I find myself growing less tolerant with the people attempting to save my soul. They bother me endlessly. On the streets they try to convert me. They knock on my door and invite me to join their church. They cannot believe that I am happy without god in my life.

I've tried yo be nice. "No thank you," I say. "That's just not the way the universe works in my opinion. Please, just leave me alone." But, they are relentless.

Finally, I snapped. I told a man exactly why I thought he was a fool to believe in god. How stupid it is to think a virgin gave birth to a boy that grew up only to die, so he could rise from the grave and become the miracle zombie that would save all mankind by bathing them in his blood.

I pointed out, in his own bible how Jesus' own words prove he was a false prophet.

His reply was to ask me if I'd prayed about it.

I told him I had not and that I had not written a letter to Santa either.

I'm sure he went back to his church and told others about "poor, sad atheist" he came across and how angry I was.

Yea magic thinking requires no self examination. This tends to mold a persons view point around infallibility where upon they cannot self examine there own tendencies toward disrespect.

ie its always someone else being rude for not accepting there eternal wisdom.

I've always wanted to hang an inverted cross on my door as a sign to the various messengers of faith, I've just never been in a living situation where it was accepted by the entire household (I've lived in apartments with multiple roommates and the ex-wife wasn't fond of the idea either).

I used to get angry, but frankly, now I just treat it as a challenge. If I can make them question their faith while they are trying to make me question my lack thereof, I think its a pretty fair exchange. Screw it.

Over the past few years, I've made several people question what they believe (and two of them even broke down and cried). If nothing else, the next time someone says "no thanks, leave me alone", maybe they will.

Exactly, I find it quite sporting to engage them dispassionately.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good debate. Especially one like this where the deck is stacked in my favor. But, there's a time and place for it. Hanging out at the local coffee house is a great place to discuss this kind of thing. Just not when I'm busy or relaxing at home.

*knocks on the above posters door leaves a Watchtower magazine and runs*

I just wish I could get one of those Scientologists at my door ... I could laugh for HOURS!

"Huh, Sunday afternoon ... to hell with it, come on in. Want some coffee? Start from the beginning. Wait, let me call Guiness, the forthcoming mirth may be a record ..."

Hehehe.

Or Mormons. "Tell me about the magic underwear."

i love a good debate and will even ask the proselytizing faithful in and offer them something to drink and if i've nothing else to do, being retired i rarely do, will hear them out as long as they show an interest in hearing me out. in doing this i've accomplished a few worthwhile things, imo. first, while they're talking and listening to me they cannot bother my neighbors who don't have the time or inclanation to debate the issue. second, they'll likely never bother me again and third, from those that have continued to bother me i've converted a rare few to agnosticism and feel as though i've saved a mind or two. and yes, i've even converted the occasional atheist. even more of a rarity though.

It's my feeling that agnosticism is appropriate in some areas, life on other worlds for example. But, when it comes to any type of sentient god, atheism is the only realistic view in my opinion. Here is my reasoning; I cannot prove there is no god. I also cannot prove there isn't a giant teapot in orbit around the planet Saturn. However, I can deduce that said teapot is highly unlikely. The odds of sch a tea pot simply appearing out of nothingness are very long indeed. And a tea pot is a relatively simple thing when compared to a sentient god. The odds of any kind of sentient god must be far greater than those of the teapot.

It's the same with garden gnomes, or unicorns or dragons or Santa Clause. I've never met anyone that was agnostic about gnomes or unicorns (no adult anyway). Why would someone be agnostic about god? Some emotional desire for there to be someone tending the fire?

agnosticism really has nothing to do with religion. has to do with what is unkown and unknowable. i can know absolutely only what i experience myself. having experienced no gods, gnomes, unicorns, dragons, santa or the big bang i cannot know they exist or ever happened. a giant teapot in orbit i've yet to experience either as simple a thing that a teapot is.

so to answer your question, someone would be agnostic about god for the same reason he/she is agnostic about orbiting giant teapots or life on other worlds. until i experience either, they both remain unknown and unknowable.

Before any black holes were discovered we knew they had to be out there because what we already knew about the universe predicted they'd be out there. The big bang is the same. According to what Einstein taught us the big bang (or something like it) must have taken place or we're very wrong about the universe we live in.

As for alien lifeforms, there are about 100 billion galaxies out there, each having about 100 billion stars with planets suitable for life. So, if the odds of life evolving on any given planet are say 1,000,000,000 to 1 against, that would still mean there are about 100 billion planets out there with life. Therefore, alien life is a valid hypothesis.

God, on the other hand is not. A complex being like god doesn't just pop into existence. Everything we know tells us he'd have to come about after a long evolutionary process. Now, if you want to take away all of god's magical properties and replace them with advanced technology and make god into some kind of advance alien life form, that's another ball game.

