I voted agnostic. I believe in ... something ... but I don't have any feeling of certainty about what that something is. I get very confused by people who are so certain they know what reality really is.
That is why I say - The company of those seeking the truth is much preferred to that of those who think they have already found it"
Honestly, many say they are just because it the cool thing now. It is a symbol of anti-establishment. In my opinion, Atheist are no different than any major religion for they claim to know something that is not possible to know.
They say that a God does not exist which is the same as saying he does. It is a claim that can not be backed up by any real facts.
pixies live in my shoes and they are all called brian. Do you believe that to be true? What an atheist says is that there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that a god exists as true. Rejecting a claim on those grounds is not even remotely the same thing as making the claim. I assume you aren't going to accept the statement i made above about pixies living in my shoes as true. But is your rejection of that statement equally as valid as the assertion that it is true; In other words, is the claim that pixies live in my shoes and your rejection of that claim "the same thing"?
agnostic, although I use the terms agnostic and atheist somewhat interchangeably to describe myself , even though I know they are technically different.
No, it's not the same. The second one is the one that should be backed up by real facts. One doesn't need to provide evidence to say that any imaginable thing that doesn't exist really doesn't exist.
No Agnostics make that claim. True Atheist states there is no God. Not that there is not enough evidence. Sure they do. There is dated historical documents that back up claims that a God exist. Though not enough to prove there is a God, there is also no such proof there is no God. Since one can not prove or disprove, there is nothing but the middle ground.
All you are doing is creating a deceitful straw-man. Atheism is the rejection of theism, There's a clue in the word. Could you answer my question.
Show me many years of historical documentation and I would be an Agnostic about Pixies. Since those do not exist, there is no argument. However, there are such documents regarding Gods so I can not prove one point or the other. As such, neither can you. Saying there is no God is atheism saying you do not have enough evidence one way or the other is Agnostic.
Ah i see, so arguments asserting that there is a god are supposed to be given some kind of special consideration that isn't afforded to assertions that pixies exist. But many cultures have stories about pixies, I dare some say older than the story of jesus. So are you agnostic towards pixies? or do you, As i suspect you do, reject the claim that they exist? This is the point where if you answer honestly you will dismantle your own facile argument.
See you are referring to God as Jesus when not once did I refer to Jesus. I said a God. there are religions as far back as any historical evidence shows of a higher being. This has nothing to do with Jesus. Stories of Pixies are not even historically in the same category. Point to any historical documentations of any pixie.
I used jesus as an example of one god myth supposedly supported by the "evidence" of being once written down. You do realise that this "evidence" is nothing more than people writing down what they assumed was true, right? Why would it need to be documentation? You do accept that many stories exist that contain pixies, don't you? In reality these stories are no more evidence of pixies than the stories containing gods are evidence for a god.
How do you know Queen Elizabeth existed? King Henry? They are supported by historical documentation. As is most of history. I go by history and evidence. Many people who believe in any certain religion goes by historical evidence as do you in the fact that your Queens and Kings existed. I personally believe the historical evidence of religions are flawed and contradict each other. This does not dismiss 100% that any of them are not real. As such, I nor you can prove one way or the other. If you can provide me with one historical documentation of pixies, I would be more than happy to give the same consideration to those documents.
The problem i have is that you think religious texts are a comparable form of evidence supporting the existence of a god as historical documents are supportive of the claim that there once was a queen called Elizabeth. Religious texts aren't evidence of the existence of god, It's only evidence that some people, at some point, thought a god existed and wrote that belief down. Again, why would you need it documented? You do concede that some people, At some point, have claimed to have seen them and thought they existed, right? what difference does it make if they wrote it down other than giving you an excuse to get out of answering in an honest way?
Your own argument is deluded by your belief system. You are no different than someone of any other faith. You deny any belief system but your own. What honest answer would you like? Your own argument was "You do realise that this "evidence" is nothing more than people writing down what they assumed was true, right?" With that flawed argument, explain to me how you know that any of your Kings and Queens existed? I can tell you because it was written down and thus became historical documents. Because you personally have a belief system, it does not discount and make false anyone else's belief system. It is purely a faith driven belief. You have the faith that there is no God at all. How does this differ than a person of another religion who swears their God is the one and only God? Prove to me that there is no higher being or God? You can't prove that just as a religious person can not prove there is. Your speculation is based solely on your faith. You have no more proof that a God does not exist than a religious person has that one does. Spending hours arguing in every religious thread you can find does not discount that fact. Back to your fairy tales of pixies. Yes many stories existed to enchant and charm children and were passed on much like Mother Goose and Grimm's fairy tales. It was not much different than TV and movies are used now to entertain people. Those are not comparable to the fact that almost every culture in World History has believed in some form of a God. These were so prevalent that many Governments including your own were strongly influenced by such beliefs. If you want true honesty, you ,as I do. would admit you have no proof that a God in any form does or does not exist. Maybe that is hard for you because of your rebellious nature or a bad childhood experience or whatever drives you to your faith. I understand if your faith is so strong that you can not come to such a conclusion. Hopefully, that will open your eyes to see that that same faith drives those who do believe.