The case against agnosticism

That guy was kind of hilarious but I did like his argument.It seems to me though as if God and a flying crocodile aren't exactly the same thing. They're both unobservable sure but God has the added bonus of being supernatural which is kind of an epistemological get out of jail free card. It's a good argument but I still have reservations about it.

That being said I'm still an atheist.

I don't really care much for his argument. I am an Agnostic because simply I don't believe that either atheists or religious people know enough of the universe to ascertain if there is a God or not. Right now where throwing feathers in the air and speculating where it will land. To me simply admitting you don't know do to the lack of evidence for or against is logical.

That guy was kind of hilarious but I did like his argument.It seems to me though as if God and a flying crocodile aren't exactly the same thing. They're both unobservable sure but God has the added bonus of being supernatural which is kind of an epistemological get out of jail free card. It's a good argument but I still have reservations about it.

That being said I'm still an atheist.

domatron23

Yes, but the crocodile has the same "get out of jail" free card, because the assumption was made that the crocodile does those amazing things when no other human is in its presence. I understand your point. I'm on the fence about it. I guess it's the shock value that hits me, because even I initially found it absurd that agnosticism could be reduced to such an irrelevant argument, but in society, crocodiles are not worth debating over, because people don't hold much value to them, but do to the concept of a god that could be utilized as very relevant. A crocodile doing magic tricks? Not very relevant and even if it were true it wouldn't be worth arguing for or against. That technically, all assumptions that can be hidden behind a veil of the supernatural can fall under the realm of agnosticism simply because it's irrefutable and without concrete evidence.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

That guy was kind of hilarious but I did like his argument.It seems to me though as if God and a flying crocodile aren't exactly the same thing. They're both unobservable sure but God has the added bonus of being supernatural which is kind of an epistemological get out of jail free card. It's a good argument but I still have reservations about it.

That being said I'm still an atheist.

Genetic_Code

Yes, but the crocodile has the same "get out of jail" free card, because the as$umption was made that the crocodile does those amazing things when no other human is in its presence. I understand your point. I'm on the fence about it. I guess it's the shock value that hits me, because even I initially found it absurd that agnosticism could be reduced to such an irrelevant argument, but in society, crocodiles are not worth debating over, because people don't hold much value to them, but do to the concept of a god that could be utilized as very relevant. A crocodile doing magic tricks? Not very relevant and even if it were true it wouldn't be worth arguing for or against. That technically, all assumptions that can be hidden behind a veil of the supernatural can fall under the realm of agnosticism simply because it's irrefutable and without concrete evidence.

I absolutely agree with your comment about social relevance.

It has been said numerous times in various ways that all people are atheists when it comes to most of the gods that have alleged to exist throughout history but make an exception for their own, and furthermore, that the kind of practical skepticism theists exercise when rejecting other people's gods is not only limited to religion, but applied rather intuitively to any supernatural or otherwise outlandish claim they're likely to encounter at any time. This is to say that while the vast majority of theists are hypocritical in their rejection of other deities, they are much more consistent and intellectually honest when it comes to their disbelief in fairies and unicorns.

My point is that agnostics are no different. They criticize atheists for making absolute statements about God not existing, citing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but they in turn don't seem to have any reservations about dismissing Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. And why not? Lack of evidence.

The reason for this discrepancy, I believe, goes back to what you were talking about: cultural peer pressure. Obviously, the fact that something can't be proved wrong is not the only criteria for receiving the aforementioned "get out of jail free" card. Agnostics are willing to grant the Judeo-Christian concept of god the consideration that they instinctively deny Greek and Norse Mythology, Hinduism and other polytheistic faiths not because they're "open-minded", but because they tend to be children of Western Civilization, wherein the idea of a single, omnipotent creator god, whether consciously identified as Yahweh or not, has managed to gain their respect simply by way of its ubiquitous presence and incessant repetition in their daily lives, whether done forcefully or not.

This, I think, is an important factor that many atheists seem to neglect in their criticisms of agnostics, or at least not know the right words for. Hopefully I helped. :)

And of course, I'm open to discussion should there be any agnostics here who object to my position.

[spoiler]

I absolutely agree with your comment about social relevance.

