Groups > Atheists and agnostics

I guess I'm confused, briscot, where in the professor's comments you find reason to claim "atheism." Call me thick, just don't call me Surely.

I am an agnostic. I don't *believe* in anything. I humbly admit that I don't know what happens. I have a pretty good idea of what doesn't happen, however, and I have ever evolving theories on spirituality.

As for your survey, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That's exactly it. Atheist is just too absolute for me. I don't personally believe there's anything out there, but I don't think I know any better than the next person. I don't think anyone knows.

Agnostics are atheists who think they're gonna die soon, just to be on the safe side

I'm a skeptic...do I belong in this group? It's evidence verses RAT, i.e. Revelation, Authority, Tradition. Forget atheist or agnostic, where does the evidence take you...

Exactly, yumaref.

Science does not provide "proof" or "disproof" in the existence of god or anything else. It simply provides data to support or refute hypotheses. Suppose our hypothesis is "God exists" or that "God does not exist" ... what would the data support? What qualifies as reliable or verifiable data? Over time the weight of some data can become so overwhelming as to be absolutely convincing, but there is still a slight probability that the evidence is wrong, misinterpreted, improperly collected, or whatever ... but the probability may be so slight as to be completely insignificant. Still, you are right. Where does the evidence take us?

Personally, I think the terms atheist and agnostic are not very useful except in the context of those who believe in god. If I do not believe in unicorns, am I an "aunicornist?" If I do not believe in trolls, am I an "atrollist?" If I do not believe in ghosts, am I an aghostist?" No. These are not useful terms and would have relevance only if the non-existent existed ... which they don't

It is in the best interests of the religion industry to define god so vaguely that nobody can prove anything.

If you can use science, logic or philosophy to prove that god DOES exist, then religion becomes redundant as a means of reaching god, and churches lose business.

If you can use similar means to prove that god DOES NOT exist, then religion becomes useless because it is wrong, and churches shut down.