I don't think you need faith in "unknowing" something. You simply know that you don't know. It's one of the few things you can truly know.
Hence why its faith.
I don't think you need faith in "unknowing" something. You simply know that you don't know. It's one of the few things you can truly know.
Hence why its faith.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see it like that.![]()
How can one speak of credibilty on religion,when its all faith?
Agnostic is a faith and no different than having a faith in god.
quite easily tbh.. as I've already pointed out - cargo cults - we know what a plane is yet they have faith in them being sent from the gods - we know that that faith is completely lacks any credibility
erm no
I'd agree if you said atheism is a belief i.e. they believe there isn't a god just as a Christian believe there is - agnostics are simply saying we can't prove it either way
I agree completelyGod doesn't allow these things.
All the things you mention are Manifestations of man.
Hence why its faith.
Again it's not. You come up with a model by which we could test it. At the moment we have no method which can test it, therefore it is untestable and as suuch agnostic is the only one which doesn't require faith.Being aggorant enough to state "we can't prove it either way" is as much a faith statement as saying "there is a god or there isnt one."
But it's not a faith it's a fact. It's imposable to prove one way or the other(at the moment). Therefore no faith is required.
How can it be fact when ,as you state It's impossible to prove one way or the other.
Your saying it is untestable and unknown therefore where is the faith?Its faith in the unknowing.
How can it be fact when ,as you state It's impossible to prove one way or the other.
Thats the point
Its faith in the unknowing.
To have a belief in Atheism shows as much faith as the pure conviction of god.
Karl Marx said:Religion is the opiate of the people.
Agnosticism is not a faith based position.
.
Don't know who said this but I think it's apt:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?