It has been said numerous times in various ways that all people are atheists when it comes to most of the gods that have alleged to exist throughout history but make an exception for their own, and furthermore, that the kind of practical skepticism theists exercise when rejecting other people's gods is not only limited to religion, but applied rather intuitively to any supernatural or otherwise outlandish claim they're likely to encounter at any time. This is to say that while the vast majority of theists are hypocritical in their rejection of other deities, they are much more consistent and intellectually honest when it comes to their disbelief in fairies and unicorns.

My point is that agnostics are no different. They criticize atheists for making absolute statements about God not existing, citing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but they in turn don't seem to have any reservations about dismissing Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. And why not? Lack of evidence.

The reason for this discrepancy, I believe, goes back to what you were talking about: cultural peer pressure. Obviously, the fact that something can't be proved wrong is not the only criteria for receiving the aforementioned "get out of jail free" card. Agnostics are willing to grant the Judeo-Christian concept of god the consideration that they instinctively deny Greek and Norse Mythology, Hinduism and other polytheistic faiths not because they're "open-minded", but because they tend to be children of Western Civilization, wherein the idea of a single, omnipotent creator god, whether consciously identified as Yahweh or not, has managed to gain their respect simply by way of its ubiquitous presence and incessant repetition in their daily lives, whether done forcefully or not.

This, I think, is an important factor that many atheists seem to neglect in their criticisms of agnostics, or at least not know the right words for. Hopefully I helped. :)

And of course, I'm open to discussion should there be any agnostics here who object to my position.

[/spoiler] creepy_mike

I don't like stating my stance, but I've been atheistic towards any specific deity envisioned by man, but I'm agnostic towards any greater force that could be out there, given a vague definition, and since the definition is so vague and is essentially useless to trust, I'm partially ignostic in general.

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"][spoiler]

I absolutely agree with your comment about social relevance.

It has been said numerous times in various ways that all people are atheists when it comes to most of the gods that have alleged to exist throughout history but make an exception for their own, and furthermore, that the kind of practical skepticism theists exercise when rejecting other people's gods is not only limited to religion, but applied rather intuitively to any supernatural or otherwise outlandish claim they're likely to encounter at any time. This is to say that while the vast majority of theists are hypocritical in their rejection of other deities, they are much more consistent and intellectually honest when it comes to their disbelief in fairies and unicorns.

My point is that agnostics are no different. They criticize atheists for making absolute statements about God not existing, citing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but they in turn don't seem to have any reservations about dismissing Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. And why not? Lack of evidence.

The reason for this discrepancy, I believe, goes back to what you were talking about: cultural peer pressure. Obviously, the fact that something can't be proved wrong is not the only criteria for receiving the aforementioned "get out of jail free" card. Agnostics are willing to grant the Judeo-Christian concept of god the consideration that they instinctively deny Greek and Norse Mythology, Hinduism and other polytheistic faiths not because they're "open-minded", but because they tend to be children of Western Civilization, wherein the idea of a single, omnipotent creator god, whether consciously identified as Yahweh or not, has managed to gain their respect simply by way of its ubiquitous presence and incessant repetition in their daily lives, whether done forcefully or not.

This, I think, is an important factor that many atheists seem to neglect in their criticisms of agnostics, or at least not know the right words for. Hopefully I helped. :)

And of course, I'm open to discussion should there be any agnostics here who object to my position.

[/spoiler] Genetic_Code

I don't like stating my stance, but I've been atheistic towards any specific deity envisioned by man, but I'm agnostic towards any greater force that could be out there, given a vague definition, and since the definition is so vague and is essentially useless to trust, I'm partially ignostic in general.

Why don't you like stating your stance?THUMPTABLE

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G.K. Chesterton

For whatever reason, most people believe that by admitting you're an atheist, or an agnostic, or whatever is somehow some case for god. I don't see the logic, but for whatever reason, I don't anyway, because it just gives them something to ***** about. Granted, it's also a submission to their faulty logic.

