Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_j
I consider myself an agnostic
but I have declared war on organised religion and their methods
I may not know if God exists or not, but I do know that it is highly unlikely to be the christian or the muslim God
what I do not agree with atheism is that aheism believe to the power of knowing(it means they truly truly believe) that there is no God, you simply cannot prove that
maybe there is and he doesn't care
or maybe all he did was create the big rock that blew up and left
God existing does not necessarly mean he prepared a heaven and a hell for humans, it might be as if he did not exist anyway
atheists are dimissing alot of possibilities that have a chance of being true
|
I agree with the idea you're conveying, I am also IN THAT Sense agnostic. However, when it comes to real ground, atheism is the most valid, simply because the only reason we give importance to any "God" is simply because of what religion has taught us. So any other form of "God" will be very very very useless, just like it meant nothing, and it we would only be calling it God according to the "metaphysical" power it holds. Let me give you an example. Let's say Science discovers that everything in this world started with a certain move, explosion, whatever, you would be calling it God, right ? Let's say after time they said that something preceded this explosion, you would now no more attributed God to the explosion but to the thing that proceeded it. It's inane, to be honest, because that means whatever happens would be called God. You would just be calling it God and giving it a name while in fact in value it might not be more significant than any nuclear bomb that happens nowadays or any phenomena that you see in your life. So yes, unlike the God of religion, you probably can't completely disprove that God in the form of force doesn't exist, but it is very very very useless. Besides, let's get back to the old question ; why would you want someone to disprove what cannot be proved in the first place ?