Why agnosticism fails

simplistic

Here it is summed up very well!

Húrin

He spends the first ten minutes refuting a statement the the agnostics do not say. They say that the laws of physics and logic may not exist outside the universe. Thus he tries to use the laws of logic to refute things that some people claim exist outside the universe.

He also makes the common atheist error, refuted all the way back by Kant of all people, that human perception is the final arbiter of truth and reality.

At 13:44 he starts refuting theists, not agnostics. Atheists seem to think that anyone who isn't "one of them" and fully on board is basically one of the religious. Very black and white world view he has.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

He also makes the common atheist error, refuted all the way back by Kant of all people, that human perception is the final arbiter of truth and reality.

I think that that is where religions fall flat also

pH

"The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest--and most cowardly--stands there can be."
Leonard Peikoff

Zombrex

^^ Yeah, what he said ^^

Valmont

Hey Wicknight, do you remember the "most logical belief" thread a year or two ago? You and Scofflaw (among others) had an epic debate over atheism vs agnosticism. That was a good thread.

Zillah

There's been more than one. If I recall when I was newish here I had a big debate in favour of agnosticism.

How naive.

eoin5

Agnosticism as a solid defined position of believing that its impossible to tell that god exists is fine. The broadly part of it, the one who is not committed to believing in either is a non sequitur for me. It seems like that needs a different definition.

Zillah

It always happens that you get agnostics arguing with each other, oddly enough. That's because that word actually refers to several distinct positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

teddy_303

This man make no sense. 2 plus 2 = Green? As if there is something irrational about people who admit to not knowing what they could not possibly know to begin with. thats why its called faith... Somehow I also think if he had proof of this, he would be somewhere more impressive than youtube....

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

He also makes the common atheist error, refuted all the way back by Kant of all people, that human perception is the final arbiter of truth and reality.

*cough* cosmological argument *cough* :P

You'll find that atheists spend a lot of their time reminding theists that human perception is not perfect, especially when they talk about things like miracles

Such as here where Dawkins is pretty brutal in telling someone he's hallucinating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

Zillah

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Such as here where Dawkins is pretty brutal in telling someone he's hallucinating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

"Brutal"? I thought he was quite kind. Put me up there I'll show you brutal.

Morbert

I've watched about 5 minutes of the video and I hate that guy already. Agnostics don't claim 2+2 might equal green somewhere. 2+2=4 is an analytical statement, independent of any reality.

Instead, agnostics are people who don't accept atheist assumptions. They accept that there might be aspects of the universe that cannot be described or understood with constructs like 2+2=4, similar to the way there are aspects of the universe cannot be understood by a dog.

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

I've watched about 5 minutes of the video and I hate that guy already. Agnostics don't claim 2+2 might equal green somewhere. 2+2=4 is an analytical statement, independent of any reality.

Instead, agnostics are people who don't accept atheist assumptions. They accept that there might be aspects of the universe that cannot be described or understood with constructs like 2+2=4, similar to the way there are aspects of the universe cannot be understood by a dog.

But you can still look at the evidence and arguments for theistic Gods such as the Christian, Muslim or Hindu ones and say "this is a load of nonsense". you don't have to absolutely reject all possibility that there is something out there that we don't understand to be able to place the bible firmly in the "bronze age fairy tale" category

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

There's been more than one. If I recall when I was newish here I had a big debate in favour of agnosticism.

How naive.

The temptation to ridicule, which is quite prevalent amongst atheists, even extends to ridiculing agnostics.

It beggars belief that atheists, who have so much in common with agnostics, and even with lapsed/moderate believers, cannot resist this base instinct. As I have said before, this remains (one of the) the reason(s) that broad secularism and its aims, despite their appeal to a majority/significant minority of this country, will remain on the fringe. But, sure, what the hell, it was fun to take the p!ss out of a few believers (or agnostics), while you continue to bring your kid to the local Catholic school because there is no alternative.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

The temptation to ridicule, which is quite prevalent amongst atheists, even extends to ridiculing agnostics.

It beggars belief that atheists, who have so much in common with agnostics, and even with lapsed/moderate believers, cannot resist this base instinct. As I have said before, this remains (one of the) the reason(s) that broad secularism and its aims, despite their appeal to a majority/significant minority of this country, will remain on the fringe. But, sure, what the hell, it was fun to take the p!ss out of a few believers (or agnostics), while you continue to bring your kid to the local Catholic school because there is no alternative.

