i like to start a thread with this quote: I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means- Clarence Darrow

why? because you can "Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coattails" Clarence Darrow.

Yeah, I agree. Agnostic is the only logical way to be, since even by the Scientific Method, the existance or non-existance of a supreme being cannot, by definition, be answered.
I would like to be an atheist, but the Universe will not allow me.

Well said to you both

Agnosticism is strictly logical. Atheism is common sense. Common sense conclusions are not strictly logical ones.

As someone with profound faith of their own, even I can see the logic and common sense behind agnostism. Despite my own feelings, I can look at the cold, hard facts (or lack of) surrounding religion and agree that agnostism is a farely reasonable way to go. I just can never shake the feeling I get when it comes to my Lord and the faith I have in it all.

But hey, to each his own.

Simply because we cannot absolutely disprove a god (negatives cant be proven) doesnt mean that agnostisism is the only logical and scientific way to go. One can look at the different sciences, look at logic.. and apply them to the question. Richard Dawkins puts it quite simply "What are the odds that a complex intelligence came into existence FIRST, rather than at the end of a long process?" We can not disprove the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the sun between the earth and Mars either.. but this does not mean I should be agnostic about the chances.. it is not a 50-50 question.
I would dare to venture that GrabTheyHand believes in her god, apparently the Christian god..but does not believe in Wutan, Thor, Loki, Zeus, etc. Atheists really just simply go one god further in their disbelief.

It is easy to point to the "logical" or scientific and because of the tangible try to disprove or decide to not belive in God. The problem is that a relationship with God cannot be scientifically proven and it is not based on facts, but faith. FAITH is the key to all religions, and more specifically a relationship with God. If it were as easy as stating something exists, because we know it does, we would all believe.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

ok vetamur it is not a question that can be gauged by percentages so i don't know why you say its not a 50-50 question. why? because human beings have absolutely no idea what god is? what happens when they die? ETC. and really no way to know inside the realms of mainstream science though its possible quantum physics could show us the way.

Albert Einstein:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

We have scientific proof that we are a product of evolution.

However, don't you wonder where the concept of a deity comes from in the human psyche since it is not something observed in Nature. (Meaning we didn't inherit it as part of our evolution)

Even if it is made up; where did the ORIGINAL idea come from?

Don't confuse the premise of a supreme being with an inherent connection to Evolution. I believe what was said before means that even though Evolution has strong scientific basis, the philosophical argument for a 'superman' in the clouds cannot be disproved or proved. In that scenario it is not stated that 'it' created anything. Just that it exists.

PS I'm still an Atheist-wanna-be-agnostic-scientist.

Mandela.. its a hypothesis: does there exist in the universe an all knowing, all powerful entity that it is appropriate to worship, listens and presumably answers prayers, etc, and is responsible for creation?

So.. the hypothesis is that a supreme intelligence was the first thing that ever existed and came into existence from nothing.

Again, I can not prove a negative. Yet, I can look at the rest of world, and creation and what we know of it and see how this fits in. We can look for some sort of evidence. It doesnt fit. Intelligence doesnt come first, complex creations are not first in the process, but last. The idea of god is itself a bit of a cheat from exploring the beginnings of life, the universe, etc.

And I have no idea why you would assume, as you seemingly do, that an atheist has no wonder and appreciation of the mysterious. Its funny, because you quote an atheist in making that assumption. Einstein used "god" as a sort of rough synonym for the unknown and was upset that in his own lifestyle people were purposely miscontruing his use of the term. The wonders and mysteries of the universe are what provide me with motiviation in professional life. I love the mysteries of the world and they make me want to know more, not to sit back and say "oh..we cant or shouldnt know that.. that we will just write off to a greater power"

yes your using god as exclusively meaning a powerful entity, i am not and i think that is why we are not understanding each other and thats what im trying to say i don't act like i know what god is or whatever so i don't accept religion or athesism. Lets just say its a feeling inside that makes me suspect some kind of force exist but i can't prove that to the intelligent part of my brain therefore i am agnostic.

George Santayana:

My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests.

Well.. I suppose we would have to define our terms then. But, I think what you are imagining shouldnt be called "god", because it lends itself towards misunderstanding, just as when Einstein used the term.

i think, and thi is my personal opinion, that again, people are always trying to label things, now your trying to say one blief is better than another, have you ever considered, that the only belief that actually matters, is the belief to help one another and love another, and if one has that belief, it doesn't matter if you are atheist, thesist or agnostic

Jamgo - great point! Now if you could get the world to listen!!

We all have a right to our own belief, whatever that may be. Four simple rules I reckon (or perhaps Liselle's Four Commandments )

1) One should not try to force their own belief onto another person.
2) One should not cause harm to others in the name of their own personal belief.
3) One should not let another person's words or threats influence or sway them from their own belief.
4) One should respect other's thoughts and religious belief without ego, ridicule or self righteousness.

If only it were that simple... The world would be a better place.

thankyou lisselle, and its funny, i was having this same discussion over a drink with some people on my theology course, and you've said, in point 2 of lisselles commandments , exactly what i was trying to put across yesterday, we are entiteled to beliefs, as long as they don't harm others,
however, i think when it comes to what people believe, the focus should not be on whther god exists, but on how we ive our life, belief in god is irreleveant

Your own personal belief does not harm anyone.
But when several people with the same beliefs tries to make rules from those beliefs, then it harms everyone who do not share that belief.

and that's where religion is born