Yes . How can anyone accept any beliefs without any logical proof?

Bloody hell indeed! It's almost become an article of faith, for some!

Probably a newbie who thinks he's come up with an interesting new topic for discussion.

@p-nullifidian Yup, he's level 4.

@Triphid Please tell us your reason for whipping it again.

@BD66 Perhaps this Agnostic.com system of levels will engender a self-correction? Does a level 4 self correct in order to achieve a level 7, for example? Or, is the entire 'game afoot' involving the aspiration to higher levels / numbers?

Answer me this: Should 'newbies' be embraced immediately for their 'fresh' ideas and 'unconventional' thinking? Or, should they be forced to undergo a pedantic and oppressive point system that was created by those who control and oversee Agnostic.com?

@p-nullifidian Newbies with "fresh" ideas and "unconvential" thinking should be readily embraced. Newbies bringing up "stale" discussions, should be pointed to previous instances where the discussions have been had over and over again. I have no strong opinion on the oppressive point system other than that it takes a long, long, long time to get from level 7 to level 8.

@yvilletom My god Sir, It was not I who was 'whipping' this poor old Dead Horse yet again and IF you had read the original posting you may realised that.

@BD66 Yeah that may be so, but simply, imo, re-hashing old debate topics is getting a wee bit passe so to speak.

@Triphid
Provide a link to your original posting. DON’T MAKE ME SEARCH FOR IT.
Better, check your impulses before you hit the REPLY button. Delete your impulsive remarks and show us your reasoned remarks.

@yvilletom READ, if you can, the name of the member who made ORIGINAL posting at the bottom of that self same posting ( bottom left hand corner btw)
Then do the following,

1. scroll down tho where it says " 27 comments,"
2. the next line says, 'Newest, etc, etc,
3. DIRECTLY below that is the FIRST comment made, btw, that IS my comment/reply/response FYI.

@BD66 I remember a time when I was between two worlds, groping for answers. Thus, many of the arguments we 'old timers' have engaged in are new to many others. I recommend patience with those who are unaware of the prior interactions we have had, and who put themselves out there with an argument that may be 'old' to us but is 'fresh' to them.

@p-nullifidian That's why someone should create an "archive of past discussions" and this topic should be one of the first ones in that archive.

@yvilletom Hey, what's up, no witty responses, etc?
Did you ACTUALY read and follow my instructions and discover you made a big mistake?

@Triphid I saw nothing in your above “instruction” post that merited either an action or a response.

@yvilletom Well then, imo, the old adage of " you can lead a horse to water BUT you can't make it drink, you can lead a fool to reason BUT can't make him/her think," runs true in this case as does also, imo, the other adage of "Wise person knows when they have been in error and openly admits to it, a Fool, young, old or even arrogant, merely inserts the other foot as well in an effort to remain silent and NOT admit to a mistake."
So, please do have a nice day but try to remember to wash your feet before you jump to conclusions next time.

This is the first I've heard of Rowe but I respect his position. I've never understood why so many atheists so revile religion and those who choose to believe in spite of the lack of rational certainty. Of course I have far more respect for the believers who do acknowledge that lack of certainty and the subsequent necessity of faith. To my mind god belief and religious experience is a fascinating aspect of humanity. Far from holding us back, I suspect it may have helped shape who/what we are. Of course that doesn't mean I'm looking for a church. I am well past looking for institutional answers to such questions, or any other authoritative sources for that matter.

I was with you, right up til you hit us with: "Agnosticism is a simply get out clause, a hedge betting exercise for those to[o] cowardly to have the courage of their own conviction."
My Agnosticism comes from my acceptance of the vast amount of knowledge that humanity does not have YET.
At one time we didn't know the earth was a sphere hurtling through space around a sun, and the next day we did know. Imagine what we might know tomorrow!!
While i utterly reject the preposterous claims of the Abrahamic religions, and scoff at their concept of an omnipotent entity, i will not assume that the sciences of physics and mathematics won't some day provide us with something that seems incomprehensible to us now.
So, i am simply not arrogant enough to claim anything other than Agnosticism overall.

@johan17 But you are arrogant enough to ignore the scientific method?
If there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of something the default position is to accept that he unproven thing does not exist until such time as there is reason to think it might, NOT o dither and assume it does just incase.
Do you hold that some day fairies might be proven to exist and so you are agnostic about them?
Do you hold that ALL god "might" exist so are agnostic about all of them?
Does your agnostisism hold universal for all purported mythical creatures being and things?
Of course not, you are obviously not stupid, so why the special pleading for A God? Perhaps you should examine what it is that puts you in such a frame of mind?
Fear, peer pressure, caution?

