For the athiests here who claim athiesm is the only logical conclusion...

Take a look at any YouTube video of William Lane Craig. He is a Christian philosopher (not a theologian, but a philosopher) who has had many debates with prominent athiests to include Christopher Hitchens. The entire basis of his positions are grounded in classical logic.

He is not demeaning to athiests, he merely concludes their position on God is not at all logical. He grants that there is some possible logic in being agnostic, but not athiestic.

I think most athiests who are not vehemently anti Christian would find him at least to be interesting, if you are not persuaded.

Anonymous wrote:Word 15:38. the whole notion of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god is an impossibility, a logical fallacy. He can't be all three.

+2

Word 15:38. the whole notion of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god is an impossibility, a logical fallacy. He can't be all three.

He does. All the time. He even came to earth in human flesh. If you're not seeing God in everyday life, you're not looking!

You won't have any luck with atheists with this argument. First, we don't believe in God. Second, we do believe that everything that happens is explicable without reference to supernatural interference.

(And, he doesn't "make" people suffer. People suffer in this life due to their own misdeeds (#1) or because evil exists in the world, or because of the powers of nature, etc. etc.

This is where atheists look at believers with wonder and astonishment.

On the one hand, you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent entity that has a plan for each of us, and, on the other, when disasters happen (i.e., not one of us exercising free will and shooting up a movie theatre), you look around at the catastrophic devastation, death and suffering and say, "Thank God for saving the ones who survived! It could've been worse!"

The implication of this is either (a) that God killed off all those people and caused all that suffering as part of his plan or (b) that natural catastrophes are outside of God's control and so all He can do is attempt to save those he can and minimize the damage. If (a), your deity is a sociopath. If (b), your deity is not omniscient/omnipotent.

Or, you can feel free to explain how God is omnipotent/omniscient and yet isn't responsible for the death, devastation and suffering associated with natural disasters, but does get credit for those who survive, including the supposed "miraculous" events like babies discovered in a collapsed building days after an earthquake.

If God is incapable of preventing the disasters, but knows they are coming and doesn't provide any warning, then He's at best uncaring. If he's incapable of preventing the disasters, then He's also not "omnipotent."

If God is capable of saving some people, but not others, again, He's not omnipotent. If He's capable of saving all and chooses not to, He's a sociopath.

But ultimately, in this life, we will all meet the same fate.

On that we can all agree.

Sorry, but that just sounds silly. You can't argue that God has a plan and then say that everything bad that happens is because of the evil in the world. What's the point of a God that doesn't give a shit what happens to his creation?

I'm atheist because I think religion is more often used as a sword than anything else. Far too many wars, hurt, damage and pain have been caused in the name of somebody's "God."

Anonymous wrote:I am an atheist. If I wanted to believe in a higher being, there are plenty to choose from. That very fact makes me believe that the need for religion is just a basic human psychology thing ... a way for societies to make sense of the world around them and also to organize themselves so it isn't complete chaos. The irony is that having all these different religions has caused chaos (wars, etc.!).

How can there be so many higher beings to chose from?

I don't think I know anything for sure, but I don't believe in a God. I think it's quite likely that there are other living forms beyond this planet. But I don't believe anyone is controlling what we are all doing here. I believe in randomness.

And if there is a God - why doesn't he just show him/herself? Why does he/she make people suffer? It just doesn't make any sense.

He does. All the time. He even came to earth in human flesh. If you're not seeing God in everyday life, you're not looking! (And, he doesn't "make" people suffer. People suffer in this life due to their own misdeeds (#1) or because evil exists in the world, or because of the powers of nature, etc. etc. But ultimately, in this life, we will all meet the same fate.

OP, how do you know there are not multiple gods?

But it isn't a "versus." A person can actually be both an agnostic and an atheist. They answer two different questions. They are not two different answers to the same question.

I see you missed the and decided to take my comment seriously.

Your technical post is correct about the difference between the two terms, and most people don't understand it (and, in all likelihood, never will.)

Now your choices are to go flog yourself with a noodle and beg the FSM's forgiveness for taking things too seriously, or sit in the lap of the Satan statue being proposed for the Oklahoma State capitol with a sign that says, "Ask me about the difference between atheism and agnosticism."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are very few atheists. At most, they're agnostic.

? atheist and agnostic are two entirely different philosophical positions. They are NOT two different degrees of the same position. So the "at most" doesn't apply. Agnosticism isn't a stop on the way to atheism. They are two distinctly different things. An agnostic person isn't "more" religious or even more partial to religion than an atheist. Agnosticism is a position on epistemology. Atheism is more a position on metaphysics. The one is a position about human knowledge and it's limitations. The other is about the nature of existence and what is.

Now don't you go getting technical. Since we can't actually have doctrinal schisms, arguing over agnostic vs. atheist is the best us non-believers can do.

But it isn't a "versus." A person can actually be both an agnostic and an atheist. They answer two different questions. They are not two different answers to the same question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are very few atheists. At most, they're agnostic.

No, people just say they are agnostic over atheists as it is more socially acceptable.

I don't agree. I almost hate telling Christians I'm agnostic because they have this bizarre notion that they still might be able to get me on board.

It has only convinced me that most people don't understand what agnostic means. I'll give you a hint: It doesn't mean "undecided."

But a lot of Christians think it does and they see it as an invitation to persuade me. Nope. Not happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are very few atheists. At most, they're agnostic.

? atheist and agnostic are two entirely different philosophical positions. They are NOT two different degrees of the same position. So the "at most" doesn't apply. Agnosticism isn't a stop on the way to atheism. They are two distinctly different things. An agnostic person isn't "more" religious or even more partial to religion than an atheist. Agnosticism is a position on epistemology. Atheism is more a position on metaphysics. The one is a position about human knowledge and it's limitations. The other is about the nature of existence and what is.

Now don't you go getting technical. Since we can't actually have doctrinal schisms, arguing over agnostic vs. atheist is the best us non-believers can do.

its limitations, not it's limitations

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are very few atheists. At most, they're agnostic.

? atheist and agnostic are two entirely different philosophical positions. They are NOT two different degrees of the same position. So the "at most" doesn't apply. Agnosticism isn't a stop on the way to atheism. They are two distinctly different things. An agnostic person isn't "more" religious or even more partial to religion than an atheist. Agnosticism is a position on epistemology. Atheism is more a position on metaphysics. The one is a position about human knowledge and it's limitations. The other is about the nature of existence and what is.

Because I have a brain.

I'm an atheist. Because logically, religion and god doesn't make any sense to me, and it's plainly clear (at least to me) that they are 100% human creations.

As for being "sure" there isn't a god - well, which god are you talking about? Jesus? Zeus? Amenhotep? Allah? Yahweh? Zoraster? Enki? There are a hell of a lot of different gods. How do you choose which one you believe in?