An arguement for Agnoticism - against Atheism.

[© tweed]

(Please point out typos).

why don't we begin with the thread title.

[© tweed]

(Please point out typos).

why don't we begin with the thread title.

LOL. Yes, I always spell it that way. Like the word "Aswell". It's a childhood trait I can't quite shrug off.

also, 'agnoticism' as opposed to 'agnosticism'

[© tweed]

in sort-of actual response to what you wrote, the assumption of a lack of God has basis in Western thought.  it is similar to the 'innocent-until-proven-guilty' cliche.  your argument goes beyond that in stating that our sensory perception isn't advanced enough to observe a God, but, that tends to be my logic.  I don't profess to know the truth, which sort of makes me an agnostic, I suppose, but gun-to-my-head, I would 'guess' against the existence of a 'god' so I self-label as an atheist.

[© tweed]

I think it can all come down to this, simply:

Atheism is based on the lack of proof that God exists. But they cannot prove that he does not exist. Either is possible therefore Agnosticism is the only safe belief.

proving negatives is far more difficult than proving positives

[© tweed]

I think it can all come down to this, simply:

Atheism is based on the lack of proof that God exists. But they cannot prove that he does not exist. Either is possible therefore Agnosticism is the only safe belief.

proving negatives is far more difficult than proving positives

Understood, but neither side backs their point up with any proof.

evangelicals think they do.  basically, it boils down to "it is extremely unlikely that all of these things are coincidental."  or, "I heard voices!"  the latter more frightening.