-93 Agnosticism is the most logical religion, amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha as an Agnostic I agree it's the most logical (I may be a tiny bit bias) but it's not a religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's a belief so I count it and I am too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah just having a belief doesn't make it a religion because it doesn't fit the definition, kinda like how Atheists share a belief that there is no god(s) doesn't make Atheism a religion. But like I said in my mind it's the most logical belief.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay fine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Someone just wanted to argue ^^

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ISLAM

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Technically if you want logic you would be an atheist, because a god in general is not logical.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually by definition god is logical, since he is an omniscient being. Even the word logos used to refer to god is stemmed from logic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So it's logical to think that there is an all-powerful guy in the sky but not the big bang? A god is illogical and goes against every normal thing in life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, it's not logical to KNOW for sure that someone invisible doesn't exist, it's logical to think it's impossible to know this.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Assuming that it counts as a religion, I wouldn't say so. I would say that atheism is the most logical religion (even though it's not a religion). There's no evidence for a God, so logically, one shouldn't assume. I do see where you're coming from, though.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There is no evidence that there isn't a god, so logically, one should't assume. You see? Your logic could be applied to both sides. That's why agnosticism is the most logical.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Lol no. There's no evidence that there isn't a microscopic magical unicorn inhabiting one of Jupiter's moons. That doesn't mean it's likely to exist. Likewise for God; there's no proof that he exists and therefore it's not logical to assume he does.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said it was likely that God exists, I just think we can't prove whether or not he does exist. If you've never been to Jupiter all you can say is that you don't know what lives on it's moons.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

We can't prove it one way or another, but that doesn't mean that the two outcomes are equally likely. We can say that a unicorn on Jupiter's moon probably does not exist, because it would betray all laws of physics. God is just as unlikely as that unicorn. You can't prove he doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean there's a good chance that he does exist. This post asks about the most logical belief system. You can have faith in God but your belief isn't backed by logic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I also never said that they are equally valid. There will always be one outcome more likely. There is not a good chance that God exists, but we still don't know if he exists.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sure, I can agree with that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but evolution isn't a satisfactory answer for all. For me, saying we got here by some impropable chain of events drives me crazy

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, considering how absolutely vast the universe is, it was bound to happen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Bound to happen? An empty universe was bound to create a highly complex world in which I'm told atoms and cells think for themselves and evolve? Yeah okay...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

God has not left any physicals signs or evidence of his existence. The only signs that people say he left are just that: things they say. The most believed "evidence" of God's existence is a 2000+ year old book, and most of the things in that book was for socio-economic reasons.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I already said that there is no proof that he does exist. Lack of proof for A is not proof for B. There is no proof he doesn't exist, but I don't use that to believe in him. I use the fact that neither side has proof to assume that we do not know which side is true. That is the basis of being agnostic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But it does mean that it is less likely that God (well, the Christian God at least) exists. I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to point out that it is MORE LIKELY he doesn't exist.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know it's more likely, but we still don't really know. You don't seem to get that. No matter how likely each thing is, no one knows for sure which is true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I have to disagree i would say there is sufficient evidence for both sides. For example the kalam cosmological argument, the moral argument, Descartes' ontological argument. All of these are logical arguments. On the other there is also evidence for atheism such as the existence of evil but in the end it was whatever you personally believe.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHtxnIkzros This guy expresses my views on the cosmological argument much better than I could myself. He is a bit of an asshole, but he has some good points. Descartes' ontological argument is still based only on personal belief, and you know my thoughts on that matter.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not saying that all of these arguments are infallible i was just listing to refute the common misconception that there is no evidence for the existence of god. There is a multitude of arguments including the teleological, anthropic, and transcendental arguments. My point is there is evidence for a god and there is evidence for atheism you can choose to accept whichever but it is logically incoherent to say there is no evidence for god.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No belief is proven. People just believe what they think to be right. There isn't evidence for a God but it can't be proven that one does not exist.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I agree, even though being agnostic is not a religion. It has not been proven that there is a god and it has not been proven that there is not a god. Using that logic, it makes the most sense to say that we don't know and may never know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, one of the basic tenets of Agnosticism is that we don't know the right answer, so how would we know if it is the most logical?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If we don't know what the right answer then the right answer is to say we don't know what the right answer is. Seems logical to me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That actually doesn't seem logical to me. By saying that the right answer is that there is no right answer, you're contradicting your entire argument.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What I meant wasn't that there is no right answer. I'm just saying that there is no way for me to know what the right answer is. I'm saying I don't know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There IS evidence for God. For example, if you just look at the anatomy of an eye, how the heck could that just RANDOMLY appear and function the way it does? Only God could design a world like ours with all the plants, animals, and humans. Sadly, many are ignorant and just don't want to be held responsible for their actions at the end of the day. Go ahead and thumbs down, your beliefs aren't my business, just between you and the Creator of all things.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The eye did not randomly function and appear the way it does, that's an ignorant statement to make. It took millions of years of evolution to produce the human eye, and it happened through mutation and natural selection, not randomness. For more information, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Evolution is not necessarily true, so in fact YOU are the one being ignorant here.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Calling the progression of life "random" is far more ignorant than standing behind a well-documented scientific theory.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And who created that theory? Someone who you don't know and had to trust entirely. Sound familiar?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't disbelieve in God because he isn't "familiar". Meanwhile, Darwin and other scientists actually wrote down their own theories. I don't see your point. I'm not commenting on this post anymore, I'm getting dangerously close to pushing my thoughts on people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Darwin completely refuted evolution as total BS. Just saying.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

