Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Abaddon_ire]

I agree with this. Questions about God are metaphysics, and therefore not science by definition. But that doesn't lead me to agree with the sentence you wrote prior:


It is perfectly honest for many people to say that they don't know, that they're still working on it. Honesty doesn't require us to pick one team and oppose the other one.

What are they working at exactly ?

Total BS.

There cannot possibly be an empirical evidence about such a being, he either already revealed himself in one of the established religion or he simply doesn't exist, at least not with the interesting attributes (the three-Omni properties, etc.)

Gawd gets a free pass? From the normal evidential process?

[quote='Abaddon_ire' pid='1957251' dateline='1581727016']
Why? Nobody "believes in science". Science is a method not a faith. Science is the sole reason you can post this crap right here, right now. Want to reject the scientific method? Then you had better get of the internet, because that is a product of the science you apparently hate.

I see you're starting to build a strawman buddy. I hate confusing science with religion.

Consider ceasing to do it.

That has fuck all to do with skeptics. It is rather simple. Wanna make a claim? Go right ahead and provide your evidence. And you have failed in that task. Got evidence for whichever deity of your choice? Sure. Every skeptic and atheist would accept such evidence for whichever fucked up deity.

The problem is that none has been provided for any of the thousands of claimed deities.

Want me to believe in your particular flavour of deity? No problem. Provide evidence that it is real. And you cannot. This perpetual lack of evidence is not my problem. It is yours.

The thread is not about proving god again,

"Again"? Really? When has any deity been proven?

it's about taking the most honest position. Suspending judgement is not honest when it comes to the claim of an all-powerful all knowing just deity. The latter either revealed itself or doesn't exist. There is not midpoint here.

false dichotomy.

Not an atheists problem. It is the theist issue to demonstrate their claim of whichever claim they happen to make. Have you expended that effort disproving the god of Islam, Hindhuism, Sikhism Spiritualism, and so on through the countless thousands of claimed deities? Of course you haven't. Therefore we are forced to conclude that your deity is merely the same as Quetzalcaotl. Just another caliamed deity in a cornucopia of thousands of claimed deities, not one of which has any evidence.

Most of these claimed deities are mutually exclusive, once you have decisive evidence for one, you don't need to look up the rest. All the burden of disproving is on people who don't believe in any deity. This is an important nuance you should take some time to think about.

And you stupidly assume there exists a burden of disproof. That is false.

If you want to claim some deity, go right ahead. Feel free. But you will then have to provide evidence for such a claim. As an atheist, I believe in no god/s. I will quite happily believe in the deity that rocks up with EVIDENCE. Unitl then, no.

Nope. That's false.

Go back to school, sir. The first building blocks of any domain in mathematics are axioms we picked. All the theorems, lemmas and fantastic insights are logical deductions we do in our heads.

Still false.

False.

Riight, ignorant. Apparently, the rule of three was enough for Einstein to formalise general relatvity.

Also false. I have no idea which planet you come from, but it isn't this one