Augi
You talk about how the problem with religion is that people take things too literally and bypass the Good of the Good Book, if i understand you correctly. Would you wish the moral stories of scripture, ones that we can take meaning from to be taught and the ones that cause hatred intolerance etc. to not be taught?
(Apologies if i have misunderstood you)
Tophat
I tend to agree and disagree with you at the same time so this will be interesting.
I agree, as a scientist, whole heartedly that one cannot prove that God does not exist. We have no definitive proof that God does not exist and as some others have said we can never do. We can speculate on the existence of God as a probability though. To be an Agnostic i would think you either a) do not bother yourself with such though at all or b) think the chance of a deity existing to be more or less equal with the chance of it not existing.
Considering that if you were 'a' you probably would not be posting in this thread you would most likely think that God has equal chances at either way of existence. One must base probability on the evidence we have. Yes the evidence against God is not condemning but it does not need to be to shift from Agnosticism. (If you are aware with Hypothesis Testing in Mathematics then you will know what i am talking about)
The existence of God is just as likely as the existence of fairies and neither can be 100% scientifically disproved. However simply because something cannot be completely proved nor completely disproved does not mean the likelihood is 0.5 (50%).
I hope i have understood your position, if not please clarify me.
Sedecrem
__________________
Faith is the surrender of Reason, that which separates us from the primates.
'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'
Douglas Adams
Last edited by Sedecrem; 01-04-2008 at 02:14 AM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|