Are you Agnostic?

[Ace Otana]

for some people the world and the creation of everything is an evidence and also you can find the evidence by using logic and reasoning

That's the thing you see, there is no evidence to suggest that the planet was created. There is evidence to suggest that it could and had formed on it's own naturally.

are you suspecting that i am a guy????

Huh?

thats not logic there is a lot of things you cant see it or touch it and you believe in it

It was a small example of evidence. There are many things that cannot be seen but can be detected, measured and repeated.

the complication in any creation is an evidence

No it isn't. Complexity does not prove god's existance. Nature is very capable of forming/creating many complex things without outside assistance.

i believe that if someone doesnt believe in the existance of god and he didnt search deeply in different religions nothing will ever make him believe even if he see or touch by himself he will always find an exit to any proofs he get(thats my opinion correct me if am wrong)

I disagree. No one should have to look deeply into anything religious. If you don't believe in god then that's it. I haven't seen any kind of convincing evdence to support god's existance. Therfor I lack believe in it. Simple.
I have BTW looked into a few religions but they all seem to say the same thing. "Goddidit".
I'm not interested in religion. So I'm not going to waste much time on it.

will always find an exit to any proofs he get(thats my opinion correct me if am wrong)

You're wrong. Science isn't in the habit of making excuses for rejecting claims. Many theists say they have evidence/proof but when it is rejected because it's not evidence, theists start running around saying "you're just blind" or "you're in denial". Your so-called "evidence" is not evidence. If you do have evidence, I and many others like me will be more than happy to examine it.

[annatar]

you cant prove god's non-existance:)
none of the atheists can say 'there is definitely no god.' Becouse you dont have any proof about it. Even if science would be closed all gaps about universe(which is a delusion) there will be always someone who will say 'there is a god and he made all universe.And he is hiding himself so you cant find him'(just like fsm)... so you can't scientifically disprove god.(Edit:by the way there is no need of evidence in order to believe that there is a god. you can simply say he is too powerful and he can hide everything from you just for fun:D ) You can only prove that there is a creator if you find him:)... imagine some atheists shouting 'we believe there is no god!' or 'have faith on god's non-existance!':P just like theists do. that would be absurd. atheists only can say "The existence of God is unlikely" and that means all atheists are agnostic..

[Minimalist]

there is no evidence to suggest that there is a god and so I lack belief in god's existance.

what kind of evidance you are looking for???

Something more than a silly old book of bad poetry written by con artists to fool ignorant tribesmen.

[Paul the Human]

you cant prove god's non-existance

... atheists only can say "The existence of God is unlikely" and that means all atheists are agnostic..

That is why I always say that when attached to the word 'atheist', the word 'agnostic' is superfluous. It simply goes without saying. Now, if an atheist believed that he knew for certain there is no god, the word 'gnostic' would be required to differentiate him/her from the default atheism... which is agnostic.

The opposite is true for theists. A 'gnostic theist'. That describes almost ever 'religious person' in the world. They know, without a speck of doubt, that god exists. It's a given. Those who are willing to admit that they cannot know for sure... 'agnostic theists' are different than the default, so the word 'agnostic' is required for clarity.

^ My 2 Cents.

[mo3taz3nbar]

That's the thing you see, there is no evidence to suggest that the planet was created. There is evidence to suggest that it could and had formed on it's own naturally.

that is one of the problems between theist and atheists when science discover something atheists say that the nature is like that but theists see that this is how God created the earth we dont think that the earth or any creation came to existance suddenly we believe that god make a reason for things to happen

It was a small example of evidence. There are many things that cannot be seen but can be detected, measured and repeated.

no am talking about that there is a lot of things you believe because of only logic and the lack of the reason to lie about it.like if i said in my profile that am a guy you will believe me because there is no reason to lie about my gender and there is also no benefits for me but in fact if i said am a girl it may help me when talking about women in islam that is what i meant

No it isn't. Complexity does not prove god's existance. Nature is very capable of forming/creating many complex things without outside assistance.

lol the same problem here i see it as nature is made capable of forming complex things and the rules of nature is what i see cant be by chance

I disagree. No one should have to look deeply into anything religious. If you don't believe in god then that's it. I haven't seen any kind of convincing evdence to support god's existance. Therfor I lack believe in it. Simple
I have BTW looked into a few religions but they all seem to say the same thing. "Goddidit".
I'm not interested in religion. So I'm not going to waste much time on it.

you havnt seen any kind of convincing evidence because you didnt search deep in religious scriptures.you will not be wasting time its really interesting wether you believe at the end or not

You're wrong. Science isn't in the habit of making excuses for rejecting claims.

