Do you believe in God(s)?

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Word up, Cap. Weasel. This deathconsciousness dude has some serious victim complex or something.

all you did was just say i was wrong then circumvent your own conjecture and say i was right.

What the jesus balls are you talking about? Who's strawman-ing who here?

The only belief deism holds similar with theism is the existence of supernatural deity. I know that Deism is a subset of Theism in technicality, but in practice a deist and atheist would basically share the same views of religion, and that was my original point.

Well, that's fine if that's your original point, but you have to say what you mean. Theism != religion. Theism is any belief in the divine. Deism doesn't differ from theism at all, because deism is, again, a version of theism. Deism differs from typical organized religion, but it is impossible for deism to differ from theism.

To summarize:
You could have said the following statements, and been correct. "Deism differs from most common forms of theism, in a way that is more similar to atheism." "Deism is closer to atheism than Christianity." "Deism is like atheism in that it posits that there is no interference by the divine in the workings of the universe."

This is what you said: "i know exactly what deism is. and it probably shares more similarities with atheism, as it agrees with the belief that there has been no supernatural interaction with what human's perceive as reality since the beginning of time."

yes, that is the only statement Atheism makes about anything. You're reading too much into the technicalities of my word choice. I meant "nothing" as in the notion that "there is no supernatural being", "nothing" that is supernatural.

Okey-dokes. Just say what you mean and we won't have this kind of problem.

without generalizations and simplifications would couldn't make any conjectures about anything. what is your point other than the fact that it seems that you got displeased with how i refered to your belief, or lack thereof.

Saaaaay, that's right. You can't make totally useless general statements without oversimplifying an issue entirely. Your kind of thinking is the same as the thought process that leads to racism or sexism. If I said, "I find that black people are stupid," it would be incredibly offensive, even though African Americans, on average, have a lower IQ. That's tantamount to what you're doing here. You might be right about your general statement, but it doesn't tell us anything useful on an individual basis, and it comes off as bigoted and annoying. It also doesn't produce any useful information for us, because its generalizations are incredibly rough. It was a non-sequitur from what we were talking about, as well.

a lack of belief is still a belief that something in itself is lacking. please dont be arrogant.

Hahaha, crackhead.

The absence of a belief is not a belief in absence. The proposition "God exists" is not among my beliefs. This does not mean that the proposition "God does not exist" is among my beliefs. Neither proposition is included in the set of propositions that I accept as true. I do not believe either of these statements. Because I do not accept "God exists" among my beliefs, I call myself an atheist. This is how I define this term. Is this the definition that you are using? Do you understand and are you willing to use this definition from here on out?

[Deathconciousness]

Word up, Cap. Weasel. This deathconsciousness dude has some serious victim complex or something.

youre taking this way too seriously

What the jesus balls are you talking about? Who's strawman-ing who here?

i said that Deism is more similar to Atheism than it is to Theism. I illustrated it by saying that atheism and deism are extremely skeptical of most if not all modern religion, which deism and theism only share the common belief that a supernatural being created the universe.

Well, that's fine if that's your original point, but you have to say what you mean. Theism != religion. Theism is any belief in the divine. Deism doesn't differ from theism at all, because deism is, again, a version of theism. Deism differs from typical organized religion, but it is impossible for deism to differ from theism.

well i guess the misunderstanding comes from the fact that i view theism as more in line with a following of a specific religion, and deism as not adhering to a religion.

To summarize:
You could have said the following statements, and been correct. "Deism differs from most common forms of theism, in a way that is more similar to atheism." "Deism is closer to atheism than Christianity." "Deism is like atheism in that it posits that there is no interference by the divine in the workings of the universe."

if that would have made you understand my position more then, yes i should i have i guess. But then again you didnt have to get hostile.

Saaaaay, that's right. You can't make totally useless general statements without oversimplifying an issue entirely. Your kind of thinking is the same as the thought process that leads to racism or sexism. If I said, "I find that black people are stupid," it would be incredibly offensive, even though African Americans, on average, have a lower IQ. That's tantamount to what you're doing here. You might be right about your general statement, but it doesn't tell us anything useful on an individual basis, and it comes off as bigoted and annoying. It also doesn't produce any useful information for us, because its generalizations are incredibly rough. It was a non-sequitur from what we were talking about, as well.

this is an absurd strawman. my train of thought has nothing to do with racism or sexism and i am terribly offended that you would think that. Your later pointing out of the lower African American IQ, that is an oversimplification of course. I said that simplifications are a necessary evil, not oversimplifications. Science is notoriously known to make oversimplified statements and then later apply them to more concrete circumstances. Would you fucking stop putting words in my mouth and please adhere to the context in which i speak.

