Agnosticism makes more sense to me. I am indifferent to any belief. They all just doesn't make any sense. Regardless of how much monuments and population has risen for these things, they all simply make no sense to me. Most of these religion try to give definitions to God with ardent convictions of his pattern of behavior. They are so sure he extols fairness, justice and perfection. They might be right. But then, the inability of these religious theories to validate happenings in the world goes a long way to prove it's inconsistency. If there is a God he must have a strange sense of humor.

The atheist folks use these as reasons to validate their belief that he doesn't exist. They oppose the image of an Omniscience, Omnipresent, fair, Good and considerate God that Christians, Muslims etc force down everyone's throat. The facts doesn't show he has been so far. So His existence is certainly false.

But then, using that as premise to arrive at such conclusions will mean that a God has to be Good, Just and Fair to all. Everything he does has to be perfect and consistent. How logical can this be? . A God is a God regardless of the moralistic nature of his actions. Afterall, what makes him a God in the first place is his ability to do what he likes. So understanding this point is key.

I don't work myself up trying to wonder why we will have a good God and Bad things will keep happening to good people....while hiding his existence and throws people in hell for not believing he exists. Doesn't sound fair. But then it doesn't affect the conclusion that he MIGHT be somewhere but doesn't have enough fvcks to give about us. Except only those he likes of course - 'The chosen people'.

The point is nobody is sure of anything. Both the religious and non-religious all have flaws in their arguments. A different school which are made of the agnostics just doesn't care. They are wise enough to not belief anything they cannot prove. The religious folks use a book that it's author is unknown as proof of God's existence but that is just inconceivable and ludicrous. The atheist too are so sure he doesn't exist without any substantial proof to back that up asides picking flaws in the proofs of the religious to arrive at their conclusion. There is humility in accepting that there are some things we don't know. That alone goes a long way to live a life filled with less tension, discrimination and hatred than we have today. Well as for me and other agnostics, we simply choose not to care.

Well, I'm very sure that GOD exists. The argument below convinces me beyond reasonable doubt.

www.nairaland.com/3688269/best-argument-existence-god

The position of the Christian, can be understood in the light of being a BELIEVER in the existence of God. It's by FAITH that we came to this conclusion.

The Christian who understands this, doesn't engage in the idiocy of proving anything, as far as the substantial evidence of the existence of God is concerned.

@op,

1."The atheist too are so sure he doesn't exist without any substantial proof to back that up asides picking flaws in the proofs of the religious to arrive at their conclusion"...........................................................You sound like a member of Deeper Life, pretending to be an agnostic!!! The Hindus have warned us several times, that if you eat meat, you are guilty of blasphemy!!! How many times have you eaten cow meat this year? WHAT?!!! So you eat cow meat? This sounds like someone who is 100% sure that the Hindu gods do not exist!!!

2."There is humility in accepting that there are some things we don't know"..............................................................................................You speak of humility as though it were a virtue!!! CHAI!!! The day men were proud enough to tell the church that the black plague was not sent by "a god", was the day when men managed to get a cure for the epidemic!!! The day men were bold enough to say that lightening was not the product of Thor, was the day we started having lightening conductors above roof tops!!! The day that men were confident enough to tell church leaders that gods do not talk to people, was the day the police rescued little kids from a sex-cult, after the leader insisted that god told him to sleep with the kids!!! The day men were courageous enough to anaylse a statue of jesus(with so called holy water dripping from it), was the day they discovered that the so called "holy water" was toilet water, and many of the faithfools had already drank it!!!...........................................To hell with humility!!!

Niflheim:
@op,

1."The atheist too are so sure he doesn't exist without any substantial proof to back that up asides picking flaws in the proofs of the religious to arrive at their conclusion"...........................................................You sound like a member of Deeper Life, pretending to be an agnostic!!! The Hindus have warned us several times, that if you eat meat, you are guilty of blasphemy!!! How many times have you eaten cow meat this year? WHAT?!!! So you eat cow meat? This sounds like someone who is 100% sure that the Hindu gods do not exist!!!

2."There is humility in accepting that there are some things we don't know"..............................................................................................You speak of humility as though it were a virtue!!! CHAI!!! The day men were proud enough to tell the church that the black plague was not sent by "a god", was the day when men managed to get a cure for the epidemic!!! The day men were bold enough to say that lightening was not the product of Thor, was the day we started having lightening conductors above roof tops!!! The day that men were confident enough to tell church leaders that gods do not talk to people, was the day the police rescued little kids from a sex-cult, after the leader insisted that god told him to sleep with the kids!!! The day men were courageous enough to anaylse a statue of jesus(with so called holy water dripping from it), was the day they discovered that the so called "holy water" was toilet water, and many of the faithfools had already drank it!!!...........................................To hell with humility!!!