@JohnnyQB It was in response to some of the comments in the post. Unfortinately not a response directly to the post or its content. Evidently, judgeing from the comments after mine it had no impact on its intended audience. You were not included in that group of people. The author had a good post which did not deserve the criticism it recieved by others. Nor did the poster deserve to be belittled either.

It seems to me that the main thing every religion has done, is a lot of damage - to our world and our species - it has gotten more tolerant of the peoples wishes in modern times butt, still -
For me, I see it as a means to make people, compliant to a few old human guys ideas of the way things should be -
Listen to the actual words of the lords prayer, it's just weird - take the christian bible, "written" in what is now Saudi Arabia, different stories that were gathered over hundreds of years, were picked through and chosen by a few men to create the Old Testament, Thousands of years ago - then, same area of the world, about 2,000 years ago, Jesus and the new testament -
As if anyone has ever followed the 10 commandments or Jesus's teachings. Most people don't even know what they are, much less how to follow - they just do what they want & go to church to pay up for "forgiveness" then rinse and repeat and they honestly think they will go to some obscure kind of heaven when they die -
That bible has been translated over and over and over and over again - there are currently 50+ different english translations alone! In that religious rule book it is against the law to wear materials of combined fiber, - if your wife was not a virgin you must slay her - Oh, and you should be kind to your slaves -
The idea that we were born of sin is a terrible thing to profess - and it is a cruel lie to make us feel less then from birth.

With aliens and ghosts humans presume that a truth exists concerning them. The attention then focuses on finding a definitive proof. They might, in fact, exist. Alien fans believe that proof exists and is being kept from us but that's a detail of existence being possible. The others mentioned have no possibility of existing and should, IMO, be discarded from public consumption.

@rainmanjr Prove they have no possibility of existing .... I'll wait ....

For what it was worth, you added a long scold.

@TheMiddleWay

Don't tell me to shut up. I am entitled to my opinion.

@LiterateHiker I blocked this idiot ( @TheMiddleWay )a week ago, I finally realised he is just a troll, you might consider doing the same or not

@LenHazell53

Thank you. Will do.

Agreed.

I am rather sure (that which is not worthy of being named or recognized) (made lots of comments on this thread) will continue to soil the pages with nonsense so when it continues to ooze nonsense, I found it best to just ignore it.

That seems a reasonable position to me, for sure!

Personally, I'm comfortable with the atheist label for myself, but if others want to call me an agnostic for agreeing with you (though with perhaps more skepticism?), that's fine by me.

BINGO!!!
YOU WIN A CUPIE DOLL!!!
E=MC√ might be 'god' for all we know!

@AmyTheBruce - We can certainly get too wrapped up in labels. Atheist, agnostic? I've heard definitions that could apply to either.

@Storm1752 - A Cupie Doll! Those have gone up in value! Some are now worth 6 or 7 hundred dollars. I'll take it!

What evidence is there for any kind of god?

@redbai In the eye of the beholder. Depends on your point of view, biases, open-minded or close-mindedness, what you consider "evidence," what you consider 'god,' (ie., your definition), and so on.
At times, I consider myself an Ignostic, an Agnostic, an Agnostic Neo-Deist, at still other times an Agnostic Pantheist, so my definition changes, OR I think the whole subject is so beyond human comprehension it's futile and pointless to even talk about it.
I'm 100% Atheist when it comes to a personal 'god' with whom I can have a relationship, however; that's logically, deductively impossible.
Equally impossible is being an "agnostic atheist," in my view, but I've long since lost any hope of convincing others of that

@Storm1752 In the eye of the beholder is BS. If it's only in the eye of the beholder, then it is totally subjective and not credible in the least. Thanks for putting together a bunch of word salad BS in order to avoid answering my question.

@redbai What was your question again?

@redbai Oh there is quite a lot of evidence. The christians for example consider that a book called by them, The Bible, is evidence. It is just that a book with no known authors, editors, compilers, dates of publication, or orginal copies. Which was made up over time by several committees from a large number of previous books, each with none of the same, made by many different authors, many of whom were probably using old hearsay. Is just about the worst evidence you could possibly have.

It is better however when debating with theists to conceed that there is evidence, and then attack its quality, than to claim there is none. Because they are expecting you to claim that, and are ready to ask you to prove there is none, when they know that proving a negative is near impossible. Conceeding that small point throws them.

@TheMiddleWay "Love" does not exist any more than "God" does. It is a label that is used to describe an emotional state.

@TheMiddleWay, Which is why I asked what evidence there was. I see no reason to pretend something is evidence when it quite obviously is not. Why would I start by conceding something that I don't believe has any merit whatsoever?

The response to their request that I prove that there is no evidence is pointing out the logical fallacy of the argument. So what if I can't prove there's no evidence, that doesn't demonstrate in the least that there is evidence, so we're right back to no evidence at all, either way. Which means there is no logical reason to have a belief at all.