Hahaha, crackhead.

irrelevant, ad hominem fallacy.

The absence of a belief is not a belief in absence. The proposition "God exists" is not among my beliefs. This does not mean that the proposition "God does not exist" is among my beliefs. Neither proposition is included in the set of propositions that I accept as true. I do not believe either of these statements. Because I do not accept "God exists" among my beliefs, I call myself an atheist. This is how I define this term. Is this the definition that you are using? Do you understand and are you willing to use this definition from here on out?

you believe that there is not a God. I believe that there is a computer that i am typing on. I believe that there are two girls in my next door dorm room. Those are all beliefs, just one is not backed by physical evidence.
You're trying to seperate yourself from theism by saying you don't believe in anything. That in itself is a belief. A belief that you shouldn't accept anything without scientific evidence for it.
You don't accept "God Exists" among your beliefs. Since you claim to be an atheist, or "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.", then you are taking a stance on the situation and providing a belief to base your life to live off of. If you do not belief in a God, or the lack of a God, you are an agnostic.

[capt_weasle]

My my someone is wearing their sass britches today. No one thinks you're a good debater if you just learn about logical fallacies and then join a forum to show off your new digs. You can call ad homonim all you want but that won't stop suki from coming in here and calling you a moron. Oh, and who was the one calling everyone childish earlier? I believe that was you.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

youre taking this way too seriously

No, I'm treating you (and this) as a joke. Mostly because you haven't given me a good reason to take you seriously. If you were to bring good arguments to the table, things would be different. I don't want to make this personal for a couple reasons, but by jebus I will if things keep going in this direction.

Actually, let me make this clear: I'm not going to be a dick to you from now on. It's bad form on my part as moderator here. I expect you to reciprocate by being less of an idiot, and to stop drowning in your own self-pity every time you make an argument. I'm done talking about this now. If you try to respond to this paragraph or the one above, I will edit it out. This is something that shouldn't have entered into our discussion in the first place, although I'm probably partly to blame for that.

i said that Deism is more similar to Atheism than it is to Theism. I illustrated it by saying that atheism and deism are extremely skeptical of most if not all modern religion, which deism and theism only share the common belief that a supernatural being created the universe.

Right, and I went on to say that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of theism. We were stumbling over definitions. My bad for assuming you were using the definition that I'm used to. Next time I will ask for explicit definitions of any possibly ambiguous terms.

if that would have made you understand my position more then, yes i should i have i guess. But then again you didnt have to get hostile.

I'm not being hostile, and I haven't been hostile toward you (except at the start of this post). You're reading tone into my posts that isn't there.

this is an absurd strawman. my train of thought has nothing to do with racism or sexism and i am terribly offended that you would think that.

This is what I'm talking about when I say you shouldn't drown in self-pity. You can't bullshit a bullshitter. I used this line of attack in every single internet argument I was in for the first few months of my time here on the interwebs. The pity party isn't fooling anyone. Show what is objectively wrong with my arguments. Do not talk about how they hurt your feelings. They are not attacking you, they are attacking the ideas that you are expressing.

irrelevant, ad hominem fallacy.

It's not ad hominem. I'm not using it to prove a point. I did just insult you, but I'm going to try to stick to my word at the beginning of this post. I'm not going to be a dick to you anymore, no matter how much I think you deserve it.

our later pointing out of the lower African American IQ, that is an oversimplification of course. I said that simplifications are a necessary evil, not oversimplifications.

That's an imaginary distinction. If you disagree with me, and think that there is a real difference between an oversimplification and a simplification, state your definitions for both terms so that the conversation can move forward. Also, there is nothing necessary about a simplification; it's just an evil.

Science is notoriously known to make oversimplified statements and then later apply them to more concrete circumstances.

This is not what science does. Science generates principles that are intended to work in all situations. When it is found that the current model does not account for all observational phenomena, a new model is generated that explains everything. Science doesn't say "Well, I've come close enough to accounting for the data." A scientific theory must be consistent with all the evidence, otherwise it is an incomplete theory. If you think that anything you've posited here is remotely scientific, think again.

Would you fucking stop putting words in my mouth and please adhere to the context in which i speak.