The existence of people who are taking the piss out of religious arguments does not prevent an organisation putting forward a secular agenda. People take the piss out of Fianna Fail all the time but that does not invalidate the existence of Fine Gael

robindch

drkpower wrote: »

It beggars belief that atheists, who have so much in common with agnostics, and even with lapsed/moderate believers, cannot resist this base instinct.

It can be difficult if not impossible to resist laughing at something which is truly hilarious, and there's nothing belief-beggaring about that (unless one lacks a sense of humor).

In fact, it's sadly silly that when presented with something which is funny, some people actually choose to get offended, while sympathizers get offended on their behalf.

And in a certain light, that can be funny too, but as I said, it's mostly just sad and silly.

Rev Hellfire

I'm amazed that any agnostics would give a toss what some nutjob on the internet thinks of them. I mean seriously get a grip.

Dades

ALSO - nobody is 'ridiculing' agnostics.

It more an irritation amongst (certain) atheists that a purely agnostic stance is really not a stance at all.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The existence of people who are taking the piss out of religious arguments does not prevent an organisation putting forward a secular agenda. People take the piss out of Fianna Fail all the time but that does not invalidate the existence of Fine Gael

No. But Fine Gael is damaged if all they are seen as merely an ABFF party rather than being seen as something of value in their own right. Many believe that has stunted their growth for generations.

robindch wrote: »

In fact, it's sadly silly that when presented with something which is funny, some people actually choose to get offended, while sympathizers get offended on their behalf.

I hope you dont think Im a sympathiser or that I am offended...! I would more accurately call it exasperation; I am exasperated at the short-sightedness of atheists.....wasted opportunities and all that....

I should point out that I am not really focussing my ire on Zillah, his comment was just an example of the attitude at which I despair.

Zillah

Like I told you before, I'm just an angry nerd on the internet, I get a kick out of making fun of the religious. I'm not a campaigner or a politician. Reserve your Machiavellian comments for men such as Dawkins or Harris -- those who's stated aim is a more secular society, those who actually make a difference.

I didn't even say anything bad about agnostics anyway! I described myself as naive for once arguing in favour of agnosticism -- a position that I would now argue against. I hardly see how that could be seen as overtly antagonistic, especially in the context of this forum and the usual kind of stuff I come out with.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

No. But Fine Gael is damaged if all they are seen as merely an ABFF party rather than being seen as something of value in their own right. Many believe that has stunted their growth for generations.

This is true, which means that the organisation needs to do something. That doesn't mean that everyone who's ever professed a liking of Fine Gael has to change. Of course a group like Atheist Ireland can't show up to debates and start laughing in people's faces but that doesn't mean that no atheists anywhere can laugh at religious 'reasoning'

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true, which means that the organisation needs to do something. That doesn't mean that everyone who's ever professed a liking of Fine Gael has to change. Of course a group like Atheist Ireland can't show up to debates and start laughing in people's faces but that doesn't mean that no atheists anywhere can laugh at religious 'reasoning'

True; and perhaps I should lighten up on this issue. But I find it incredibly frustrating that the secular lobby has acheived essentially nothing when the climate for acheivement has never been more favourable yet many of those who are fulsome, even aggressive, in their support for secularism, seem more keen to direct their energies in a negative direction which is not only unproductive but is counterproductive too....

I also cant help seeing the terrible irony that many atheists/secularists who patronise/ridicule/laugh at the religous (or the agnostic) do so from the intellectual high ground (which, is suppose is fair, as the atheist position is more intellectually sound) yet their very attitude actually damages the fulfillment of their aims by turning the moderates away. I would suggest that anyone who damages their own ultimate aims for the temporary satisfaction of a cheap shot, has fallen down the "intellectual ladder" a few rungs...

Anyway, Ive made by point (again....;)).

Zillah

I dunno dude, there is something to be said for hostile ridicule.

Really, I have an argument.

Previously the attitude of the religious would have been "Haw haw haw atheists, what foolish fools, lost in life, separated from the truth!" or "Wicked atheists, Satan's slaves!" or even "How dare you insult the son of God!"

With a thorough and scathing campaign where atheists such as myself belittle and deride the religious, insult their prophets and demean the moral worth of their holy books, we set the scene for more gentle atheists to have reasonable discussions. They'll feel far less secure to dismiss us as foolish, evil or having the gall to not bow before their Gods.

It's like negotiating at a market. If they say 10, but you want 8, you don't say 8. You say 2, have a big argument and settle at 8 in the end. Or even better, it's like good cop bad cop.