I don't agree that conceding the bible is "evidence" is a "small point" and I have no interest in attempting to deconstruct all their fallacious evidence presented from it to disprove them. It's much more interesting to me to make them demonstrate the veracity of their claims where ever they originate.

@TheMiddleWay I see no reason to debate whether or not things that obviously aren't evidence of a god is evidence of a god. The Bible is obviously not evidence of a god. At most it is evidence that people can write about a god, but there is nothing in it that is in the least bit verifiable, so using it as evidence is a fallacy.

The "Demonstrative, Documentary, and.Testimonial" evidence would be worthless without real world aspects that demonstrate their relevance. Can a god be demonstrated in a model or simulation? Is there credible documentary or testimonial evidence of a god that can be verified as a math equation or eye witnesses to the creation of the universe? To say I am only focusing on the real without anything that demonstrates the other aspects of your evidence types are any more demonstrable is sophistry.

@TheMiddleWay Where did I say there was only one kind of evidence? I never said that. You claimed that I as defining evidence to narrowly and defined others, then you claimed that I only depend on one. I never agreed that either of your claims were correct.

My statement that the Bible obviously isn't evidence of god was based on an assumption that you agreed there was no god and that the Bible isn't evidence that supports the claim, not that everyone agreed that the Bible isn't evidence of a god. If you don't agree, that's an entirely different conversation and I'll change my dialog to accommodate the assumption on your part that the Bible is evidence. I didn't mean that I would not challenge someone using the Bible (if that's what they offered as evidence), I meant I would not simply accept it as a given in a conversation about evidence.

If the claim is Bible is their evidence, then I would not say, "Okay" and let them drone on about how it was evidence in itself and continue a dialog with that assumption. I would say something more like, "No it's not", and inform them that they have to define their claim a bit more specifically like what in the Bible proves the point. Then I would focus their specific reference as opposed to the Bible as some holy tome deserved of respect.

@TheMiddleWay But my goal is not the theist anymore but a critical analysis of varying aspects of the evidence. If someone wants to believe in a fairy in the sky, I couldn't care less. My goal is to go against the fallacy of their arguments related specifically to what they claim is proof. It forces them to actually point out specifics in the book which can be broken down as opposed to me randomly selecting parts of the tome that I feel comfortable attacking on a regular bases. IMO, that makes my arguments stale and repetitive for me. Allowing them to speak on specifics, regardless of the source, that are relevant to them and their specific journey forces me to address something that I may or may not be prepared to address, expanding my intellectual muscles and forces them to explain why it's relevant beyond their personal beliefs.

@redbai Yes, it IS subjective. What YOU consider evidence, I may not, and vice versa. That the nature of circumstantial evidence. It depends on your personal bias whether you want to accept it. If there is ENOUGH circumstantial evidence, if it piles up, then it becomes harder and harder to dismiss it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If one is absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no 'god,' personal or impersonal, no amount of circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence would convince one to reconsider. That's might be a 'hard' atheist. An AGNOSTIC, however, might at least be swayed to amend his or her opinion, though understanding short of conclusive, definitive proof (which would in all likelihood be hard or impossible to obtain at this stage in mankind's development), a final conviction is ultimately impossible. So the agnostic, unlike the 'hard' atheist, will never be able to be absolutely sure.

@redbai So if it is YOUR eye beholding it ...oh, never mind. I already answered you and my sense of humour is failing me. Besides, you sound annoyed and, like me, not in the mood for lighthearted banter.

@Storm1752 You didn't answer my question. What's the evidence? Saying that there is piles of circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

The idea that an atheist would not believe in a god if presented with real evidence is simply self serving BS to avoid supporting the claim.

@redbai Look up, if you wish, University of Virginia, Dr. Tucker -- or Dr. Stevenson -- reincarnation.
I'm not saying reincarnation is "proof" of god, but it's circumstantial evidence of SOMETHING beyond the five senses.

@Storm1752 So if I say that there's nothing beyond the 5 senses, I'll do that. But since I didn't, I won't. The end result is that you have no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that there is a god.

@redbai Very true; I have only inclinations there's SOMETHING which might be defined as 'god' by someone who had a very loose and liberal definition of the word.
Atheists insist on a strict definition; that is, a personal god in the Abrahamic sense. In THAT sense I'M an atheist...in the more liberal sense I'm agnostic, or in some ways IGnostic.
Hey, whatever butters your bread, man.
Peace out.

Be careful or middleofthetrack will come for you

@Cyklone

Yes, a Centrist know she/he is basically fucked either way!!!

It all boils down to the end of the line, a line that has many filaments which come together but really never match or line the way they should!!!

Like life who knows???

Or should they!!!

LMAO on this shit, it does not smell, just stinks to high heaven!!! LOL!!!