Whoa, there tiger. I'm just trying to understand the ramifications of the arguments that you're presenting. You won't let me touch a single syllogism without making a huge production about it all.

you believe that there is not a God.

What did I just say? I am not of the belief that there is not a divine entity or transcendent force. Pay attention to what I write.

You're trying to seperate yourself from theism by saying you don't believe in anything. That in itself is a belief. A belief that you shouldn't accept anything without scientific evidence for it.

Again, you're directly contradicting what I've written here. I haven't said that I don't believe in anything. I have been very explicit about what I do not believe. I do not believe that god exists. I do not believe that god is non-existent. And no, I don't believe that scientific evidence is the only way to justify a belief. I'm no positivist. I'm a rationalist, if anything, but that belief is separate from my attitude toward the divine, which is what I was trying to talk about before you arbitrarily changed the subject. If you're trying to argue that I do have beliefs, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Congratulations, you've proved your point. If that's not what your point is, state it, because it seems to me like you're losing sight of why we were originally talking.

You don't accept "God Exists" among your beliefs. Since you claim to be an atheist, or "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.", then you are taking a stance on the situation and providing a belief to base your life to live off of. If you do not belief in a God, or the lack of a God, you are an agnostic.

See, this is why I asked those questions about definitions. You did a really good job ignoring them.

[blue_tetris]

Before the idiotfest, I brought up an interesting point about our nation's forefathers and how... y'know... very few of them were Christian... and, like, how "atheism" as a semantic device didn't exist back then... and, like, how Deism was the predecessor to modern atheism... and, like...

...meh, forget it.



I'm keeping my eye on Debate. Keep it above the belt. Talk topics.

[Deathconciousness]

youre taking this way too seriously

Actually, let me make this clear: I'm not going to be a dick to you from now on. It's bad form on my part as moderator here. I expect you to reciprocate by being less of an idiot, and to stop drowning in your own self-pity every time you make an argument. I'm done talking about this now. If you try to respond to this paragraph or the one above, I will edit it out. This is something that shouldn't have entered into our discussion in the first place, although I'm probably partly to blame for that.

im sorry if any of my posts came off in such a way. they were not intended to be. However i am curious on how any of my responses came off as "self-pitying".

Right, and I went on to say that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of theism. We were stumbling over definitions. My bad for assuming you were using the definition that I'm used to. Next time I will ask for explicit definitions of any possibly ambiguous terms.

I'll do the same

I'm not being hostile, and I haven't been hostile toward you (except at the start of this post). You're reading tone into my posts that isn't there.

i was probably just attributing a the tone of the beginning of your post to the rest of it, when it probably wasn't there. sorry.

This is what I'm talking about when I say you shouldn't drown in self-pity. You can't bullshit a bullshitter. I used this line of attack in every single internet argument I was in for the first few months of my time here on the interwebs. The pity party isn't fooling anyone. Show what is objectively wrong with my arguments. Do not talk about how they hurt your feelings. They are not attacking you, they are attacking the ideas that you are expressing.

You're reading too much into the "I'm offended" part. Tone is a hard thing to express through written word.

It's not ad hominem. I'm not using it to prove a point. I did just insult you, but I'm going to try to stick to my word at the beginning of this post. I'm not going to be a dick to you anymore, no matter how much I think you deserve it.

okay

That's an imaginary distinction. If you disagree with me, and think that there is a real difference between an oversimplification and a simplification, state your definitions for both terms so that the conversation can move forward. Also, there is nothing necessary about a simplification; it's just an evil.

it's not really an imaginary distinction at all. A simplification is more in the vein that it simplifies the original idea of something, yet still keeps its original meaning. While an oversimplification distorts the original meaning of the idea in order to simplify it.

What did I just say? I am not of the belief that there is not a divine entity or transcendent force. Pay attention to what I write.

You stated that you are an Atheist. I'm sorry to make that assumption, but its a rather valid assumption to make when someone says they are an atheist.

I brought up an interesting point about our nation's forefathers and how... y'know... very few of them were Christian... and, like, how "atheism" as a semantic device didn't exist back then... and, like, how Deism was the predecessor to modern atheism... and, like...

...meh, forget it.

I found it very interesting as well. However, I'm very skeptical of the idea that Deism is an outdated version of atheism when atheism already existed, and our forefathers were so adamant about mentioning God in many of our early documents.

[Atilla]

I'm very skeptical of the idea that Deism is an outdated version of atheism when atheism already existed, and our forefathers were so adamant about mentioning God in many of our early documents.

