chinook echoed my thoughts perfectly.

In regards to the Unicorn bit, I would say it is much more likely that they are the result of someone adding a horn to a horse than them being an animal that nobody has any documented proof of.

You're lumping Atheists in to one group. Within the banner of Atheism there are a million and idea's and varying degree's of certainty.

The point I've been trying to make is that I'm as confident that there are no gods/deities with the same confidence that I can say there are no unicorns or fairies. What proof do I have for there being no fairies or unicorns? I only have common sense, what I know of physics, the natural world, common sense and logic.

If you ask me to provide proof absolute that there are no fairies or unicorns then I can't do that.

An assertion or belief for me personally relies upon the evidence that there is available not on the evidence for said claim that isn't there.

If you asked me if there is a personal god, a god who loves and cares for mankind then i would answer unequivocally that there is no such being.

As for any gods or deities on the broader spectrum then I would answer that I have no proof against such a notion but according to all the evidence to hand and using my common sense and logic, I can say with certainty there is no god. I can say this with the same certainty with which I dismiss unicorns, Xenu and fairies.

You're missing the point.

I'll try this, do you believe in fairies? If not you are Atheistic towards fairies. Now, you can be Agnostic towards fairies too and say you don't know as a provable absolute that there are no fairies.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist in the sense that I don't think you can provide proof absolute that there are no deities but I believe there to be non.

Agnosticism refers to knowledge and Atheism to belief. For instance, even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).


I think for clarity I need you to explain what you mean by you being agnostic. I ask as there are Agnostic theists who don't claim to be able to prove for as an absolute a god but believe there to be one.

I came on to respond to something from yesterday... I'm overwhelmed. Have you ever been in a conversation with two two women and realize that as you are trying to respond to one person, the other two have continued on in a totally different vein? I am lost.

While I am here though, let me ask my own question.
I have no problem with the Big Bang even from a religious stand point. Something from nothing. That's a religious theme.

Where we differ is the root of the Big Bang. The religious believe that there was a Deity that provided the raw materials. I am not sure what atheists believe. Where did these chemicals come from that created the explosion from which all life sprung forth.

I read A Briefer History of Time ( a dumbed-down version of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking) and the only answer I got, was that scientists don't care about where it came from. How the chemicals came together in the first place is not their concern. It's what happened afterward that matters.

Doggylives, you seem intelligent - any thoughts?

Isn't religion supposed to be about faith and belief rather than knowledge and proof?

So if someone doesn't actively believe and they are atheists, then where are agnostics? They "cannot know", but do they have the faith?

I always thought that an agnostic could also be someone who doesn't know if there is a god. I would personally class myself as this. I haven't seen conclusive proof that there is a god but haven't seen any that there isn't one.

How wrong you can be :D

I don't actually have the necessary information and knowledge about the big bang theory to add anything to what is already known.

I do however disagree that scientists, "don't care about where it came from". I think it's more of a fact of it not being a necessity to the theory itself.

As I said somewhere else in the thread, I don't know the origin of life as of yet, no one does for a certainly. However, I'm comfortable with that.

I don't feel the need to fill in the gaps of human knowledge with the unproven and unprovable.

As I said earlier, there was a point in time before electricity was discovered and before there was the knowledge we have now that thunder was attributed to Thor and lightening to Zeus. We've since filled those gaps in understanding with proven, scientific facts.

I feel the same about the origins of life, although there are theories as yet unproven, theories that may or may not turn out to be accurate, I am more than happy with the level of evidence for evolution for natural causes. I don't feel the need to lever myth into gaps in knowledge.

Have you seen proof there are no fairies?

Also, to save me repeating myself and to clear up the apparent confusion...

I am Agnostic, I am not an athiest or a thiest. Some days I convince myself that there probably is a god, some days I convince myself there probably isn't. Some days I come up with huge theories on how it could all work, and completely forget them once the pot wears off.

The other day I tried explaining one of these grand theories to the wife, to which she replied "hey, you just ripped that off that Jet Li movie The One".. so apparantly my crazy ideas aren't even always original

I have faith that at this point in time, nobody actually can answer the question "is there a god?"

I also don't care. Maybe there's a god. Maybe there isn't. If there is, I'm not going to worry about what to eat or when to have sex or which god to pick. If there isn't, I'm still not going to worry.

So what convinces you some days that there is a god? Or can't you remember now lol

The thing with me is that unless something is logical, proven, reasonable I don't believe it. That's were I stand with regards to deities.

I can say with utmost certainty though that there is no personal god. There's is no deity that loves, cares for or is interested in humans. So that counts out for starters the Christian view of god.

I believe you can with the same certainty that I can say there's no celestial teapot or Xenu etc.

Is a god possible? Arguably yes. Is a god probable? Well the answer from lack of evidence or proof is, IMO, and many others a resounding no.

There is probably no god. There is most likely no god, just like there is most likely no such thing as ghosts, Xanadu or talking trees.

As a scientist, I'm not comfortable saying that there is no god. I will say that all observations and relevant evidence strongly suggests there is no god or gnomes or faeries or...etc.

There is no proof, only evidence. And I absolutely agree that the answer to "is god probable" is no.

The book "The Sirens of Titan" by Vonnegut has many interesting things to say about humanity and religion. About halfway through the book the church of god the utterly indifferent is set up. The main belief in this religion is that if god does exist then he wouldn't bother with the insignificant struggles of humans. An interesting read certainly.

I've never heard an argument for a god that can constitute real evidence. Just saying.

The rest I agree with you on.

I've not read either Brief or Briefer, but this isn't the case at all.

It's not that no-one is interested in knowing what happened prior to the first few moments after "The Big Bang", it's more a recognition that right now we don't have the intellectual tools to understand that with the information that we currently have. The goal is to firstly understand what happened in the first massive expansion and then from that understanding work backwards to and then possibly even before The Singularity*.

Something that I see quite a lot (and this is general, not aimed at anyone specific) is that those who take a stance opposed to Science (often a pro-religion stance) try to infer that gaps in our current knowledge represent failure rather than a path to greater understanding.

Now to turn this around, having read The Bible, it seems to me that no-one is interested in how God came together in the first place, only what happened afterwards.

Further, any attempt to discuss it is met with a brick wall, rather than the excitement of the possibility of discovering something new.


*A slightly sci-fi sounding name which is often used to mean "We know something big happened but we don't, at this stage, know what it is".

God made me double post

Ahhh, but irreducible complexity ends with god ;)

It's elephants all the way down, as the woman once said.

"Evidence" is a nice word for 'these are the things that show there is/is not a god'. Some will say complex biological plans are proof, some say they are not, either way it's evidence. How evidence is supported by other evidence and interpreted by the observer to be repeatably determined through an established process becomes the proof.

So, yes, there's lots and lots and lots of evidence...just doesn't all tie up in to a tidy package to create a proof in either direction. For you, yes, it does, but logic does not explain all the evidence, ergo, it's not 'proven' according to the scientific standards associated with the term.

It's kind of like defining beauty. Two people can stand on a beach and watch the sun set over the ocean. One person sees the sky turn red, golden streaks riding the waves, and be inspired by the beauty of nature. Another person sees the sunlight redden by hitting dust/smoke/particulates in the sky from fires and pollution and be disgusted at the thought of breathing it in.