All the evidence we have tells us there's no need for a god for the universe to have been created or for it to have evolved complex life forms like humans. The existence of a god explains nothing. We have better answers to our questions. There is simply no need for god to exist. Exactly the same as the teapot in orbit around Saturn.

we've yet to actually discover a black hole. all that we can see is the effect of a something we call a black hole that effect being an enormous gravity that even light cannot escape. einstein was an agnostic too and he'd be the first to tell you today that the big bang is still nothing but theory. a highly plausible theory but theory nontheless. here's how another well known theoretical physicist who holds the big bang theory as plausible describes a theory:

"A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct."

Stephen Hawking, The universe in a Nutshell.




granted. but an hypothisis does not even meet the standards of a theory much less something that we know as fact.



i want to take away none of "god's magical properties" and replace them with anything. i cannot even know if god exists unless i experience him any more than i can know that aleien life forms exist without experiencing them. magical properties are meaningless to something that cannot be known to even exist.



no argument from me there.

Firstly, let's get the semantics out of the way so we know what we mean when we say something.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Einstein was an atheist. If you read his writings he makes this very clear. When he referred to "God," he was using the term poetically.

As for not actually seeing any black holes, we don't have to see them to know they are there. If I see feathers, webbed footprints and hear quacking, is a safe assumption there's a duck around.

Black holes are like this. We haven't seen one, when everything else suggests they are there.

There's no evidence for god other than anecdotal, same as gnomes, unicorns and teapots around Saturn.

I acknowledge that being 100% positive about anything is foolish. However, I am as certain there is no god as I am about there not being any unicorns.

Listed below are some of the famous agnostics categorized in their respective fields.

Science and Technology

•Albert Einstein
•Charles Darwin
•Marie Curie
•Carl Sagan
•Sir David Attenborough
•Francis Crick
•Stephen Jay Gould
•Milton Friedman
•Emile Durkheim
•Ludwig von Mises
•Paul Nurse
•Sherwin B. Nuland
•George Olah
•Peter Schuster
•Steve Wozniak

Einstein's views on religious belief have been collected from interviews and original writings. These views covered theological determinism, agnosticism, humanism along with ethical culture, opting for Spinoza's god over belief in a personal god, religious belief, enlightenment and liberation, Jews, Christianity, Jesus, Pope Pius XII, and the Catholic Church.

Parker, Barry (2000): Einstein's Brainchild.

i don't click on links posted in forums. i've my own sources regarding semantincs or anything else. learn from whatever source you wish but if you've a point to make, make it and i'll do the same. i'm here to discuss issues with real people. if i were to read every link posted on forums i'd have time for litte else.

yes, there is much to SUGGEST black holes exist and a christian would tell you that there is much to SUGGEST that mary was a virgin. in fact you, me and the christian have nothing other than what we've read about or been schooled by others about the existence of virgins, gods, dragons, big bangs or black holes. i couldn't agree more with you regarding the plausibility of theoretical physics as we understand it to be. likewise i think we're in agreement that believing in such things as gods, virgins, the afterlife, and orbiting giant teapots requires delusional thinking in light of so much evidence suggesting alternative explanations. but as you are CERTAIN that there is no god, a christian is CERTAING that there is. i think that neither of you can ever know for CERTAIN.

speaking of semantics. when you say that you consider thinking anything as 100% positive is foolish, do you equate 100% positive with CERTAINTY? if not, what percentage must be reached to achieve certainty? if so, is it any less foolish to claim anything to be certain???

Don't click on links? Very well, here are the dictionary definitions of a couple of words we've been kicking around.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

It bothers me when someone say "it's just a theory." To become a theory an idea must be tested many times by many different people trying to punch holes in it. Only if they can't find anything wrong does an idea gain the status of being called a theory.



But, there isn't any evidence to suggest Mary was a virgin. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. If she claimed to be a virgin at the time the most likely explanation is that she was a lier. (Occam's razor)

Certainty. I am certain if I drop a hammer, it will fall to the ground. But, if given enough evidence proving otherwise, I could change my view.

This is what I mean by certain. It means I'm confident that what I say is true. I am certain there is no god. If you, or anyone, has evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to take a look.

no argument from me on any of this.



no argument here either.



k. now drop the hammer from outside the space shuttle while in orbit.



oh, i can't imagine me coming up with evidence for god. but is being certain unlike being 100% positive?

Very well, I will qualify me previous statement by adding; if I drop a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity I'm certain it will fall to the ground.

When I say I am certain it means that I'm 99.9999999% positive. It means I could be wrong, but it's highly unlikely. It means I live my life as if I were 100% sure, but I'm still open minded.

well then we each have a different definiton of the word "certain." my guess is we'd differ about the word "absolute" as well. but i think we both understand the other's position here which is all that really matters, no?

Yes, I think so.