Thank you for pointing out grammatical flaws. English is my third language and trying to grasp the concept of its sentence structure nearly drove me bats. . I’ll except your strike against me for my flaws but, let me add, I’m much much more then my mistakes.

@Debbera Well then I know where you're coming from ( figure of speech ). English is my third language too and I have always been grateful and happy with everyone that have had the honesty to point my shortcomings along the way. That's how we learn !! Cheers.

Is there not a group for Grammarians. lol

@ColdFax I wouldn't know....is it?

@ColdFax Yep, we're called Grammar Nazis. We're all over the internet.

@zblaze Fucking Right!

@Debbera you win

@bbyrd009 What did she win??

@kodimerlyn Thank you, once again, that's how we learn

@zblaze um, self- respect maybe?

Nope, that's how believers answer. Agnostics say they have no knowledge about the existence of a god, mostly because there is no evidence available.

"there's no evidence there ISN'T." is a negative claim, and easily refuted.

Every testable claim by believers has been tested and function no better than chance or placebo. That is a mountain of evidence that no gods exist. Its not conclusive or exhaustive but it is evidence.

@zblaze How it that "easily refuted?" There IS no evidence there isn't a god. You can't refute it.

@Storm1752 Sure can, it is a negative claim. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of Absence.

A negative claim is an 'appeal to ignorance' — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@zblaze I didn't say it was evidence. But atheists think the absence of evidence in favor is evidence against. You can't have it both ways.

@Stuttrboy Could you give me an example of that "mountain of evidence" that no gods exist. Just one, is all I'm asking for.

@Storm1752 No, no they don't. If some do, it is an appeal to the ignorance of whomever they're talking to. Vice verasa does not mean having it both ways.

@zblaze To me it's a non-issue, okay? I don't think there's any such thing as a "personal god." That's ridiculous. And the textbook take of a "deist" who thinks there's one who set everything in motion and went AWOL is too. I have no concept of god. None. It's silly to argue over something like this. But people do. They certainly do. But leave me out of it. Just don't try to tell me there IS no god. You have no evidence.

Come on KK, now you're going to have to explain what a Gnostic Atheist is....lol

@zblaze No. No, I don't.
If anyone wants to know what that is, they can damn well google that shit.
LOL

@KKGator I did. This was the response; "Gnostic means “with knowledge”, that you claim to know something. Atheist means “without god”, that you don't believe in any god. ... However you can combine them to gnostic atheist. Then it means that you don't believe in any god and claim to know that there is no god."

Tough claim to support.

@zblaze Not really. There is absolutely no credible, verifiable evidence, to prove that ANY gods are real, or have ever existed in reality.
So, saying there aren't any isn't really that tough a claim to make.
There is no "there" there.

@KKGator Any claim is easy to make KK. That isn't the point. It is a tough claim to support, verify, prove. It is a claim that you have knowledge[Not Belief] of the non existence of a god; "I've never been agnostic. I've always known it was ALL bullshit."
You've always been an Agnostic, you've never had 'knowledge' that a god does not exist. You might think one doesn't, and obviously lack a belief in a god, but if you had knowledge you would be able to show it, and can't.
The position of a Gnostic Atheist is an 'appeal to ignorance' — the claim that whatever has not been proved true must be false, and vice versa. This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: {"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence":.

@zblaze Please do not tell me what I am. Arguing semantics means nothing to me. If I ever meet a god, I'll change my mind. Right after I get a brain scan.
Until then, I know there aren't any gods.
All religion is bullshit based on nothing more than myth and crowd control.

You are free to call it whatever you please. This is as far as I'm going in this "debate".

42

@Amisja Siri wasn't clever enough for that response.

@Amisja I asked Alexa the same question and she said 42 so it must be right.

@Amisja I thought it was white rats? HHGTTU?

Little do you know that the principle you espouse is completely Scriptural, if decidedly not Christian? Manna is not called "what is it?" for nothing, eh? The tree of knowledge of good and evil, hello?

@bbyrd009 Well, he does identify as spiritual.....

@zblaze ha. "Eating from the tree of knowledge..." is strictly for those who say they know, talk like they know, right? "He who says he knows does not yet know as he ought." i mean "become like a little child?" ha

@zblaze "I said 'you are elohim.' " you, iow. No old white guy with a beard iow.

Ding ding ding!!! To both posters! I was thinking all of this!

Definately on board with this reasoning;
Any other approach seems to split hairs,
with no grounding in reality.

That's not quite right. Agnostic/gnostic deals with the knowledge claim atheism/theism deals with the belief. One coukd claim not to know a god exists but not believe any exist and would be both agnostic and atheist.

Wrong, that is not what Atheists claim. The only claim that Atheists have is that they have a lack of belief in a god. Period

A Gnostic Atheist makes that claim. A very difficult position to support!!

You can divide people by two dimensions - belief of non-belief (theist/atheist) and gnostic or agnostic (“knows” or does not know). So most are agnostic atheists - do not believe in any gods but do not claim to “know.”
Theists, however, mostly claim to “know” there is a god.
But when it comes down to it people can be any combination.

Dogs be praised

I should be called Intelligent Magic.

"Children born with cancer, destined to live a few weeks before dying a painful death, are proof enough for me that there is no all seeing, all powerful, benevolent God." ah, how else might you punish the parents for their retarded actions that caused the cancer in the first place then? And ps "benevolent" is not nowhere in there wadr k, God plainly has Israelites under siege eating their own children?

Some god or gods exist or no gods exist. This is binary because it represents all the sets. Its a claim and the direct negation. That makes it a dichotomy. Logically speaking there is no third option.

You're seriously going to have to share these other options with us. No God but mystical beings? Superhumans? I can't really imagine what would be considered in-between.

You are correct and to my brain, reality shows no indication of god(s).

Don't screw with the Easter Bunny. Warning you!

William Blake made a spiritual map about 200 years ago. First you go into Bowlahoola, then Allamanda and then onto the looms of Cathedron. With help from the Daughters of Beulah, you can raise yourself back into Eden where Eternity lives.

Exactly. Non of it makes sense. Fairy tales, passed down and re-translated over the generations.

Totally agree