One stumbling block is that there is a large difference between no evidence and negative evidence. Philip says, “Also, the Rationalist in me finds the Empiricist in you quite funny. In one breath you say “I form beliefs based on evidence”. A few breaths later you say “I have no idea whether this god exists – I hold no belief one way or another”. There is no inconsistency there. There can be evidence for, evidence against, or no evidence, but in no way is an absence of evidence equal to evidence against.

In other words, if you ask me “Do you believe trees come alive and dance around when they are not being observed?”, I will respond with a resolute “I don’t know, and will never be able to know. If it is something that happens only when not observed, there can never be any evidence for or against”. If you have a problem with that perfectly logical statement, then you are letting your past experiences subjectively affect your judgement.

You completely missed the key point: throughout history, lots a true statements were rejected because they sounded ridiculous in the context of that time. This suggests that many things we feel are ridiculous today may also turn out to be true. That doesn’t mean there is a supernatural entity observing humanity from on high, it just means we shouldn’t rule out the apparently ridiculous.

@Jason,

I think you’re talking about a theist god (one that interferes, performs miracles, answers prayers, etc.) while I am referring to a deist god (one who perhaps created the universe, but hasn’t done anything since). We certainly have evidence against the theist god (e.g., studies of the effects, or lack thereof, of praying). We do not have evidence against a deist god, as far as I know. In fairness, most people use “God” to denote a theist god, as you’ve said.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster can fly without any form of propulsion. The Christian God can supposedly do anything; even violate physical laws. Same with the Muslim God or the Jewish God. Lord Xenu uses metaphysical spirit force to seed the planet.

I recognize the logic you used to reach your “everyone is agnostic” result, but it’s flawed because it assumes that every God doesn’t share a common denominator; that every God is supernatural/metaphysical in nature.

Nobody still believes the world is round because the world has been proven to be round, but these religious nutcases still cling to their beliefs that have been long since shown to be wrong, or at the very least, extremely implausible.

That is what I cannot understand about these people. They have no problem rejecting certain things like “the world is flat”, but still hold onto other beliefs that are just as wrong and/or nonsensical, and worst of all they try and pass it off as fact and to get it taught alongside fact in public schools.

Get off the fence and use your brain. These people are idiots who are simply desperate to continue the proliferation of their nonsensical beliefs in the face of more and more people realizing they are full of shit.

Just like that guy whom you linked to a while back, Pat Condell. Same deal. It seems rather contradictory to call him “the latest hero in the war on bullshit” and then attack people like me who think just like him….

NOW I’m done.

I still ask you to take this to kindergarten class and tell them this same theory in relation to Superman. They’ll laugh at you.

You can’t argue because you’re full of shit. War on Bullshit. Wanna win? Shoot yourself.

I’m done.