I'm the bad cop.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

I dunno dude, there is something to be said for hostile ridicule.

Really, I have an argument.

Its an interesting theory, to say the least.

However, I do not see how the arguments of extreme atheists somehow "sets the scene" for gentle atheists to have "reasonable discussions".
How?
Does the existence of extreme atheists somehow "soften up" the moderate religous person for these discussions?
And if so, doesnt that suggest that fundamental Christian/Muslim "softens up" the moderate atheist also? Surely that proposition is ridiculous.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

Previously the attitude of the religious would have been "Haw haw haw atheists, what foolish fools, lost in life, separated from the truth!" or "Wicked atheists, Satan's slaves!" or even "How dare you insult the son of God!"

Yes, many Christians froth at the mouth about 'Intolerant' Dawkins, who calls them all 'delusional' (how DARE he!) yet wait a sec, Christians believe in the bible, what does the bible, their book say about us?

Fools, corrupt, no good
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one."
Psalm 14:1-3

Wicked
"The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God;
God is in none of his thoughts."
Psalm 10:4

Fools, unclean ... oh my read it for youselves!
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Romans 1:18-32

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

However, I do not see how the arguments of extreme atheists somehow "sets the scene" for gentle atheists to have "reasonable discussions".
How?
Does the existence of extreme atheists somehow "soften up" the moderate religous person for these discussions?

Yes. Dammit! I meant to be a meat hammer analogy in there, I totally forgot! Rats.

Anyway, yes, that's exactly what I mean. I think it's a pretty fundamental aspect of human psychology to take whatever you can get away with. So if they're only dealing with gentle reasonable atheists they can very easily remain in their towers of rare marble gorging themselves on holy bread. But have some hostile atheists shake the foundations a little bit and make it clear that we're willing to give them a head-to-head fight on it and they'll be much more receptive to the placating atheists.

More analogies to express my ambiguous point: It's like pressing your attack during a war so you have a stronger position when it comes to making a peace treaty.

And if so, doesnt that suggest that fundamental Christian/Muslim "softens up" the moderate atheist also? Surely that proposition is ridiculous.

Not really, no. For a couple of reasons. Fundamentalist religious people are never a good counterpart to vocal atheists due to their inherent immunity to reasonable discussion. Second of all at the very least we'd need to be in a society dominated by atheists who suppress and discriminate against the religious for centuries, and have a small amount of religious people speaking out against such tyranny.

So no it's not a very good comparison at all.

ps, I've been awake for a very long time right now so forgive me if I'm not quite my lucid self.

Morbert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But you can still look at the evidence and arguments for theistic Gods such as the Christian, Muslim or Hindu ones and say "this is a load of nonsense". you don't have to absolutely reject all possibility that there is something out there that we don't understand to be able to place the bible firmly in the "bronze age fairy tale" category

You can, but agnosticism isn't portrayed properly in that video. Agnostics might find Christianity (or a general belief in God) unconvincing, but they might not be prepared to assume there is no God. At most, we can accuse agnostics of not being very pragmatic.

Rev Hellfire

Morbert wrote: »

YAt most, we can accuse agnostics of not being very pragmatic.

At most you can accuse agnostics of not using the definition of godhood which atheists have decided is the only valid one.

Morbert

I have just watched the rest of the video and I, an atheist, disagree with almost everything he says. Logic is a set of inference rules that can be used to build propositions from a formal system of axioms, but it cannot provide insight into what is fundamentally true or real. Much of his spiel seems to be addressed to dialtheists, not agnostics.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

At most you can accuse agnostics of not using the definition of godhood which atheists have decided is the only valid one.

What definition of godhood have we decided is the only valid one?

Black Swan

It would appear that the person cited in the OP likes to place people in convenient, over-simplistic categories, as if they were homogeneous clones in their thinking, then attacks them accordingly? This ignores the vast diversity of thought held by those placed artificially into this category of agnostic (or any category for that matter), as well as the inconsistencies that often occur between what someone professes and how they often behave in real life, for example?

I'm not a follower of an organised religion, and have serious doubts about a creationist explanation, tending to favour the scientific method as an approach to exploring nature. My understanding of this method is that all discoveries are held with caution, and only so long as they are supported by the data. To what extent could the person cited in the OP also apply his argument to those who are cautious in their interpretations of the universe?

Rev Hellfire

Morbert wrote: »

What definition of godhood have we decided is the only valid one?

Well for the purposes of that video youtube has helpfully provided us one in the thumbnail, lets go with that one.

