Personally, even though I am a right winger, I am a religious agnostic. The reason behind my personal opinion that agnosticism is the correct way to think about this religion and the question as to whether or not god exists, is that it is literally impossible to prove one way or the other. Now, my issue with Atheists and Atheism is that so many atheists claim to be proponents of truth and logical thought and questioning, yet they don't even realize that they are making the exact same mistake that religious people make. Which is that they are taking a leap of faith in terms of the knowledge of the existence of god and claiming that there is no god. However, if religious people can't prove that god exists, then by the same token atheists are incapable of proving he doesn't exist. This is why I am not an atheist and I call myself an agnostic, apart from the group think that a lot of atheists claim to be opposed to and yet they perpetrate it themselves. So the question I guess I have is, do you agree with me or disagree. I want to know what everybody's thoughts are on this. I am willing to have my mind changed, however I wouldn't count on it.
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower
"It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: strong proof of gods existence    evidence of the religion   religion   agnostic  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Instead of making rigorous proof, we instead make informed guesses. For example, if I'm driving on a highway at 90 mph with cruise control on and a full gas tank, and then just get up from my seat, move to the backseat and go to sleep there, then I know for certain that over the next hour my car will crash into something. I do not need to prove it rigorously, and there is a very tiny, but finite chance that somehow the car will just continue driving down the highway, as the car will by sheer luck keep also moving in the right direction - but that chance is so small, it can be discarded.
With gods, there is no information in our collective database of knowledge suggesting that they might exist. Can they in principle? Of course. Elves, unicorns and flying fire-breathing dragons on Earth can exist as well, maybe we just were extremely unlucky and had not met them in a way that could be demonstrated to the population as a whole. Only the leap of faith in saying that they do not exist here is justified. When there is no reason to believe that something exists, then it is nothing but a fantasy, and even if it does exist in reality, it makes more sense to build our models of the world in the assumption that it does not.
I do not know if gods exist or not, but I know pretty well that the assumption that they do not has worked well for me so far, and my experiences never challenged me to reconsider it. Hence I am atheist.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: finite chance    right direction   cruise control   sheer luck keep  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is a very common misconception about what Atheism is or what I like to call A-theism. A-theism is NOT an opposing belief; it's the negation of belief. If A-theism is faith then bald must be hair color, not smoking must be a habit, not harming animals must also be animal abuse, and so on.
So as to you're question about this being the correct way to think about religion, well since A-theists and Agnostics (except Agnostic Theists) do not have a belief in religion (Theistic Religion) then they don't really need to think about it at all do they? Much in the same way as a non-astrologer doesn't need to think about astrology.
References:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#Misconceptions_about_atheists
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#External_links
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
References:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#Misconceptions_of_definition
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#Misconceptions_about_atheists
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#External_linkshttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your mistake is that you confuse disbelief in god with belief in non-existence of god. These are very different things. If I do not believe in god, it does not mean that I believe that there is no god. There are many ways not to believe in something and simultaneously not believe in its exact opposite. For example, I do not believe that my neighbor's name is Samantha, because it is just one of a large multitude of her possible names and it would be unreasonable to pick just one and hope to randomly get lucky - but I also do not hold the belief that my neighbor's name is not Samantha, because there is nothing that suggests that it cannot be Samantha.
However, if you offer me to play a lottery, where I put $100 and choose either "My neighbor's name is Samantha" or "My neighbor's name is not Samantha", win $100 if I am right and lose $100 if I am wrong, then I will pick the option "My neighbor's name is not Samantha", and statistically I am almost destined to win. This is what atheism is: an informed choice of the most logical model in the absence of data. While an agnostic would simply refuse to play this game, because he/she would say, "I do not know my neighbor's name, so I cannot make any sensible choices here."