Another and better reason is because people generalize a lot and unfairly. If an atheist does something good, then a lot of times it's assumed that they're Christian or their beliefs are looked over (many people for instance, think I'm a Christian, yet I never speak out about my beliefs, at all). If an atheist does something wrong, then they're in league with Satan. If a Christian does something wrong, then "they're not a Christian, therefore this shouldn't bear any doing on Christianity". If a Christian does something good, then they're a "disciple of Christ". My solution is to drop the categories completely and do something as opposed to generalize other people by what they believe.

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]Why don't you like stating your stance?Genetic_Code

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G.K. Chesterton

For whatever reason, most people believe that by admitting you're an atheist, or an agnostic, or whatever is somehow some case for god. I don't see the logic, but for whatever reason, I don't anyway, because it just gives them something to ***** about. Granted, it's also a submission to their faulty logic.

Another and better reason is because people generalize a lotand unfairly. If an atheist does something good, then a lot of times it's assumed that they're Christian or their beliefs are looked over (many people for instance, think I'm a Christian, yet I never speak out about my beliefs, at all). If an atheist does something wrong, then they're in league with Satan. If a Christian does something wrong, then "they're not a Christian, therefore this shouldn't bear any doing on Christianity". If a Christian does something good, then they're a "disciple of Christ". My solution is to drop the categories completely and do something as opposed to generalize other people by what they believe.

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

Funky_Llama

Actually I was going to refer you to this topic but it seems you beat me to it.

Philosophically I understand where you're coming from and I agree but I just can't bring myself to anything short of strong atheism concerning God and flying unobserved crocodiles. If somebody asked me if I believe that crocodiles fly while I'm not watching I wouldn't just say "I don't know" or "I have no belief that crocodiles do fly". I would say "I believe that crocodiles do not fly".

To hell with epistemology, sure I can't know that my belief is correct but that should not imply that it's an unreasonable belief to hold.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

domatron23

Actually I was going to refer you to this topic but it seems you beat me to it.

Philosophically I understand where you're coming from and I agree but I just can't bring myself to anything short of strong atheism concerning God and flying unobserved crocodiles. If somebody asked me if I believe that crocodiles fly while I'm not watching I wouldn't just say "I don't know" or "I have no belief that crocodiles do fly". I would say "I believe that crocodiles do not fly".

To hell with epistemology, sure I can't know that my belief is correct but that should not imply that it's an unreasonable belief to hold.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

Funky_Llama

Actually I was going to refer you to this topic but it seems you beat me to it.

Philosophically I understand where you're coming from and I agree but I just can't bring myself to anything short of strong atheism concerning God and flying unobserved crocodiles. If somebody asked me if I believe that crocodiles fly while I'm not watching I wouldn't just say "I don't know" or "I have no belief that crocodiles do fly". I would say "I believe that crocodiles do not fly".

To hell with epistemology, sure I can't know that my belief is correct but that should not imply that it's an unreasonable belief to hold.

Hang on a second who's claiming certainty?

Strong atheism is just "I believe God does not exist" not "I'm certain that God does not exist". It's an affirmative position rather than a claim to absolute  knowledge.

Ok.........I'm confused now.

Is the existence of something supernatural really in every way equivalent to a flying crocodile?
The idea that something supernatural might exist is not something totally made up. There are questions which do not have any clear answers:

1. Is there a cause behind all these ?

2. If so, what is this uncaused cause ?

Lots of scientists don't have answers to those two questions.

But when someone claims that crocodile can fly, definitely no one will believe that(I think).

But are there any unanswerable questions that can support the claim about the existence of flying crocodiles in anyway ?

I can't find one!:roll:

Any input is welcome.

Ok.........I'm confused now.

Is the existence of something supernatural really in every way equivalent to a flying crocodile?
The idea that something supernatural might exist is not something totally made up. There are questions which do not have any clear answers:

1. Is there a cause behind all these ?

2. If so, what is this uncaused cause ?

Lots of scientists don't have answers to those two questions.

7guns

Science can't explain everything, so in comes God of the gaps. A flying crocodile is conceived irrelevant to those two questions, but if it were relevant, I would imagine that there would be more interest in believing in flying crocodiles.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G.K. ChestertonGenetic_Code

Heh. I knew I posted this somewhere. I have to correct it. I've thought of a better quote similar to this.

