Marinus

I don't think many historians actually believe that the four gospels are correct in every detail, especially so if they're not biased (i.e. not Christian) The majority thiing Jesus actually existed, and was a guru of sorts, but the miraculous stuff is disputed. And without that Jesus is just a man of course.

That's just low..... I love it!!!

Your "eye-witness testimonies" aren't very reliable according to historians. I think most historians agree that the gospels are probably based on a real person, but it isn't even a proven fact that Jesus of Nazareth really existed, let alone his resurrection and all the miraculous stuff that's claimed about J6

Personally if I've to choose from those three I would go with lunatic, because someone who turns the other cheek and loves there enemy, isn't sane. But of course Lewis' trilemma is a false trilemma, because there's many more options. Jesus could be lord, liar, lunatic, made up, composed of different persons, misquoted, roughly based on someone, etc. etc.

This doesn't explain the (seemingly) condescending tone in which most US atheists in this topic talk about/to agnostics. I'm not offended or something, I think it's peculiar and not very smart.

I also figured out what the difference between European and US atheists is: European atheists don't believe in God. US atheists don't believe in God and want to have a fucking medal for it.

BS, an agnostic doesn't have to keep both options WIDE open. An agnostic that thinks there's probably no god, doesn't keep the option "wide" open. ? You call agnosticism fence-sitting, and that's because you don't really understand what agnosticism is. Or even more precise, you're talking about one of the many forms of agnosticism and assume that's the only form. a) Apparently you think all agnostics think there's about 50% chance god exists, thus proving my point that you don't really understand what agnosticism is. b) I don't know if somewhere in the universe horselike creatures with a single horn on the head exist, so yes, I'm agnostic towards unicorns. etc. I'm not "completely open" to the possibility, and I'm not waiting for evidence/deem it necessary to decide about it, because I couldn't care less whether unicorns (or deities for that matter) exist or not. Wrong: strong atheists are completely sure that there isn't a God, weak atheists admit that they can't be 100% sure. Weak atheism can (rightfully) be explained as a form of agnosticism. It's pretty much a tomato tomato issue.

The Christian God is supposed to be all good, all powerful and all-knowing, so that makes the existence of undeserved evil, (like a toddler dying of AIDS in some godforsaken desert while crows are picking his /her eyes out) a rather big problem.

I already start to dislike all the atheists that use "agnostic(ism)" and "fence" in the same sentence Other then that it's rather strange to assume that a stance that's almost by definition insecure ("I don't know") offers safety.

Hum, 9 5 6 ----> 9 5+6 *starts folding an aluminium hat*

Let me quote myself: The problem of evil is a good argument against (for example) Christianity... happy now?

Ok, turn in your man card. We already did that in 2000 when the Femifacist Lesbo Nazis took over the Netherlands, and decided that men were females with testosterone issues

The problem of evil isn't really an argument against the existence of god(s) it's an argument against the existence of a couple of specific gods. Nowhere in the job description it states that a god has to be good or even interested in humanity.

Atheists are agnostic attention whores

It's not that long ago that people were burned alive on the town square because people lacked toleration. I think toleration is a good thing even if that doesn't mean everyone sucks your ideological dick.

. I think the US has a good chance of becoming godless over the course of this century, but you heathens should really choose your battles wisely. Unless I missed out some type of humour I don't understand, it seems the tensions between agnostics and atheists on your side of the pond are worse the the tensions between christians and godless people on this side.

Yeah, well, if US atheists and agnostics can't unite, I foresee a nice spiritual and religious future for the States. Good luck!

You're kidding, right?

350 hindus? Holy cow!!!!

Atheism is agnosticism with an exclamation mark.

I think many agnostics just don't care. Also, if you think the existence of a god should automatically give bald monkeys on a rock that circles a run of the mill star hope, you just lack fantasy. But then again atheists of your specific subtype usually lack fantasy.

You might want to read a bit about agnosticism, I suggest the wikipedia page on it for starters. Most agnostics I know have no problem calling religion BS, they just don't reject the possibility (however small that possibility might be) of a god/creator/whatever. US atheists should really learn to be more laid back about their "brothers and sisters" in disbelief, because agnosticism is usually practically the same as atheism.

I think we're pretty much on the same page on this. The difference mostly seems to be a semantic one. Before I stumbled over the term apatheism, I couldn't decide whether I was an agnostic or an atheist. Apatheism comes closest to how I view things, but the term "weak atheism" also applies to me.

That's probably true, so I never drew that conclusion. However, I did the next best thing, the absence of any evidence of any deity means that deities, whether they exist or not, are irrelevant to humanity. It's called apatheism. Apatheism is also known under the name "practical atheism" if I'm not mistaken.

A small addition: I never came to the conclusion that there isn't a God, but shortly after noon on June 26th 2007 I concluded that there was no reason whatsoever to assume there was a God.