I don't think that's a very good argument, for a several reasons.

Firstly, b_t didn't suggest that the forefathers of which you speak were atheists. He said that they were deists, but this was because atheism/secularism didn't really exist in their modern form at that time. Although the term "atheism" has been found in works from the Middle Ages, for example, it was frequently used as a pejorative implying general immorality or belief in the wrong gods. Since the forefathers were deist it's hardly impossible that they would mention God in some documents.

Secondly, these references to God aren't necessarily an indication of strong religious belief on behalf of all involved. If you need the political support of some conservative Christian types, it doesn't hurt to name-drop God a few times. There's also the fact that I frequently say "Good gods!", "Oh, hell!" and "Ganesh preserve us" despite being an agnostic atheist, and in my experience this is hardly unusual. Some references to God, particularly in less formal documents, may just be colloquialisms and/or hyperbole which are appropriate to the culture of the time, rather than an indication that the existence of God was important to the writer.

Finally, if you're referring to the Pledge of Allegiance or the national motto, those were added in the 1950s. I believe some other references to God in official legislation/documentation were also added at that time.

[Eiturlyf]

I beleive in ghosts, but not god/s.

[Brocerius]

Twelve, I was gonna say. It's divisible by 2, 3, and 4.

Twelve fingers really would be perfect.

Polydactyly, anyone?




Incidently, i dont believe in god.

[Deathconciousness]

I'm very skeptical of the idea that Deism is an outdated version of atheism when atheism already existed, and our forefathers were so adamant about mentioning God in many of our early documents.

I don't think that's a very good argument, for a several reasons.

Firstly, b_t didn't suggest that the forefathers of which you speak were atheists. He said that they were deists, but this was because atheism/secularism didn't really exist in their modern form at that time. Although the term "atheism" has been found in works from the Middle Ages, for example, it was frequently used as a pejorative implying general immorality or belief in the wrong gods. Since the forefathers were deist it's hardly impossible that they would mention God in some documents.

I reread his post and now understand that he meant that deism was a logical step towards the modern atheistic movement.

Secondly, these references to God aren't necessarily an indication of strong religious belief on behalf of all involved. If you need the political support of some conservative Christian types, it doesn't hurt to name-drop God a few times. There's also the fact that I frequently say "Good gods!", "Oh, hell!" and "Ganesh preserve us" despite being an agnostic atheist, and in my experience this is hardly unusual. Some references to God, particularly in less formal documents, may just be colloquialisms and/or hyperbole which are appropriate to the culture of the time, rather than an indication that the existence of God was important to the writer.

The first bit is understandable, but I would argue that so many of these forefathers were so adamant in the separation of church and state, and that this document was technically written in treason to the current nation at the time, i doubt they did it just for "support".
Secondly, an exclamation of "Jesus Christ" or saying the word God in "vain", is completely and utterly different than introducing it as an integral part of formal legal document that was supposed to never date, apply to contexts regardless of the time period, and was the basis for the birth of a state.
The third part is something I would agree with, yet still be ever so slightly skeptical.

Finally, if you're referring to the Pledge of Allegiance or the national motto, those were added in the 1950s. I believe some other references to God in official legislation/documentation were also added at that time.

i wasn't referring to this, as its not really that relevant.

[Yoshimo]

I'm fine with aetheists, but I'm still Christian. If aetheism really is the way to go, imagine how society would develope. No fear of after-life, so suicide's and crimes would most likely go up. Kid's won't have to fear hell, and then they will become unruly. The parents of the aetheist world would have to try 10 times harder to instill good values in their children.

[Donfuy]

If atheism really is the way to go, imagine how society would develop. No fear of after-life, so suicides would most likely go up.

Whaaat? I think that's absurd. As there were no after-life, people would be MUCH MORE afraid of death, as they did know that nothing existed beyond the physical boundaries. Some people commit suicide because they think that there is a better "life" beyond death.

If atheism really is the way to go, imagine how society would develop. No fear of after-life, so crimes would most likely go up.

With this, I agree.

But still, I don't think that's a good argument to believe in god or any kind of religion.

Kid's won't have to fear hell, and then they will become unruly. The parents of the atheist world would have to try 10 times harder to instill good values in their children.

You're saying that a good education is only affordable with religion? NO WAY. There are better ways to put good values in the children's head, other than presenting them with...uh... fantasy (sorry, couldn't find a better word).

I was educated by "kinda christian" parents and they never said to me:"Don't do that, or you will go rot in hell" . And still, I'm an educated person. I had/have a good education.