An agnostic refuses to take a stance, because he/she assumes that both possibilities are very plausible. An atheist or a theist takes a stance, because one of the two possibilities seems irrelevant to them, for one reason or another. This does not mean that every theist is absolutely convinced there is god, and every atheist is absolutely convinced there is no god; each of us just leans towards a certain version, sometimes so strongly that the alternative is not being considered seriously.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
When you hold a strong belief (An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof) in naturalism, that's called faith. So to say that Atheism isn't a belief system isn't entirely accurate as when asked to explain the origin of life...Atheists must employ a system of belief in one way or another.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: strong belief    origin of life   Western Atheists   decent reason  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
As an atheist I lack a belief in a god or gods I cannot say for certain that no god exists which is a perfectly reasonable position, the believer claims to believe in a god so the burden of proof is with them and is something they cannot prove which leaves them in a position which is totally irrational
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious people    token atheists   reasonable position   burden of proof  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is basically the same definition as I find in my Oxford American Dictionary of Current English (1999)
The Greek prefix a- was the source of the English prefix un-. While the definitions of terms such as unapologetic, unAmerican, or undemocratic may technically be not apologetic, not American, and not democratic, in actual usage, those words mean the opposite of terms from which they are derived.
As to your references, wikis, by their nature, are poor sources. Anyone can change or modify their entries, including you or me. That said, I see nothing even in those entries which disputes my contention that the term was redefined in the 1990s. I can agree with the intent of your Harris quote, but disagree with that the term atheism should be stricken. Instead, the traditional meaning should be reapplied. If people who hold the view of religion that you do need to call themselves something, then non-theist would make a lot more sense.
You are incorrect. I have, indeed, made just that distinction. What I don't agree with is unnecessarily redefining terms.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And that system can be humanism or different forms of existentialism and other philosophies... Atheism is not a philosophy, nor a belief system, it's a single position on a single claim...
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: strong belief    belief system   system of belief   origin of life  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, I do currently ascribe to the current standard Oxford Dictionary definition, as to me it also makes sense. Interestingly, if you go further back in history you will also find that Religion at one point did have a lot of authority and a great hold over western civilization. And consequently, people that didn't have a belief in God were not tolerated and demonized. Several people of the religious persuasion had even gone so far as to accuse Atheists as being promoters of the Devil. So, in a sense you are correct; it was long established by many religious people of the old days that Atheists directly opposed God. Fortunately, we've now moved beyond those old ghastly ways, and the term Atheism is being defined exactly as it should. And when I say we I mean at least most of us that live in the modern Western World. Albeit, there it is still possible that some dictionaries still haven't updated and corrected the term yet.
I don't really see what the Prefix un has got to do the prefix a in Atheism. Also, within the exact source you presented with here did you not spot this:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So tell me, how am I putting words in your mouth? How am I at all misrepresenting your position?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Take the single claim or singe position that evolution does not exist, one will inevitable have to adopt a multitude of different beliefs as a direct result of the position that evolution does not exist and these beliefs will span over tens if not hundreds of theories, claims, hypothesis', and postulations. One equates the other.
Likewise the supposed single claim or single position of Atheism inevitably equates to the adoption several systems and methodologies of several combinations depending on one's personal taste because, in the end, we're still talking about what is believed to be true based upon probability and assumption...not what is fact.
I know Atheists typically don't enjoy the idea of equating Atheism to Faith or Belief but the simple fact that Atheism requires both of these things in order to function logically is indisputable. The origination of life, how it happened and why it happened are constantly in dispute and cannot be known with any degree of certainty and, despite a level of probability, cannot be stated as known fact. This fact alone places the explanations provided by naturalism, humanism, and existentialism into the realm of faith and belief. Any single claim or position that requires you to adopt a faith or belief system is by definition "Faith based".
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why should we not use the recent redefinition? Languages naturally evolve with time. Sure, we can be stubborn and speak in Old English, for example, but that would not be very practical in the modern world. It makes more sense to speak the same language everyone else does, even if we dislike the new meanings of some of the words.
This debate is really pointless. Everybody knows what they mean by word "atheist". Debating strict definitions merely demonstrates the desire of the people to not want to discuss the actual subject, maybe because of their sensitivity, or something else.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: only way    truth   old question   death answers  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
A Christians belief in a god is based on spiritual conviction nothing else , I like a lot of other atheists are merely content to state we don’t know when it comes to the bigger questions of which you speak yet you then state various explanations put forward by atheists regarding these questions.
Atheism is still a position on one question and one question alone and that’s it ,
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In this interpretation, agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism. Of course reality is unknown and unknowable; that does not mean, however, that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn. I may not know and be able to know how the world works fundamentally, but I know some hypotheses that turn out to work well consistently, and some other hypotheses that do not bring any relevant information on the table.