First, arguments from authority don't convince any intelligent person. Second, I'm interested in seeing your source.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

JFGI. It's not that hard.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So apparently you don't have one. Thanks for enriching my life with your unverifiable claim. Have a nice day.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, it means that you're too lazy to do it and take that laziness as a legitimate argument.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101102191719AAVwJMU I know yahoo answers isn't the most trustworthy source, but I don't particularly trust creationist websites either.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

By the same argument, anything from the internet can be taken as false/biased. For all we know, the person who answered was a leading scientist in the field of macro-evolution. However, what I said was less to disprove evolution and more to show that in fact even its creator wasn't at all accepting it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I should note that the response to the yahoo answers was a creationist website that discourages use of that argument (I read the entire response after I posted this).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course it's a horrible argument for disproving evolution, but that is neither what I used it for nor necessarily a complete lie.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My main point was that even if he did "take it all back", it doesn't matter. The difference between religion and science is that science doesn't care who says it - only with what is being said. Besides, ender has politely given you a source (however reliable it may be), while you have provided none. Making claims with no support is dishonest and you trying to save face is not helping. If something is a partial lie, it is not the truth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I have not provided a source because 1) It is YOUR job to disprove ME 2) Even if I do get something, you'll claim it's from creationists and therefore biased. I know how people like you work. Don't think that I'm a fool.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

1) Do you know how foolish you sound? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof That's like me saying there is a magical teapot orbiting the Earth and asking you to disprove my claim. 2) Yes, it will be biased. Just as if I got something off of an atheistic website. But if this really happened, you should be able to find it on non-creationist websites as well. Even those will be biased because EVERYTHING has bias. Besides, you don't know how I'll react to a website; you don't know me personally. People like me? You mean someone who actually points out the flaws in your "argument"? Sorry, I do think you are a fool. You have not provided me with anything to convince me you are an intelligent, rational human being - quite the opposite, really. You obviously do not know how to argue a point without resorting to logical fallacies and you don't know how to admit that you are wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If it didn't happen, then you'd find it on multiple creationist websites that it didn't. You often use logic that applies perfectly to both sides, which is hardly logic at all. Lastly, you have to resort to insulting me in both a show of a lack of respect and definitive proof that you have no further argument other than insulting me and mine.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Also, there is no proof that there is/is not a teapot. In the same way there is very little/no proof toward the existence/non-existence of God. The only "proof" is a small little book written by people who had nothing to gain from it. This book also happens to correspond greatly to actual events in history, which shows it isn't total BS. But I waste my time, you don't care. You'd just insult it and all that a large percentage of the world stands for again.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Once again, you don't know how I will react to certain things, so don't tell me how I will. You have NO logic whatsoever. I feel as though I'm talking to a brick wall; no matter what I say, you refuse to even entertain the thought. Instead, you through it back at me and demand that I try again while telling me how I'll do it. 1) I give limited respect to those I don't know and complete respect to those I deem worthy of it. I don't respect people who act foolishly. 2) You cannot win a battle by telling your opponent she is out of swords anymore than you can win an disagreement by telling her she is out of arguments. You also have not even MADE an argument other than your original claim. So we should all believe in this teapot, too? What about all of the other gods that have had books written about them? Maybe I should write my own book! Oh, look, everyone's on the bandwagon! I should believe in Islam! Oh, wait...you meant Christianity.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