(Sorry, on these big texts, there are many words I don't use often, and I get confused with verbs sometimes. I find troublesome to find the right words in English)

[Condog]

I'm fine with aetheists, but I'm still Christian. If aetheism really is the way to go, imagine how society would develope. No fear of after-life, so suicide's and crimes would most likely go up. Kid's won't have to fear hell, and then they will become unruly. The parents of the aetheist world would have to try 10 times harder to instill good values in their children.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the whole idea of religion was to be a better person so you could appease God and thus be rewarded with an eternity of bliss. Not pretending to be an acceptable human being out of fear of retribution from a higher power.

[Yoshimo]

Donfuy, you should have said theory, not fantasy. And I didn't say educaton, I said values. Remeber the good samaritan, who helped the injured man on the side of the road? Very rarely we have them today, but without these basic principles of doing good, not fearing hell, people would be less motivated to help out that broken man lying on the side of the road, calling out for help. I'm just saying. And you have a good point on education. Without having to worry about church or religious duties, people will probably be more focused on learning.

Condog, I only said half there, and I'm sorry for that. However, the principle of eternal bliss just motivates them more to please God. The best way to do that is have metals and gems tested against the fire, instead of the burnable hay and straw. I remember my brother, a religious man, saying that when you go to heavan, your moralities will be tested in the manifestation of straw of precious metals and gems. If they burn, you pass into heaven. If they suvive the blaze, the gatekeeper or whoever does that stuff gives you a golden crown, in which it is your obligation to bring it to God and present it to him as a gift. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[jean-luc]

Condog, I only said half there, and I'm sorry for that. However, the principle of eternal bliss just motivates them more to please God. The best way to do that is have metals and gems tested against the fire, instead of the burnable hay and straw. I remember my brother, a religious man, saying that when you go to heavan, your moralities will be tested in the manifestation of straw of precious metals and gems. If they burn, you pass into heaven. If they suvive the blaze, the gatekeeper or whoever does that stuff gives you a golden crown, in which it is your obligation to bring it to God and present it to him as a gift. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've never heard of anything like that, but there are a lot of different sects with wildly varying versions of the entry to heaven. Most sects (at least, in my experience) believe in something called the Judgment Bar, where Jesus (and possibly other significant individuals, such as prophets) will hear your case and make their determination. Typically, if they say yes you go to heaven, and if they say no you go to hell. That simple.
Other sects have more complex systems that involve multiple levels, or spheres, of heaven, and/or multiple steps in judgment (sometimes with an opportunity to make up for your worldly sins).

[Yoshimo]

In this particular belief, you still go to heaven, even if your merit burns. But that's after you go to heaven or hell.

[Atilla]

I'm fine with aetheists, but I'm still Christian. If aetheism really is the way to go, imagine how society would develope. No fear of after-life, so suicide's and crimes would most likely go up. Kid's won't have to fear hell, and then they will become unruly. The parents of the aetheist world would have to try 10 times harder to instill good values in their children.

"I'm fine with atheists, I just think they're immoral, suicidal criminals with poor values. Because the only way to teach people compassion and mercy is to threaten to torture them horribly for all eternity."

I question what you're basing these assertions on. Statistics show that there is a disproportionately low number of atheists in prison (which may be because atheists tend to be educated and middle-class or wealthy). Furthermore, several studies (1) (2) have shown that countries with low rates of religiosity tend to be safer, cleaner, healthier, and generally a nicer place to live than highly religious ones. This study suggests instead that dualism (that is, belief in a reality defined by light/dark. God/Satan, Heaven/Hell, etc.) is the main contributing factor, and that religious countries which don't believe in the Devil or hell tend to have lower homicide rates. So, whether the problem is religion as a whole or just dualism, it doesn't look like belief in hell is a particularly good thing for society.

It is true that more secular countries tend to have higher suicide rates. However, youth suicide rates don't correlate positively with secularism, as I believe is mentioned in the first article I linked. When you account for the fact that the "suicidal" secular countries happen have the longest life expectancies in the world, and that suicide rates are highest among the elderly, the true reason for the discrepancy in suicide rates becomes apparent.

[Yoshimo]

Hmm, I base my theory on theory, not study. Sorry.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Hmm, I base my theory on theory, not study. Sorry.

"I'm anti-reality"

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Bionic, may I suggest that before you open up eleven cans of worms that you take the time to skim through this thread a bit?
You're bringing up issues that people smarter than you have already been thoroughly humiliated for saying.

