Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).
I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.
Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.
|
Agnosticism is the belief that man can not distinguish whether or not there is a god and which one is real. Atheism is the scientific stance.
Also you are getting the term confused we are using reason now not rationality.