Strictly speaking, the question on whether gods exist or not will never be answered with 100% certainty. If we do not find any gods, that does not mean they are not there; similarly, if we do find them, there is no way to prove that they are actually gods, and even if they exhibit all characteristics that we would expect from gods, it still does not mean that are not simply very advanced physical beings, and perhaps there are "actual gods" above them that have created them.
Does it mean that we cannot take a stance on the subject that will be informed and practical? Of course not. There are no gods, as far as I am concerned, and I would even say that there can be no gods by the very definition of the word "god" - but I can always turn out to be wrong one day. I would rather turn out to be wrong and admit that I was wrong and my most reasonable hypothesis failed (it happens, both in science and in life in general), than to be afraid to take a stance and never be able to lift a finger without considering millions possible consequences that lifting a finger can have.
It is not that the word "atheism" has been redefined. It is that there are many shades to atheism, just as there are to any other point of view, and no two atheists think the same.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yet that is not how you live your life in general. Every time you go outside your house, you do not know if you will be murdered by some random stranger or not. Yet you go outside without even thinking about it, fully expecting that in the evening you will come back unharmed. Why? Because your experience and intelligence allows you to conclude that the possibility that you will be fine at the end of the day is much more reasonable to assume, as the opposite result is highly unlikely, for various reasons.
If you were to never take any stances, since you can never know anything for certain, then you would be effectively disabled, unable to sneeze without facing the possibility that it will trigger an apocalyptic event. That is not how humans operate, and that is not how logic works in general.
To me, the possibility that there are gods is just as relevant as the possibility that there are unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, genies, zombies, ghosts, flying saucepans, Jedi or whatever else human mind has come up with. Occam's Razor principle suggests that, in the absence of any evidence, one must by default assume the null hypothesis - which, among other things, suggests that nothing the absence of which does not contradict our knowledge should be taken into account when building a model of the world.
At the same time, strictly speaking, I cannot know that there are no things I just listed on Earth, or in the Universe as a whole, or even outside it. I also do not think that everything is knowable in principle, and that aligns with the definition of "agnosticism" you provided. Does not prohibit me from taking a reasonable informed stance. I do not need to know everything to be able to make some fairly reliable assumptions.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, and you can also determine whether or not you will die if you jump off a skyscraper by jumping off a skyscraper. Yet you do not do so; you have some natural expectations of what is going to happen, based on your knowledge and experience. You cannot prove with certainty what will happen without actually jumping off, but as a logical and rational being you realise that such a test is not needed.
Playing a game of chance has nothing to do with Occam's razor; you can play a game of chance for fun, fully aware of the nature of the game. I do not like games of chance, as I like to be in charge of what is happening, rather than trusting my fate into the die, but I can play a game in which chance is a factor to a certain degree.
Occam's razor has more to do with what you assume to be true by default. Do unicorns exist? I assume they do not, because there is zero evidence behind them. Do black holes exist? Probably yes, as the modern science directly predicts their existence, and we have observed objects in telescopes that behave fully how we would expect black holes to behave. Do humans exist? Certainly; we would not be having this conversation otherwise.
It is clear where gods and other supernatural entities belong in this categorisation. I cannot know that there are no unicorns, but I see no reason for them to exist. Same with gods. That is my personal version of atheism and agnosticism; you can label it any way convenient to you, but you cannot disagree that both are a part of this world view.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: game of chance    modern science   Occam's razor   personal version of atheism  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: good health    thorough examination   idea of a Deity   Doctor  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not when we have strong experimental evidence supporting some theories, and zero evidence supporting other theories. But even were we to lack any evidence whatsoever with regards to any theories, the null hypothesis, in my eyes, would be that either the Universe has always existed, or it emerged as part of some natural phenomena. Intelligent actors creating the Universe is obviously beyond natural expectations, pretty much by definition of the word "natural".
I rarely play games expecting to lose. I tend to play games in which, I believe, I have a tangible chance of winning, and can influence the outcome to a significant degree. I do not play obviously losing games, such as lotteries or casino games.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just because we cannot explain everything related to the Big Bang theory, does not mean we cannot have high confidence in that theory as a whole, given how well it has predicted a lot of phenomena supported by evidence. On the other hand, when it comes to gods, there is zero evidence whatsoever of them existing.
