, m8.
>>872115
You're only irritated because you have no fucking idea what an atheist is, having probably only heard them described by theists.
>>873133
>All religious is feeling is a purely utilitarian response motivated by feelings of fear and defenseless in the face of life's terrors.
Not all of it. There's also a fair amount of empty cultural inertia too.
>>873269
You're autistic if you think spirituality is ever going away, legitimately, terminally autistic
>>872844
>I realised all of these silly what if we are in a sim, etc ideas that researchers were throwing around (and atheist friends talking about) were literally no diffedrent from beleiving in a god. If we live in a sim it has to have a creator, a creator is 'god', etc.
>implying causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Become learned
>>872115
So if I told you I knew that unicorns didn't exist, would you call me crazy or unreasonable?
Now if you went to magical rainbow land and brought back a real unicorn, does that mean I was crazy for thinking unicorns did not exist?
If you're going to be agnostic about god, something with very little proof, you can go full agnostic and claim you can't believe in anything anyone says, your senses, your memories, or causality.
Being an atheist or a theist is not dishonest. It's pragmatic.
>>873965
Tips fedora
Belief in unicorns and belief in God/the Absolute/the One/the Source/Mind/the Tao/the All/the Ground/the Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover/First Cause etc. are not fucking equivalent you doof
>>873976
>are not fucking equivalent
Care to demonstrate that?
>>874000
Nigga please, you have no reference for what I'm talking about. Read more.
>>873976
How do you know god doesn't take the form of a unicorn?
The problem is the more you abstract the concept of god, the less meaningful your definition of god becomes, it eventually loses godhood and simply becomes a thing. We can get to some ridiculous point were god becomes synonymous with the big bang or some scientific theory. And at that point you should ask yourself, is that really god?
Is string theory god just because strings are so fundamental, intangible and unknowable?
Because strings seem to fit many of the criteria of being god.
>>873976
They are categorically the same.
What is the reason for being agnostic? Why assert that you "just don't know"? I think the fundamental problem with agnostics is that they have a shallow interpretation of the religious, and a shallow interpretation of the nonreligious. They put proof at the forefront and oppose those who believe without proof, while themselves sticking to the 'middle ground' and 'admitting that they just don't know'.
Agnostics act superior for choosing a weak-minded position that doesn't require any thinking on their part, whereas both the religious and non-religious have thought thoroughly their position. This being said, many religious and nonreligious folks are as weak as an agnostic, but for different reasons.
>>872115
I agree with your contention that all atheists would be better off saying they were agnostics. They cannot know there is no God; to know such a thing would require infinite knowledge, which they lack.
As a Christian, Jesus rising from the dead suffices to prove His claim that He is God.
>>874151
>Why assert that you "just don't know"?
Because you're an epic shitposter like Socrates or Hume.
>>874161
>Jesus rising from the dead suffices to prove His claim that He is God.
That's a pretty flimsy record to stake a belief in. I could claim to have risen from the dead and by that logic you are now obligated to think that I am god.
>>872115
But I think many would object that the existence of God is a matter of scientific knowledge since science is concerned with the natural as opposed to the supernatural under which the idea of God we usually speak of falls under.
The existence of an immaterial supernatural being is a matter of metaphysical knowledge - and there's a whole can o' worms for ya.
>>874161
Most atheists ARE agnostics since they don't claim to know that god doesn't exist. They don't claim to know that vampires, unicorns, fairies, spaghetti monsters and invisible teapots in space don't exist either.
What they do know is that there's little convincing evidence for all of that, which means that believing in any of it is fairly silly.
Why believe in a Christian god, who only came to be when the first Judeo-Christian scripture was written and who has changed significantly throughout history. We can trace how the scripture developed, how it was pieced together from older cults and traditions, how it was subject to the cultures it came into contact with and how it changed over time? Why believe in this god and not all the others that exist and those that have been forgotten? Why believe when scripture contradicts our understanding of the world?
>>874161
>All theists and agnostics should refuse to answer the question and just say they can't be absolutely sure.
You are an idiot.
>>874086
No, absolutely not, which is why I'm making the distinction in the first place dumbass. One is a being, one is what presupposes Being in the first place. Fuckin A how many times do I have to say this
>>874557
Categorically they are imaginative ideas, on the same tier of existence.
Maybe they have different assigned attributes but they exist in the same metaphysical space.
>>874557
You tacked on abother definition to your completely unfalsifiable claim. So let's talk about unicorns with two tails, and we'll see how much it changes things.
>>874578
The consciousness of my child is an imaginative idea because I can't physically hold it in my hands. Fuck off with this shit
>>874590
You have evidence for a child's imagination. There exists no such evidence for a God.
>>874217
It suffices.
>>874307
Well, first you would have to replace everything you "know" with reality.
>>874369
I am absolutely sure. I have epignosis when it comes to God.
>>874600
The universe is evidence for the existence of God, Who made the universe.
Jesus rising from the dead is evidence that He is God.
>>872115
>>872115
>In this universe, we are a tiny spec.Our planet is like a dust particle in comparison to the rest of the universe, and yet Atheists think they know for certain there's no God? Fuck off.
And a theist say they not only know who "created" all this, but that they have a personal relationship with "him"
>>872184
>Agnosticism is the answer to the question, can we know if there is a God?
Wait what!?
No.
Agnosticism doesn't ask THAT question at all.
Agnostics say the obvious: We don't know.
Most Agnostics aren't seeking to "know if there is God"
That is absurd.
>>875704
This is how I've always looked at it. Religion has never had very much of a direct presense in my life and I'm fine with it staying that way.
People have so much double-think about day to day shit anyways. It's really stupid to think that a scientist can't be spiritual. Or that a theist can't be empirical. It's autistic to think that your beliefs should be 100% uniform and you're spooking yourself if you do.