I fail to see your point. The analogy of meat and Hinduism has no correlation with what I explained. Something has to be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' before anyone can belief it to be certain. Pointing out inconsistencies in a belief is proving the existence of a reasonable doubt that such belief isn't true. It doesn't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, it beats me how the word humility I used was so much stressed in your counter argument when it wasn't a point in itself.

While you might have spent some time thinking about these issues, i doubt you have done research on the terms you think you know much about, so let me just give you some pointers.

Theist : Someone who believes in the existence of a certain God or Gods

Atheist : Someone who reject the existence of a certain God or Gods

Agnostic : Someone who claims he/she has no sufficient information to make a definite claim


Now if you look at the definitions, an atheist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive, and that is because the atheist is not making a claim, he/she is REJECTING a claim that has been presented towards him/her.

So the idea that an atheist claims that "There is no God" is a pure myth and that is the propaganda that theists like to carry around.

I would use this illustration to make my point clear, Imagine you are holding a sack full of sand, and then i walked up to you and tell you that there are an EVEN number of grains in that sack, you ask me how do i know, i reply by saying "BY FAITH", then you reject it by saying "i dont believe it, no evidence", then i ask you, "Are you saying that there are ODD number of grains?"

What would be your answer?

NB: Just because you reject a claim doesnt mean you are automatically claiming the opposite...

@kaybams1,

I was not surprised when you said that you fail to see the point!!! You eat meat knowing fully well that the Hindu gods do not exist, then act surprised when you heard an atheist say that he is 100% certain that god does not exist!!!

DoctorAlien:
Well, I'm very sure that GOD exists. The argument below convinces me beyond reasonable doubt.

www.nairaland.com/3688269/best-argument-existence-god

Hehehe
Why won't they kiss hankass

donnffd:
While you might have spent some time thinking about these issues, i doubt you have done research on the terms you think you know much about, so let me just give you some pointers.

Theist : Someone who believes in the existence of a certain God or Gods

Atheist : Someone who reject the existence of a certain God or Gods

Agnostic : Someone who claims he/she has no sufficient information to make a definite claim


Now if you look at the definitions, an atheist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive, and that is because the atheist is not making a claim, he/she is REJECTING a claim that has been presented towards him/her.

So the idea that an atheist claims that "There is no God" is a pure myth and that is the propaganda that theists like to carry around.

I would use this illustration to make my point clear, Imagine you are holding a sack full of sand, and then i walked up to you and tell you that there are an EVEN number of grains in that sack, you ask me how do i know, i reply by saying "BY FAITH", then you reject it by saying "i dont believe it, no evidence", then i ask you, "Are you saying that there are ODD number of grains?"

What would be your answer?

NB: Just because you reject a claim doesnt mean you are automatically claiming the opposite...

Hmmmm... Am not too sure you have heard about a null and alternative hypothesis in research. If my research topic is 'investigating the existence of God' and my null hypothesis is saying 'God's existence is false'. The alternative hypothesis will always give a counter claim which is 'God's existence is true'. It's when you have defined that you can arrive at any conclusion in the first place. You rejecting a hypothesis cos it's structure has flaws in it but cannot provide an alternative hypothesis makes you an agnostic not an atheist. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS. Agnostics accept that they do not have the sufficient information to be on any side. So there is a difference.

Niflheim:
@kaybams1,

I was not surprised when you said that you fail to see the point!!! You eat meat knowing fully well that the Hindu gods do not exist, then act surprised when you heard an atheist say that he is 100% certain that god does not exist!!!

We have semantic problems here. I didn't focus on any race God. It could be Islam God, Christianity God or Hindu God. God here is used to mean an ultimate supreme being that has unlimited powers and is second to no one. So if Hindu believes eating meat is blasphemy and I do eat it, it doesn't mean I reject their claims. It could also mean until I have facts such claims are true I will continue eating meat. This is a no-brainer.

kaybams1:


Hmmmm... Am not too sure you have heard about a null and alternative hypothesis in research. If my research topic is 'investigating the existence of God' and my null hypothesis is saying 'God's existence is false'. The alternative hypothesis will always give a counter claim which is 'God's existence is true'. It's when you have defined that you can arrive at any conclusion in the first place. You rejecting a hypothesis cos it's structure has flaws in it but cannot provide an alternative hypothesis makes you an agnostic not an atheist. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS. Agnostics accept that they do not have the sufficient information to be on any side. So there is a difference.

Your arguments on atheism is faulty. First, atheism (for the lack of better word) isn't philosophical, ideological or conceptual position.

