I don,t know because i don,t have any eviddence of existance of God but i also don,t have clear and proper evidence that God does not exist. I am free thinker.

(March 29, 2015 at 7:23 am)myrobot Wrote: I don,t know because i don,t have any eviddence of existance of God but i also don,t have clear and proper evidence that God does not exist. I am free thinker.

Then you are thinking exactly like the majority of atheists here with regard to the god question. While some atheists declare without doubt that no god exists, most of us are in the unconvinced category -- that is, we have not encountered a good reason to hold a belief in a deity.

A lot of people have the outdated notion that an atheist must be someone who believes absolutely that there is no god. I used to think like that and I called myself an agnostic back then. It finally got though my thick skull that believing in no god is NOT the same as not believing in a god.

Here's an analogy: I don't have any clear evidence of the existence of bigfoot but I also don't have clear and proper evidence that bigfoot does not exist. If I get evidence to convince me of its existence, I will believe in it. Until then, I will remain an unbeliever in bigfoot (an abigfootist).

I now think that a lot of self-labeled agnostics (at least those who are using the term as I once did) are actually atheists without realizing it because they don't properly understand what atheism actually means. An atheist is someone without a belief in a god. That's it; that's all there is to it.

I agree, almost everyone who calls themselves just agnostic is almost certainly an atheist.

(March 29, 2015 at 10:13 am)robvalue Wrote: I agree, almost everyone who calls themselves just agnostic is almost certainly an atheist.

Yes. I think you recently started a thread to that effect, which I failed to subscribe to and can no longer find. I'd much appreciate it if you direct me to it.

By the way, you're one of my favorite posters here. I think you're brilliant, man.

(March 29, 2015 at 7:07 am)Riketto Wrote:

(March 28, 2015 at 9:48 pm)Tonus Wrote: Now that's an interesting approach.  "If I just say that I believe, I don't have to prove what I say."  In a way, that is religion in a nutshell.

You guys don't even prove anything after you state something. 

So the key is to never "state" anything without claiming it is just "a belief" and then you never have to prove it.  That explains your posting history, I guess.

Thank you Thackerie Wow you just made my day! I really appreciate it. It's always a pleasure to read your posts too

Let's see... I'll have a look through my posts and see if I can find the one you mean. I did one a while ago discussing whether agnostic was a term with any value or not.

Here we are, maybe you could see if this is the one you mean? If not I'll have another look.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30131.html

(March 29, 2015 at 12:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Here we are, maybe you could see if this is the one you mean? If not I'll have another look.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30131.html

That's the one. Thanks muchly!

You're most welcome

(March 28, 2015 at 3:28 am)Riketto Wrote: By the way thack, if you rely on the support that your friends can give you think again.
I already knocked them down before when they fail to prove that man is omnivore and other things so if you can is much better that you rely on your own intellect but to do this you will have to state only what can be proved not on your fantasies.

Lying again Riketto.  

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24304-po...#pid639279