Agnosticism makes more since than atheism

[PostmodernProph]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There are people who claim to have witnessed miracles or experienced them from every religion. Do you deny that those miracles from Allah, or a Hindu god, or a Buddhist spirit, or whatever religion are not valid because they aren't Christian miracles?

????.....unless you are arguing that every thing claimed to be a miracle must be a miracle, why would it surprise you that a person could believe in some and reject others?.........

Accepting only those eye witness accounts of miracles that go along with your own religious beliefs while rejecting all eye witness accounts of miracles of other faiths is an arbitrary, disingenuous, and not rationally defensible position.

To a nonbeliever, it makes rational sense that the reasons Christians reject non-Christian miracles, and that Jews reject non-Jewish miracles, and Islam, and the various major world religions reject eachother's miracles, as well as all the weird, little sub-denominations, and cults - all of them rejecting all other miracles except their own religion's: all of those reasons combined are why nonbelievers aren't convinced any miracles have actually ever happened.

That and the complete and total lack of any kind of substantiated evidence.

you mean faith is an act of belief in the absence of proof?.......how novel.......

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There are people who claim to have witnessed miracles or experienced them from every religion. Do you deny that those miracles from Allah, or a Hindu god, or a Buddhist spirit, or whatever religion are not valid because they aren't Christian miracles?

????.....unless you are arguing that every thing claimed to be a miracle must be a miracle, why would it surprise you that a person could believe in some and reject others?.........

Accepting only those eye witness accounts of miracles that go along with your own religious beliefs while rejecting all eye witness accounts of miracles of other faiths is an arbitrary, disingenuous, and not rationally defensible position.

To a nonbeliever, it makes rational sense that the reasons Christians reject non-Christian miracles, and that Jews reject non-Jewish miracles, and Islam, and the various major world religions reject eachother's miracles, as well as all the weird, little sub-denominations, and cults - all of them rejecting all other miracles except their own religion's: all of those reasons combined are why nonbelievers aren't convinced any miracles have actually ever happened.

That and the complete and total lack of any kind of substantiated evidence.

you mean faith is an act of belief in the absence of proof?.......how novel.......

What meant was faith is an act of belief in the absence of critical thought.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There are people who claim to have witnessed miracles or experienced them from every religion. Do you deny that those miracles from Allah, or a Hindu god, or a Buddhist spirit, or whatever religion are not valid because they aren't Christian miracles?

????.....unless you are arguing that every thing claimed to be a miracle must be a miracle, why would it surprise you that a person could believe in some and reject others?.........

Accepting only those eye witness accounts of miracles that go along with your own religious beliefs while rejecting all eye witness accounts of miracles of other faiths is an arbitrary, disingenuous, and not rationally defensible position.

To a nonbeliever, it makes rational sense that the reasons Christians reject non-Christian miracles, and that Jews reject non-Jewish miracles, and Islam, and the various major world religions reject eachother's miracles, as well as all the weird, little sub-denominations, and cults - all of them rejecting all other miracles except their own religion's: all of those reasons combined are why nonbelievers aren't convinced any miracles have actually ever happened.

That and the complete and total lack of any kind of substantiated evidence.

you mean faith is an act of belief in the absence of proof?.......how novel.......

What meant was faith is an act of belief in the absence of critical thought.

then you would be full of shit, because I viewed everything you posted critically......