Atheism is mere "response position" to a mere claim of existence of nothing (god). This response is just a mere rational out play.

akintom:


Your arguments on atheism is faulty. First, atheism (for the lack of better word) isn't philosophical, ideological or conceptual position.

Atheism is mere "response position" to a mere claim of existence of nothing (god). This response is just a mere rational out play.

Atheism IS A BELIEF that God doesn't exist. Whether it's in response to religious beliefs or not, it doesn't change what it is. Kindly read more on Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism please to have a better understanding of my point.

kaybams1:


Atheism IS A BELIEF that God doesn't exist. Whether it's in response to religious beliefs or not, it doesn't change what it is. Kindly read more on Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism please to have a better understanding of my point.

I have come to consider intellectual arrogance as the worst crime, when it comes to intellectual discussion.

Did you read where i wrote *atheism (for the lack of better word)"? An understanding of what this means, will help your obvious intellectual arbitrariness.

akintom:

I have come to consider intellectual arrogance as the worst crime, when it comes to intellectual discussion.

Did you read where i wrote *atheism (for the lack of better word)"? An understanding of what this means, will help your obvious intellectual arbitrariness.

You said my argument is faulty. Then you went on to explain what you 'think' atheism is because you didn't have a better word for it. For you to say someone's argument is faulty you need to be able to understand every pertinent concept used in the discourse very well before opposing. I replied by defining it better and said you can read more on it to understand my point. And at the end you call that intellectual arrogance. You can do better than that.

kaybams1:


Atheism IS A BELIEF that God doesn't exist. Whether it's in response to religious beliefs or not, it doesn't change what it is. Kindly read more on Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism please to have a better understanding of my point.

I am an agnostic atheist, as are most atheists. Agnostic refers to knowing, and atheist refers to believing. They are different concepts. I do not believe that any god exists but I cannot be certain of that.

kaybams1:


You said my argument is faulty. Then you went on to explain what you 'think' atheism is because you didn't have a better word for it. For you to say someone's argument is faulty you need to be able to understand every pertinent concept used in the discourse very well before opposing. I replied by defining it better and saying you can read more on it to understand my point. And at the end you call that intellectual arrogance. You can do better than that.

Your display of intellectual arrogance and faulty line, are tied to your attitude of ignoring the point i raised. Telling you that atheism is a mere "response position", and that it has nothing in relation to philosophical, ideological or conceptual positions.

Since you fail to understand the meaning of "Atheism (for the lack of better word), i shall now tell you.

The word atheism in its ordinary semantic connotation, suggest that it's ideological or philosophical position. The very creators of this descriptive and ideological " ism" are religious folks.

The meaning of "for the lack of better word", comes from the fact that i am atheist, and the only "ismic" grammatical possibility for description is "Atheism".

Even though the religious folks, out of malice, will still insist on forcing the ideological connotation on atheists, the atheists (who are qualified to appropriately define their position) subscribe to no such position.

Well.most athiests are agnostics and not all agnostics are athiests

kaybams1:


Hmmmm... Am not too sure you have heard about a null and alternative hypothesis in research. If my research topic is 'investigating the existence of God' and my null hypothesis is saying 'God's existence is false'. The alternative hypothesis will always give a counter claim which is 'God's existence is true'. It's when you have defined that you can arrive at any conclusion in the first place. You rejecting a hypothesis cos it's structure has flaws in it but cannot provide an alternative hypothesis makes you an agnostic not an atheist. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS. Agnostics accept that they do not have the sufficient information to be on any side. So there is a difference.

is it that you ddnt read what i wrote or what, when did i say atheist and agnostics mean the same thing?

I am not here to argue with you, i saw a fallacy in your post and wanted to show you your mistake, its left for you to correct it.

Finally, if the two are so mutually exclusive, why do some people like Richard dawkins who is the worlds most famous atheist regards himself as an agnostic...

Understand concepts before you talk...

kaybams1:


Hmmmm... Am not too sure you have heard about a null and alternative hypothesis in research. If my research topic is 'investigating the existence of God' and my null hypothesis is saying 'God's existence is false'. The alternative hypothesis will always give a counter claim which is 'God's existence is true'. It's when you have defined that you can arrive at any conclusion in the first place. You rejecting a hypothesis cos it's structure has flaws in it but cannot provide an alternative hypothesis makes you an agnostic not an atheist. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS. Agnostics accept that they do not have the sufficient information to be on any side. So there is a difference.

My man, this is not a statistical argument but an argument that requires proof for it validity.
Hence, your null and alternate hypothesis does not make sense.

Note: hypothesis is just a guess.