http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/2009/an-agnostic-in-waiting/ The one true atheist ministry. Become Ordained for FREE! Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:25:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/2009/an-agnostic-in-waiting/comment-page-1/#comment-3936 Chris Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:06:44 +0000 http://firstchurchofatheism.com/?p=876#comment-3936 This story is the kind of mindset you were ranting about? This story is the kind of mindset you were ranting about?

]]> http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/2009/an-agnostic-in-waiting/comment-page-1/#comment-3680 TravCav Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:23:52 +0000 http://firstchurchofatheism.com/?p=876#comment-3680 This is the kind of agnostic mindset I was ranting about in the forums recently. http://forum.firstchurchofatheism.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=432 It's not a form of vanity and ego to claim that what we can’t see might not be there. It's rational and logical. Until there's a reason to think something is there, then there's no logical reason to think that it is there. Just like the dragon in the garage. http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/2009/the-dragon-in-my-garage/ Even if there is something there, if there is no good evidence to show it's there then it's still a rational and valid claim to say that there is nothing there. It is only vanity and ego to make unsupported claims . If there is no good evidence then it is a form of vanity and ego to say that there might be something there. I think the earth is not full of peanut butter and jelly. This is a valid and rational claim. Even if they proved tomorrow, beyond any doubt, that it is indeed full of peanut butter and jelly, my previous claim was still valid and rational at the time, and I was correct in making the claim, because that's where the evidence pointed to at the time. If I continued to make this claim in light of the new evidence however then the claim would be an irrational claim. I have looked at the evidence and I can make the claim that I know there are no gods just like I can make the claim that I know the earth isn't full of peanut butter and jelly. Vanity and ego do not enter into these claims. If it's a form of vanity and ego to make these claims then it is a form of vanity and ego to make any claim about existence at all. This is the kind of agnostic mindset I was ranting about in the forums recently. http://forum.firstchurchofatheism.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=432
It’s not a form of vanity and ego to claim that what we can’t see might not be there. It’s rational and logical. Until there’s a reason to think something is there, then there’s no logical reason to think that it is there. Just like the dragon in the garage. http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/2009/the-dragon-in-my-garage/
Even if there is something there, if there is no good evidence to show it’s there then it’s still a rational and valid claim to say that there is nothing there. It is only vanity and ego to make unsupported claims . If there is no good evidence then it is a form of vanity and ego to say that there might be something there.
I think the earth is not full of peanut butter and jelly. This is a valid and rational claim. Even if they proved tomorrow, beyond any doubt, that it is indeed full of peanut butter and jelly, my previous claim was still valid and rational at the time, and I was correct in making the claim, because that’s where the evidence pointed to at the time. If I continued to make this claim in light of the new evidence however then the claim would be an irrational claim.
I have looked at the evidence and I can make the claim that I know there are no gods just like I can make the claim that I know the earth isn’t full of peanut butter and jelly. Vanity and ego do not enter into these claims. If it’s a form of vanity and ego to make these claims then it is a form of vanity and ego to make any claim about existence at all.

]]>