I like challenging myself and sometimes play chess games against players far superior to me, that are very likely to beat me. I have no illusions there and know what I sign up for. I fail to see how Occam's razor comes into this equation. I do not play games to understand something about the world; I play games to have a good time.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: chess games    Big Bang theory   high confidence   zero evidence  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 73%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.98  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The idea is you have no proof of a GOD to satisfy your and others religious position of disapproval, innuendo does exist and what makes any kind of proof obscure is only the number of hints to its authentication which are not found. If the hints exist, the proof exist, it is a matter of learning that limits understanding not a refusal to document, or learn existence of proof. The attempt is to try and teach a realistic GOD does not exist requiring a social representation.
1. Does am average person have knowledge of the existence of algebra.
2. Does the average person have knowledge of the use of letters as numbers in algebra.
3. Can people collect recorded of this information to demonstrate how GOD can be found.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
How does science break down? Science is not supposed to deal with imaginary concepts to begin with, and imaginary concepts should not be considered seriously when talking about the history of the Universe. The history is not imaginary, it is what it is.
I do not understand the implication of your second question.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sure, but we do not need laws to work at a singularity, as long as they work everywhere else. We could just make an approximation to fill the gap in our knowledge, as long as this gap does not have any practical consequences.
I do live by the Occam's razor principle. It does not mean that I cannot consciously choose to play games I cannot reliably win for fun. Your argument seems to assume that winning is always my goal, which is not the case.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I might have got slightly off topic and that could have gone forever but in no place did I mention god certainly exists hence I can conclude the existence of algebra does not prove god.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Christianity is the only coherent worldview with corresponding truth that defines origin-meaning-morality-destiny and directly answers with logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance. There is ONE God and ONE Mediator for sin, Jesus Christ.
“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” Adrian Rogers
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@ RD_master
Maybe there is a misunderstanding.
RS_master: “Yet again you are using algebra existence to prove god.”
I am quite literally giving proof God exists and you are giving no evidence to the contrary of an reason the existence held by math should not be considered.
RS_master said : “ I agree that we have no proof proposing or opposing god.
Merriam-Webster dictionary states Agnostic : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
They key word’s here is any and probably such as God is unknown.
@ RickyD
Good for you and your creator, the G, O, and D of algebra serves a much less complicated person who may work and struggle to live every day. Never having time to read and remember all books, upon books, upon books of writings as a test of their memory.
What we are proving is the powers of faith can be given in less threating form as a testimony of truth that can be recreated by others easily as real fact showing a power that may go unmatched. Disclosure.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
***"Even a child can observe a clear night sky and conclude that design is in play and a Designer is therefore mandated."
What a child can conclude isn't exactly the high mark for rationality. After all, a child can observe nothing and conclude there is a monster under the bed. So, if some diety is relying on broken thinking a child might have come up with, then an agnostic or non-believer can be excused for finding that completely unbelievable from a being claimed to be all knowing and presumably far beyond child-like reasoning.
***"Christianity is the only coherent worldview with corresponding truth that defines origin-meaning-morality-destiny and directly answers with logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance."
'Coherent' means it makes sense, and as I understand Christianity - it doesn't. I mean what part of an immortal being "dying" makes sense? What part of a god implicitly claimed to condone racism, slavery, misogyny, and genocide being 'the basis of morality' makes sense? Clearly, "immortal", "morality", and "coherent" have different meanings under your worldview.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not understand your theory of proving god. Your explanation was not clear and about 2/3 of the world know algebra but how does that prove god exists? I explained that if it was an innuendo or a tricky clue it still would not work after my analysis of your theory.
1. Does am average person have knowledge of the existence of algebra.
2. Does the average person have knowledge of the use of letters as numbers in algebra.
3. Can people collect recorded of this information to demonstrate how GOD can be found.
This is what you said. How does this help understand the existence of god.
My 2nd rebuttal: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=s-n4XbfeCYv4qwH0nb3wBg&q=agnostic+meaning&oq=agn&gs_l=psy-ab.1.4.0j0i131l3j0l2j0i131j0l2j0i131.1004.1657..4404...0.0..0.123.357.0j3......0....1..gws-wiz.yZIkbscg-Is
This link shows googles definition of agnostic in my own words (I do not want to plagiarise): Someone who does not believe god does not exist or that god exists because we have no proof.
I said that in the argument/analysis: RS_master said:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra