Mr Ag Nostic

[TÐöer]

Hi Mr Ag Nostic,

I think you are more reasonable then the theist or deist here. But there is some things which I would like to point out.

First of all about the budhist comment. If you share with them your concern then they might just stop doing it or go else where. Otherwise, they aren't budhist. It's probably some new age stuff.

Now imagine, a preacher coming to your home, and telling you that your God is all bull, and that only their god is true.

Families with different believes are broken. A m uslim, can't eat with non-believers and a christian can't perform (if they don't snort) when non- believers are performing rites.

And why is this the case? because the contents of some religions are destructive in nature. It does not allow people to be non-believers.

So where does tolerance come into play?
Probably tolerance will only come when the whole world believes in only 1 religion or there are no religion at all.

Originally Posted by Mr Ag Nostic

If I had to pick I'd say I'm a strong agnostic if you sub the word "knowledge" for "proof" by the definition given. I'm essentially an atheist but don't think science negates the possibility of there being something more. At the very least God is as good a term as any to sum up some of the more difficult concepts to comprehend (and I don't mean mathematically I mean esoterically) - like infinity, nothing or self-awareness.

I am also an agnostic in a way. because I can't argue when believers say that God's logic is beyond that of which we know, thus, we will never understand why he does not appear to us, or why his message on earth sounds so fake. And we are just to follow.

"God created everything.
If God created existence.
then How could God have existed before that?"

Explaining things like infinity is just like explaining the above.
It's not that difficult really. It is both amazing, but why try so hard to understand?

At least we know infinity is real. Live with it.

I don't think Christian's can prove God exists anymore than Atheists can prove God doesn't - therefore the whole premises of the argument is bunk and you'll just end up screaming at each other.

I try not to scream. Lol.

I think the best way to get to people is to see things from their perspective. If we don't then we're just hitting a wall.

Anyway, as mentioned through out the forum. It's not about proving God doesn't exist. It's about proving he exist. There is no need to prove that god not exist. Because there is no reason to believe in him in the first place. To disprove him, will be like asking us to disprove Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, The Boogey Man and Elves. Do we have to disprove them? You can try, but a believer will simply say it's magic.

Evidence is proof. And the bible is not proof. We cannot use an assumption as proof. But theist keep insisting that it is proof. If we can settle the idea that it is just an assumption and not proof. Then at least we can agree that there is no proof in God what so ever.

After we have settle that. Then lets move on to understand about faith. We should only have faith if a.) We are helpless or b.) There are supporting proof that our assumption is true. (take pete's chair example)

However as of now, there is no proof or supporting proof what soever.

And most of all. The bible refers to itself as the complete truth. If any 1 of it fails. Then the whole thing must be a fake.

if it is only a mere guide (like some christians say) then my advice is to follow your own moral compass, and don't believe too much on the god part it has done more harm than good.


You have one group concerned with faith and belief, that by very definition do not require proof. While on the other you have a group solely concerned with evidence trying to address a topic that is unprovable and at the very least beyond our capability / technology - who do not believe God exists.

Is the DVD expressing the view of a group of people , leaving the general population more informed about it's other members. Or is it disruptive, in-sighting conflict or being unfairly given precedent over other similar publications by other groups.

The problem of being preached is this. Once you have entered the faith, there is no room for reasoning. That's what religions are about.
"If you do not hate your father, mother... etc you can not be my deciple"

Can you still reason with someone who has commited themselves as that?

On the other hand, is it so wrong if you teach someone critical thinking, so they can differentiate fact, and fiction for themselves?

We're not asking our kids to read the mantra "there is no God"

In order to get anything done we assume some basic assumptions and agree / accept that the grass is green is a fact and move on. Fact and evidence are language constructs. That's all I was saying. In this case because of the different assumptions of the two opposing groups - you will not be able to agree on a common language and will not be able to have a completely effective communication.

Facts are the fundamentals of any discussion. If there were no facts, then there can be no discussion. Some people may argue that there is no certainty, however we must come to some point of agreement, otherwise there will be no understanding at all. Therefore, a fact is an understanding which is either agreed by all, or undisputed after relevant facts have been given (of course it may be disproved at anytime whereby we would gladly take away it's "fact" status).

So that's what we are trying to do. Outlining all facts. Proof/disprove assumptions to establish more facts, once everything has been said.

Correct me if I am wrong but there were certain issues which have been pointed out to disprove the christian belief but have not yet been countered. Thus, by laws of logic and common sense that is at present the fact.