Nem said:
I didnt say there wasnt. But it really is ridiculous. If you are Agnostic you know there is not reason to believe there is a god. The Atheist just goes a step further and concludes that the absense of proof actually can conclude a probable absense of a God. Because as an agnostic knows, there is no reason to believe he exists. Disproving something that doesn't exist is impossible. So sure, if you want to pretend there is a middle ground go ahead. But its just a position where you refuse to draw a conclusion. The same postition can be said about a teapot orbiting Mars. Is there a teapot orbiting mars? We don't know until we have proof. But you know there isnt one. So, yes my conclusion, wich isnt a simplication, is an observation on the obvious conclusion that the agnostic refuses to take a stand on to try and keep a semblance of some "neutrality". But quite honestly, i find it a bit disonest. |
I've never been a fan of this way of thinking. Life isn't so black and white. For one thing, a teapot is small, simple. You're comparing something small like a teapot to the divine creator of all that exists, which is silly. And that's the difference: nobody CARES if there's a teapot orbiting Mars. It's a friggin' teapot! We can't see it with our eyes, so that's reason enough to believe it's not there. And that goes for unicorns, elves, or whatever else you want to throw into the mix. They're small, insignificant, and ultimately don't matter. But God is a different story.
And second, I believe you CAN disprove God's existance. You just have to explain how a universe can create itself. How is something born out of absolute nothingness? Explain the process. Explain how that works, how that can happen. When you can explain how a universe creates itself without any outside cause whatsoever, you will have disproven God!