Morbert

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well for the purposes of that video youtube has helpfully provided us one in the thumbnail, lets go with that one.

Well I hereby dissociate myself with that particular version of atheism.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Fundamentalist religious people are never a good counterpart to vocal atheists due to their inherent immunity to reasonable discussion. Second of all at the very least we'd need to be in a society dominated by atheists who suppress and discriminate against the religious for centuries, and have a small amount of religious people speaking out against such tyranny.

Of course, the fundamental religous person would make precisely the same argument as you do, merely in reverse; that you do not respond to reasonable discussion. In addition, while we may have done so in the past, we no longer live in a society dominated by the religous, far from it.

In any case, there is little logic in the statement that, in today's Ireland, the existence of extreme atheists "softens up" the moderate religous person but the existence of extreme religous does not "soften up" the moderate atheist.

Extremists almosts always merely encourage extremism. I dont deny the point that, at certain stages of a struggle, there may be a need for an extremist (crude example: Pearse et al circa 1916) but that ultimately the centre ground will take over, but that is not the position we currently find ourselves in. We do not live in a theocracy. That stage has well passed.

Zombrex

These discussions always fall down over what exactly is an agnostic.

In my experience most agnostics are actually what we would call weak atheists. They say things like "I don't believe in any religion but I'm open to the idea that the universe may have been created by something" Which is basically atheism, at least how I define it.

They get annoyed then because atheists ridicule them when they say they are agnostic with neither party realising they share very similar views.

To me an agnostic is someone who says "I'm not really sure about religion X, or the claims it makes, but I'm open to the idea that it all could have happened"

Which to me is even sillier than theism, given how many religions have both ridiculous claims and claims that would contradict the claims of other religions. Even if one is right they can't all be right. Sitting on the fence and saying that you are not 100% convinced but are open to the idea that Jesus may have been resurrected and Muhammand may have talked to angels seems rather silly.

Flamed Diving

Is there a clear definition of agnosticism?

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there a clear definition of agnosticism?

I'm not sure.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, the fundamental religous person would make precisely the same argument as you do, merely in reverse; that you do not respond to reasonable discussion.

Well they'd be wrong, I'd have thought you'd see that. If I'm walking down the street and some homeless guy starts shouting about how the cars are dinosaurs and I explain that he is just hallucinating and he turns it right back on me and says that I'm hallucinating...sure we're making the same argument but he's wrong.

In addition, while we may have done so in the past, we no longer live in a society dominated by the religous, far from it.

Yes it is. We still have pro-religious laws in effect, coming out as an atheist is often political suicide, especially in the US. But it's a minor point anyway.

In any case, there is little logic in the statement that, in today's Ireland, the existence of extreme atheists "softens up" the moderate religous person but the existence of extreme religous does not "soften up" the moderate atheist.

Extremists almosts always merely encourage extremism. I dont deny the point that, at certain stages of a struggle, there may be a need for an extremist (crude example: Pearse et al circa 1916) but that ultimately the centre ground will take over, but that is not the position we currently find ourselves in. We do not live in a theocracy. That stage has well passed.

I can't believe you're using the single term "extremist" to refer to both religious fundamentalists and vocal atheists. It absolutely absurd.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure.

I don't think we can ever be sure. So while you and I have very similar opinions we're not exactly in agreement.

ChocolateSauce

Strictly speaking, all non-fundamentalist atheists are agnostic. I don't think there is (or should be) anything at all to stop agnostics from being militant anti-theists. It seems to me that, like "atheist", the term agnostic is usually used to describe how people view religion rather than the claims religion makes.

Flamed Diving

So, what would the statement 'god/s is unknown' come under?

Shane_C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You'll find that atheists spend a lot of their time reminding theists that human perception is not perfect, especially when they talk about things like miracles

It all comes down to evolution, to say we are both advanced enough to make models for everything and similarly on the highest plain of conciousness is quite presumptuous.

Morbert wrote: »

similar to the way there are aspects of the universe cannot be understood by a dog.

booya....

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there a clear definition of agnosticism?

Its out in the ether with 2 + 2 = "some gobsh1te on the internet"

ChocolateSauce

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, what would the statement 'god/s is unknown' come under?

Honesty and a bit too much modesty...I think that just because it is unknowable does not mean it is in any way remotely probable. But agnostic is the answer...this lop-sided probability is why I prefer the term atheist though; agnostic conjures up the thought of people sitting on the fence, which I think most of us are certainly not doing.

Shane_C

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

agnostic conjures up the thought of people sitting on the fence, which I think most of us are certainly not doing.