"If there were no theists, there would be no atheists." -G.C. :P

Yes the second one is much better.  :)

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

domatron23

Actually I was going to refer you to this topic but it seems you beat me to it.

Philosophically I understand where you're coming from and I agree but I just can't bring myself to anything short of strong atheism concerning God and flying unobserved crocodiles. If somebody asked me if I believe that crocodiles fly while I'm not watching I wouldn't just say "I don't know" or "I have no belief that crocodiles do fly". I would say "I believe that crocodiles do not fly".

To hell with epistemology, sure I can't know that my belief is correct but that should not imply that it's an unreasonable belief to hold.

Hang on a second who's claiming certainty?

Strong atheism is just "I believe God does not exist" not "I'm certain that God does not exist". It's an affirmative position rather than a claim to absolute  knowledge.

Brilliant argument.

But he did just rip off Russell's Teapot, essentially.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

domatron23

Actually I was going to refer you to this topic but it seems you beat me to it.

Philosophically I understand where you're coming from and I agree but I just can't bring myself to anything short of strong atheism concerning God and flying unobserved crocodiles. If somebody asked me if I believe that crocodiles fly while I'm not watching I wouldn't just say "I don't know" or "I have no belief that crocodiles do fly". I would say "I believe that crocodiles do not fly".

To hell with epistemology, sure I can't know that my belief is correct but that should not imply that it's an unreasonable belief to hold.

Yep, that's the position I hold, in fact.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I am a weak atheist/agnostic about the claim that crocodiles fly when no one's watching. It most probably doesn't happen, of course, but I can't rule it out completely.

God, did I just explore the feasability of flying crocodiles? Maybe I should become am atheist. :P

Funky_Llama

Actually I was going to refer you to this topic but it seems you beat me to it.

Philosophically I understand where you're coming from and I agree but I just can't bring myself to anything short of strong atheism concerning God and flying unobserved crocodiles. If somebody asked me if I believe that crocodiles fly while I'm not watching I wouldn't just say "I don't know" or "I have no belief that crocodiles do fly". I would say "I believe that crocodiles do not fly".

To hell with epistemology, sure I can't know that my belief is correct but that should not imply that it's an unreasonable belief to hold.

Hang on a second who's claiming certainty?

Strong atheism is just "I believe God does not exist" not "I'm certain that God does not exist". It's an affirmative position rather than a claim to absolute  knowledge.

Yes it might very well imply that, some definitions of strong atheism even include some sort of claim to knowledge. That doesn't have to be the case though. I classify myself as an atheist agnostic because it describes both what I believe (lotsa stuff) and what I know (bugger all) about God.

I might as well admit right now though that such as a position as mine requires what Lansdowne will gleefully call "faith".

Yes it might very well imply that, some definitions of strong atheism even include some sort of claim to knowledge. That doesn't have to be the case though. I classify myself as an atheist agnostic because it describes both what I believe (lotsa stuff) and what I know (bugger all) about God.

domatron23

Agnostic in what sense? In the sense that the text you're reading is an illusion? I guess then agnosticism is limited to only the state of mid.

I might as well admit right now though that such as a position as mine requires what Lansdowne will gleefully call "faith".

domatron23

Maybe so, but inaccurately.

---

faith
religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith

Science can't explain everything, so in comes God of the gaps. A flying crocodile is conceived irrelevant to those two questions, but if it were relevant, I would imagine that there would be more interest in believing in flying crocodiles.

When you think about it, how exactly is God related to creation? Is it because the Bible says so? What if the Bible originally said a flying crocodile was behind creation? Would people be debating about flying crocodiles' existence? It's so hard to define God, he/she/it can be virtually anything such as an "old man in the clouds", a dove, a rainbow, or just some spirit, but a flying crocodile is pretty well defined. Since it is so well defined, it would seem absurd to describe it as the creator of the universe. It is in this way, I think that by making God seem ambigious, it enables people to conceive him throughout all parts of life, and not just creation, where as the crocodile is hard to conceive as being so omniscient and powerful.Genetic_Code

Well said!

