(September 26, 2012 at 4:52 am)Tiberius Wrote: Your father is half right, however I would argue that being agnostic is the only logical choice. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not beliefs. When you take "knowledge" in an absolute literal "x is true" sense, then agnosticism is simply an acceptance of human fallibility.
So, you either have to argue that you are infallible, or you have to be an agnostic.
I should note that being an agnostic does not prevent one from being religious, or being an atheist. Religious and atheistic beliefs are beliefs, not knowledge, so one can happily believe them but never claim them as absolute truths (though one can state a belief that they are absolute truths without invalidating ones agnosticism).
Thank you for actually responding to what I've said. People should learn from your example.
I have a lot of respect for agnostics. They at least are honest in saying there is no way to prove that God does not exist.
Atheists, on the other hand, assert that God does not exist, and then refuse to ever provide any proof for that assertion.
So its really impossible to argue with an atheist, because its a faith-based proposition that there is no God, not subject to critical analysis.