P.S. I haven't insulted any religion until now, and that's questionable. Anyway, I feel as if this is wasting both of our times and neither of us is getting anywhere. I really mean no disrespect, but I do stand by everything I've said as I'm sure you do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No he didn't. A Christian lady claimed that on his deathbed he renounced evolution and became a Christian. She did that so the people around her would stop questioning their faith. Darwin's daughter, who was actually there, said that that never happened. She was appalled with the woman for making up such lies.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It hardly matters. All it is is one person's word against another's, which is the basis for thegirlyouknew overreacting.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, it's his own daughter's word over some lady's word. Look at it this way: Person A and Person B are telling you the same story. Person A witnessed what happened in the story. Person B is going by rumors. Person B's story ended differently than Person A's. Who do you believe? Obviously you should believe Person A.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There are arguments that possibly could be used against it, but it's really not worth it. Arguments on this thread are really starting to annoy me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I find it funny that since there are arguments over what you believe, you don't want to bother with it, but if I was arguing for your beliefs you'd be all over it. Darwin did not denounce evolution, you just don't want to admit it and be wrong. I understand though, it's an evolutionary trait most people have: to never want to be proven wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I have not stated that I accept I'm wrong, but neither did I state that I still think I'm right.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So are you right or wrong? I vote wrong, but I don't think my vote counts in your opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There's no telling whether I'm right or wrong. It'd be a guess at best.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Is that just a cop out to get out of admitting you're wrong? Obviously the eye witness would be telling the truth. But of course you'd be on the side of the religious nut (who was lying by the way).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sure, I'm a fool that dodges responsibility at every turn, and I just don't want to admit I'm wrong because that would be the end of me and my world. I'm too awesome to die!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know you're being sarcastic or whatever, but for the sake of my point, I'm going to take you 100% seriously.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Good deal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Reliable source.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is going to sound stupid, but to whom are you referencing to when you say "Sadly, many are ignorant and just don't want to be held responsible for their actions at the end of the day?"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You make it sounds like some kind of perfectly formed eye immediately popped out of nowhere. That's not how it happened, and that's not how anyone claims it happened. Anyway, I find it difficult to explain things like how eyes evolved, and someone did already link to the Wikipedia article which surely explains that there was no magical levitating eyes (I know that's not what you said, that's just what came to my mind when you said it :P). But about the beauty and complexity thing, how could something/someone so powerful, perfect, loving, caring, artistic, all-capable, etc. like God come into existence without having been created by some other creator? Surely God would qualify as beautiful and complex too, except even more so than nature, because He can create things and think and all that. Something as amazing as a creator/God couldn't have randomly happened by chance without a purpose either, could it? And if it could, what's to say the universe couldn't've, then?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://rogerwendell.com/images/bumperstickers/we_have_the_fossils_we_win_large.gif It is possible to believe in both God and evolution, and people who do give God a lot more credit for designing a system to create the best species to serve Him.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hahahaha, that's your argument? That the eye is complex? Everything wants to survive, and to do that they needed to adapt and survive. Oh, and in case you don't know, religion is so you can't be held accountable for your actions.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's the most logical BECAUSE it is not a religion! All that religion does is give people false beliefs and hopes with little evidence and no proof. Sure, most religions teach good morals, but that can be taught without the bullshit of a "higher power" and things of that sort. And religion also gives unnecessary constraints, such as not being able to eat pork or have sex before marriage. It also tends to be the cause of many disputes, such as this epic argument in this post. Religion is the course of unnecessary problems, and without it I think most people would have much happier and more fulfilled lives. The world would be a better place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My life would compeltely suck without God. There have been so many tiems I feel like crap and I don't know what to do, then I turn to God, pray, read the Bible, meditate and when I find an answer to my problems it always comes from God. I don't want to start a big religious debate here, so I won't comment anymore. I'm just saying, without God, I would never feel fullfilled and I would never be as ahppy as I have been.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You know, this is exactly why I am sincerely envious of people who believe in God. I respect you for your beliefs, and I wish I could share them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Therein lies the difference between non-Christians I respect and non-Christians who are truly moronic fools. Most people trying to argue against religion call it stupid, foolish, and something for people who can't satisfy themselves or need to feel like they're being rewarded or something along those lines.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"...when I find an answer to my problems it always comes from God." Has this god actually spoken to you? Do you hear some random voice from an invisible source? Because that's a symptom of schizophrenia. If not, then in reality the answer is actually coming from yourself. You tell yourself that god is the reason for your solution, when really you figured it out all on your own. And your life wouldn't completely suck without god, because even if god did exist, he isn't actually affecting anything that happens in your life. Decisions you make, you make in your own mind. Things that other people say or do to you come from their brains. All events happen for a reason, as an effect of nature or of the human brain. People believe in god only because other people have told them that he exists. It is simply a way of explaining to yourself why things happen, without any proof of any kind. [continued in next post]

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And maybe once in a while, you will "pray" for something, and it will end up happening. This coincidence only furthers your belief in god, also furthering your ignorance and refusal to pay attention to simple logic. Do you really believe that just because you want something to happen, and say it out loud, then some magical, invisible, unproved force/being that you have never actually seen or heard or anything, will somehow make it come true for you? Because that is simply ridiculous. Coincidences happen. Stop restraining yourself from common sense and reality, and live life to its fullest.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hey it's the controversial me again. I don't understand why everyone is hung up on the eye deal. That was just one example, here's a better one. The seed. The seed that can grow beautiful plants and giant trees. 300+ ft tall redwoods come from a single seed, smaller than a fingernail. How could that also pop into existence? Please, I'm dying to know what people think.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

BY THE WAY, I AM NOT SAYING EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXSIST! I 100% believe in micro-evolution, it's macro that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In all seriousness, if a god came down and proved to you it was real, would you just bow down and worship it? Just because something created you does not mean you have to worship it. Though if there is a god, I would be grateful that I was created, but I would go on living my life. I would not give up my free will. But would you?

by Anonymous 12 years ago