In the video he claimed that "lack of evidence is evidence" and I do not completely agree with it. Also he did not say that crocodile is the creator of the universe, but just a supernatural being that can fly. Whereas god is claimed to be supernatural and also the creator of the universe. Surely there is no evidence for the existence of either one of them but the claim that one of the supernatural beings(god) is the creator, shows that it is trying to fill a gap in our knowledge that science is also trying to answer. On the other hand I don't know of any mystery where the idea of a supernatural flying crocodile may fit. Clearly they are both not in the same boat, which makes the argument weak.

So yes, I agree with your argument. Also, I find that his argument suggests that since there is no evidence now, there won't be any evidence in future.

Overall, his argument is not perfect, or at least that's how it seems to me.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Science can't explain everything, so in comes God of the gaps. A flying crocodile is conceived irrelevant to those two questions, but if it were relevant, I would imagine that there would be more interest in believing in flying crocodiles.

When you think about it, how exactly is God related to creation? Is it because the Bible says so? What if the Bible originally said a flying crocodile was behind creation? Would people be debating about flying crocodiles' existence? It's so hard to define God, he/she/it can be virtually anything such as an "old man in the clouds", a dove, a rainbow, or just some spirit, but a flying crocodile is pretty well defined. Since it is so well defined, it would seem absurd to describe it as the creator of the universe. It is in this way, I think that by making God seem ambigious, it enables people to conceive him throughout all parts of life, and not just creation, where as the crocodile is hard to conceive as being so omniscient and powerful.7guns

Well said!

In the video he claimed that "lack of evidence is evidence" and I do not completely agree with it. Also he did not say that crocodile is the creator of the universe, but just a supernatural being that can fly. Whereas god is claimed to be supernatural and also the creator of the universe. Surely there is no evidence for the existence of either one of them but the claim that one of the supernatural beings(god) is the creator, shows that it is trying to fill a gap in our knowledge that science is also trying to answer. On the other hand I don't know of any mystery where the idea of a supernatural flying crocodile may fit. Clearly they are both not in the same boat, which makes the argument weak.

So yes, I agree with your argument. Also, I find that his argument suggests that since there is no evidence now, there won't be any evidence in future.

Overall, his argument is not perfect, or at least that's how it seems to me.

Yes, but crocodiles are defying the laws of science as we know them. They can't just fly. They're bound to gravity. They can't grow wings spontaneously either. Evolution takes much longer and doesn't guarantee certain features such as wings, nor can they ungrow wings when people see them. God by nature defies laws. How else is God defined, especially when he is generally defined by working via miracles? Because the two are not bound by nature, the two are exchangable since rules no longer apply, which means that hypothetically in another way, it is a flying crocodile that is the creator the universe and an old man in a zoo that is considered absurd to think could fly.

The argument that the "lack of evidence is evidence" is indeed weak, but the flying crocodile argument struck a chord with me. I do think that if there is a lack of evidence that requires there to be a leap of faith to accept things that can violate nature, then it's natural to assume that, unless further evidence is observed, that therefore, that is as close to as evidence as you can get, because if hypothetically such a thing that defies natural laws doesn't exist, then it can never, and I mean ever, be disproven so there's no irrationality for disbelieving in such a thing. The flying crocodiles makes this point.

His argument is not perfect and it never will be, even if gods don't exist.

Oh, and you're correct MG_N about it being Russell's teapot essentially, but it makes it more absurd in my opinion.

Funky loves arguing the burden of proof. Speaking of which, and this is directed at Funky, I recall you considering yourself an atheist a few months back because you insisted that the burden of proof was on the theist. Did you change your position?

Yes, but crocodiles are defying the laws of science as we know them. They can't just fly. They're bound to gravity. They can't grow wings spontaneously either. Evolution takes much longer and doesn't guarantee certain features such as wings, nor can they ungrow wings when people see them. God by nature defies laws. How else is God defined, especially when he is generally defined by working via miracles? Because the two are not bound by nature, the two are exchangable since rules no longer apply, which means that hypothetically in another way, it is a flying crocodile that is the creator the universe and an old man in a zoo that is considered absurd to think could fly.