[otters]

Hmm, I base my theory on theory, not study. Sorry.

Just as a recommendation, stay away from Suki until you've debated some of the less abusive members, like Demonz and especially Dave—he's good.

Also, read the thread.

[Sithmaster]

If you do not belief in a God, or the lack of a God, you are an agnostic.

no, agnostic is a term used to explain your side. theist agnostic is when you believe in God because there is no evidence against God. Atheist agnostic is when you don't believe in God, because there is no evidence supporting God. so, yeah, agnostic isn't a group, it's a reason


also, capt_weasle, on my post on the previous page, I said religion should be used only to comfort people in hard time, but not to explain mysteries, and I meant that faith can comfort people, and that thinking stuff will work out in the end, or that thinking a loved one is in a better place can help a person. I didn't mean that you should tell people that God loves them, and then laugh at them saying "no stupid, God isn't real!"

please, don't twist my words to make me an asshole (I get that enough from the uber-Christian kids at my school who are masters at selective hearing)

[Keron]

There are believers of different beliefs, and "nonbeliever" encompasses the rest. You talk about God and poke at Him from a distance, from afar. All that matters in the end is how much God affects your life—atheists, antitheists, agnostics, deists, etc. all have this in common: God is dead, as revealed by the lifestyle they live by. Lifestyle reveals belief, and all these complicated, veiling words can come down to simplicity in that way.

Speaking of true intentions, let's say the Christianity is 100% correct, the Bible is the true word of God, and all Christians are doing the right thing. What about Islam or Hinduism (for example)? They must be wrong because they're not compatible with Christianity. They must be spreading lies and deception. What would be the true intentions of these religions?

That right there is enought proof for me that no religon is true.

What, and your belief is, and is somehow above them?

From your perspective they do the same too! :P (Other beliefs spread "lies and deception" without realizing it.) Truth ≠ Sincerity. All in all, there is one set of beliefs, religion or otherwise, that is true when everything's boiled down, no matter how much other sets of beliefs sincerely strive to be true.

Let's assume that natural science is correct. No matter what you say about your non-beliefs and all that gibberish from the previous pages, you ultimately believe that God is academically afar and is dead, at least in a personal way that affects your daily life. You as nonbelievers then shoot down religions' beliefs, if not their sincerity then at least that they're true, don't you? That's not very different from Christianity shooting down Islam and Hinduism for the like reason—in fact as naturalists you shoot down Islam's and Hinduism's declarations of truth too (you simply include Christianity as yet another one).

You believe that your agnostic lifestyle is the way to go; you balance in the middle of everything. All the others therefore must be wrong. That's no different than the exclusion Christianity presents. Yours is even MORE dangerous, in fact, because you present your side as scientific, and above religion.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

You believe that your agnostic lifestyle is the way to go; you balance in the middle of everything. All the others therefore must be wrong. That's no different than the exclusion Christianity presents. Yours is even MORE dangerous, in fact, because you present your side as scientific, and above religion.

I thought you were smarter than this, Keron. Agnosticism, atheism, and really any version of non-belief are not religious groups. Agnosticism in particular is a personal statement. A militant agnostic is a contradiction in terms. Agnostics don't think that their point of view is correct for all people, simply that they are not qualified to make a statement about the divine. Most agnostics wouldn't say that others cannot possibly be qualified, only that an agnostic is not.

And who the hell said non-belief is the scientific way to go? Science can't deal with deities. No philosophical claim, nor any claim of belief or truth has any place in science. Science develops models. Science doesn't produce "truth."

[Keron]

Sorry, I never meant to imply that they were united groups—I was just referring to them when used as labels in that way.

"Most agnostics wouldn't say that others cannot possibly be qualified, only that an agnostic is not."
But aren't you basing your beliefs off of what you know? Why don't you try to learn more, from such people who can possibly be qualified, so that you can be qualified to be able to say definitely whether God or a god exists or not? I do; I always try to keep my mind open to other religions, and explore more into them. Don't you want to? Isn't science the pursuit of knowledge, and didn't you call yourself a man of science? (Maybe not you - sorry if I misattribute.)

And who... said non-belief is the scientific way to go? Science can't deal with deities. No philosophical claim, nor any claim of belief or truth has any place in science....

Yet you said some pages ago that you reject what doesn't fall into science because it's unobservable. "Men of science" put science at the top in their priority of things, and everything else under it.