Even worse Agnosticism conjures up an image of the bat from asop's fables. Not picking sides until judgement day and being the first up to kiss buddah's belly at the end of it all.
I usually use the term atheist: even though it isn't correct it is more similar to how people perceive my views.

Flamed Diving

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Honesty and a bit too much modesty...I think that just because it is unknowable does not mean it is in any way remotely probable. But agnostic is the answer...this lop-sided probability is why I prefer the term atheist though; agnostic conjures up the thought of people sitting on the fence, which I think most of us are certainly not doing.

I agree with all of the above, but I'm turned off by the arrogance of Atheism. Much like any POV that makes strong statements about unanswerable (at this time) questions. I think it to be far more enlightened to state that god/FSM/fairies as unknown (not unknowable), hence putting them onto a dusty shelf, and focusing the resource of human thought on other topics.

Flamed Diving

Shane_C wrote: »

Even worse Agnosticism conjures up an image of the bat from asop's fables. Not picking sides until judgement day and being the first up to kiss buddah's belly at the end of it all.
I usually use the term atheist: even though it isn't correct it is more similar to how people perceive my views.

Why is it about picking sides? How juvenile a statement is that?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

I can't believe you're using the single term "extremist" to refer to both religious fundamentalists and vocal atheists. It absolutely absurd.

Oh come on, Zillah, you know precisely what I am talking about. Vocal/extreme, whatever, dont purposely get caught up in nomenclature when we have been over and back on this point. I used the term "extreme athesist" twice in a contention I made on a previous post and you didnt seem to take issue with it then, in fact you said something along the lines of "that is exactly what I mean" in response....!!

And as for your religous domination point, Im not going to get into US politics, but in Ireland, the domination of the Church is all but over and one's religous views are close to irrelevent in politics. I couldnt tell you who is particularly devout in Irish politics. I only heard recently that Ivan Yates was protestant and he was in frontline politics for a couple of decades.

Sure, being a vocal atheist might still be problematic for many politicians but I think that is less to do with the politician not believing in God but more to do with the view that many have about atheism; a view I believe is solidified by the attitudes of many "extreme" atheists, which is pretty much my point.

drkpower

Wicknight wrote: »

To me an agnostic is someone who says "I'm not really sure about religion X, or the claims it makes, but I'm open to the idea that it all could have happened"

Which to me is even sillier than theism, given how many religions have both ridiculous claims and claims that would contradict the claims of other religions. Even if one is right they can't all be right. Sitting on the fence and saying that you are not 100% convinced but are open to the idea that Jesus may have been resurrected and Muhammand may have talked to angels seems rather silly.

You are defining agnosticism by reference to certain claims of a religon rather than, properly, by reference to the ultimate issue of God(s). There are, of course, different definitions but that is what an agnostic tends to be "open-minded"/"unsure"/"uncaring"/"unknowing" about.

ChocolateSauce

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I agree with all of the above, but I'm turned off by the arrogance of Atheism. Much like any POV that makes strong statements about unanswerable (at this time) questions. I think it to be far more enlightened to state that god/FSM/fairies as unknown (not unknowable), hence putting them onto a dusty shelf, and focusing the resource of human thought on other topics.

I have put a great deal of thought into the problem of arrogance...while I would be uncomfortable acting and speaking the way Dawkins does, he's never actually said anything I disagree with, and indeed I find he just says what I think. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think arrogance is actually a bad thing in and of itself, especially when you're not talking about god but about people and organised religion. I also think that by focusing on organised religion, we are focusing on one of humanity's problems.

Flamed Diving

drkpower wrote: »

You are defining agnosticism by reference to the claims of a religon rather than, properly, by reference to God. There are, of course, different definitions but that is what an agnostic tends to be "open-minded"/"unsure"/"uncaring" about.

Exactly. Given the restricted nature of our senses, the way we experience the universe I find it quite remarkable that people see someone saying 'I really don't know' as being so 'stupid' or 'silly'. We understand that there could be multiple universes, maybe infinite universes. Infinite dimensions. We cannot detect most of our universe, defined by matter and energy, and yet we sit here and state to KNOW how the universe came to be.

Of course, I think it unlikely that a being created the universe. But we have to accept that the answer to it is unknown, just like fairies.

Shane_C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why is it about picking sides? How juvenile a statement is that?

I didn't say it was my opinion, if I say "atheist" average joe has a better understanding of what I am about.
Why is it about putting labels on things? How juvenile is that?