The argument that the "lack of evidence is evidence" is indeed weak, but the flying crocodile argument struck a chord with me. I do think that if there is a lack of evidence that requires there to be a leap of faith to accept things that can violate nature, then it's natural to assume that, unless further evidence is observed, that therefore, that is as close to as evidence as you can get, because if hypothetically such a thing that defies natural laws doesn't exist, then it can never, and I mean ever, be disproven so there's no irrationality for disbelieving in such a thing. The flying crocodiles makes this point.

His argument is not perfect and it never will be, even if gods don't exist.

Oh, and you're correct MG_N about it being Russell's teapot essentially, but it makes it more absurd in my opinion.

Genetic_Code

Well........ when he said it can fly with supernatural means I thought he claimed the crocodile to be supernatural being as well. So this evolution thing didn't occur to me. :?

I guess supernatural things can never be proven or disproven.

Well........ when he said it can fly with supernatural means I thought he claimed the crocodile to be supernatural being as well. So this evolution thing didn't occur to me. :?

7guns

I was suggesting that it was impossible to have occured through evolution or at least in the amount of time it takes for a person to observe a crocodile.

I guess supernatural things can never be proven or disproven.

7guns

I feel like we're running in circles. :P

I think it's far easier for the supernatural to be proven than disproven actually. I mean, for instance, if God came onto this thread and posted pictures of himself creating the universe would be some evidence, although it would be hard to even conceive of Him. But yeah, if God doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove that He doesn't.

[QUOTE="7guns"]

I guess supernatural things can never be proven or disproven.

Genetic_Code

I feel like we're running in circles. :P

I think it's far easier for the supernatural to be proven than disproven actually. I mean, for instance, if God came onto this thread and posted pictures of himself creating the universe would be some evidence, although it would be hard to even conceive of Him. But yeah, if God doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove that He doesn't.

Yea, I figured as much.

In this case I think the camera has to be one of god's very own creations. I seriously doubt that a camera made by us could possibly interact with a supernatural entity.:roll: But that's probably never gonna happen.:P

Yes it might very well imply that, some definitions of strong atheism even include some sort of claim to knowledge. That doesn't have to be the case though. I classify myself as an atheist agnostic because it describes both what I believe (lotsa stuff) and what I know (bugger all) about God.

I might as well admit right now though that such as a position as mine requires what Lansdowne will gleefully call "faith".

domatron23

I don't really care about other people's beliefs but for what it's worth, my ex and I had this same discussion a few years ago. She wanted to know why I'm not an atheist and it boiled down to her using the same argument (but a different example).

In the end neither of us managed to even make a dent in the other's armor, at least not from his/her own point of view. I find the whole argument somewhat silly and purely philosophical without relevance to my own beliefs. Kind of how I view the whole question of god's existence right now I guess. No one likes militant anything when it comes to religion, militant agnostics are no different.

For what it's worth, I met her again this autumn and she seems to have changed her stance to a more agnostic one even if she still did consider herself an atheist. I personally see it all as a completely grey blob of jelly you just have to shape into the form your intuition tells you to. Figuratively speaking of course, I'm not saying there has to be a supernatural being of any kind. :P

I don't really care about other people's beliefs but for what it's worth, my ex and I had this same discussion a few years ago. She wanted to know why I'm not an atheist and it boiled down to her using the same argument (but a different example).

In the end neither of us managed to even make a dent in the other's armor, at least not from his/her own point of view. I find the whole argument somewhat silly and purely philosophical without relevance to my own beliefs. Kind of how I view the whole question of god's existence right now I guess. No one likes militant anything when it comes to religion, militant agnostics are no different.

For what it's worth, I met her again this autumn and she seems to have changed her stance to a more agnostic one even if she still did consider herself an atheist. I personally see it all as a completely grey blob of jelly you just have to shape into the form your intuition tells you to. Figuratively speaking of course, I'm not saying there has to be a supernatural being of any kind. :P

inoperativeRS

Since they are a lot more prone to active listening and actually caring about having a real conversation, I tend to find significant others infinitely more receptive in these discussions than the average person on the street.

Since they are a lot more prone to active listening and actually caring about having a real conversation, I tend to find significant others infinitely more receptive in these discussions than the average person on the street.

Sitri_

Definitely. This one is of the stubborn kind though.