i was talking about atheists not science

Many theists say they have evidence/proof but when it is rejected because it's not evidence, theists start running around saying "you're just blind" or "you're in denial". Your so-called "evidence" is not evidence. If you do have evidence, I and many others like me will be more than happy to examine it.

yeah you are right thats happen a lot and sometimes its so wierd because you cant really see how this is an evidence like healing and dreams and stuff like that but i used to examine these things to become sure its really nothing

[Ace Otana]

that is one of the problems between theist and atheists when science discover something atheists say that the nature is like that but theists see that this is how God created the earth we dont think that the earth or any creation came to existance suddenly we believe that god make a reason for things to happen

That's the big differance between you and me. I conclude based on evidence. Evidence does point towards natural chance events. Do you know how unlikely it was for you to even be born? If your parents had sex even by a minute off, you never would have been born? It is by sheer chance that your parents meet and had sex at the right time for you to come into existance. Just a few seconds off and someone else probably would have taken your place. This is all by sheer chance.
Now it's more likely that things happen by natural chance events. There is no evidence for a god...at all.

no am talking about that there is a lot of things you believe because of only logic and the lack of the reason to lie about it.like if i said in my profile that am a guy you will believe me because there is no reason to lie about my gender

Claiming what gender you are and to claim that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being that created everything are two very differant things. One is an unextrodanry claim, while the other is not. One is likely while the other is not. One needs no evidence, while the other needs evidence.

lol the same problem here i see it as nature is made capable of forming complex things and the rules of nature is what i see cant be by chance

You exist by sheer chance. Why can't everything else?
If you respond by saying "god willed it" then we go back to...prove it.

you havnt seen any kind of convincing evidence because you didnt search deep in religious scriptures.you will not be wasting time its really interesting wether you believe at the end or not

Sorry mate. I'd rather do other things with my time. I'll look into claims and view the "evidence" but I won't waste any time looking into religion. I really do have better things to do. Like exploring the female body...and getting wet each time.

i was talking about atheists not science

Ah well, as an atheist I don't try to make excuses when it comes to viewing the so-called evidence. If it's not evidence, then I'm going to reject it. Simple really.

[Scented Nectar]

Even though, as with anything I strongly believe or disbelieve in, I am willing to look at evidence presented to the contrary, I will absolutely not use the word agnostic in describing myself regarding these things. The word is too often thought of as meaning one gives a realistic amount of possibility to the nutter claims. I think most people see it as meaning one gives a 50% chance to there being a god.

I won't give these ridiculous claims that sort of dignified lip service. I am a strong atheist in regards to every single (or multiple) gods I have ever heard of. And even the bare concept of some sort of creator being, well if there were one, and our universe is some sort of ant farm in this being's living room, well that wouldn't be a god either. Once something is explained, it is no longer supernatural and divine and holy.

Gnostic Atheist is more like it. Although, even with that one, people tend to think of Gnostic as referring to the older cluster of religions often put in that category. Plain old atheist will do just fine.

I am not agnostic about knowing I have brown hair, even though I am open to any evidence that may be shown to me by someone claiming my hair is purple with pink polka dots.

[Purple Rabbit]

I am not agnostic regarding belief in god, for that would mean that there are logically coherent god concepts available to assess. Where the agnostic postpones final conclusions and stops at "inconclusive judgement" the theological non-cognitivist refutes that the concept can be evaluated and stops at "unsound proposition". Labeling oneself as agnostic implicitly credits god concepts as logically sound ones. I haven't found one such god concept so far. At the same time I am an anti-theist, because I think theism delivers corrupt morals to humans. For short you can (as I do myself) call me an atheist.

[Welsh cake]

I'm an Atheist Agnostic also, though back when I first started to de-convert I did go through a phase where you could have called me an Ignostic, since I required from theists a coherent definition of the deity they argued was real.

Then I stopped the futile goal of knowing with certainty and realised the true beauty and honesty in the often-despised statement "I don't know", because its the only proper way to start off any kind of investigation into the unknown, and as a position within responding to my opponents' arguments, unlike their positive ontological claims, it carried no burden of proof at all.

While I lack belief in any kind of god or "supernatural" entity, and within the context of practical knowledge such concepts are meaningless, from the debates I had with others regarding deities, and in turn, avoiding unjustifiable arguments they were blundering upon as a rebuttal I finally identified myself as a weak agnostic, because the existence of a cosmos creator is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable. To assert a universe-creator is for a fact knowable or unknowable without prior evidence is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

[Autumnlicious]

Agnosticism is defensible for the meantime until a deity becomes provable. A meantime that will never end.