(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The thread that was the shining light of the last two debating sections(ugh, really?) that was God vs Fact has been trashed or something(ugh, again) so this thread is here to take the place of that one.

Some extremely basic terminology...

Theist: believes in a god(s).
Deist: believes in a god(s) that created the universe but subsequently abandoned it and/or believes that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of god(s).
Atheist: does not believe in a god(s).
Agnostic: does not claim to know if a god exists or believes that such knowledge cannot be known, depending on the definition. Typically when I personally use this label I'm referring to the former.
Gnostic: claims to know one way or the other if a god exists.

There are some more but that's the basics down. I'm an agnostic atheist. What are you and why?

Edit: Thanks to whichever mod/admin butchered the thread's title and poll. The poll now makes no sense whatsoever.

100% Atheist , even though if ppl got help from there religion its good for them
as long as they stick the country's rules and dont start a war nshit

No, those chemical reactions are specifically what love is.



I'd argue that morality is subjective.



I'm agnostic in that I don't claim to know whether a god exists or not however I will dismiss a claim to a god's existence without evidence just as quickly as I will any other unevidenced claim. I'm an atheist as I don't believe in any gods.



I struggle to see the relevance. If hypothetically my opinion on the origins of the universe were wrong, that would just leave me with an "I don't know" which would in no way give credence to the existence of a deity.

I would love for you to demonstrate evidence of morality if it is subjective. What's your saying is good and bad would be contingent upon "feelings" and decisions made by an individual. How can you have any evidence for something that isn't even relative to the person next to you?

The relevance of asking you for further details is to see how you logically merit those items without crediting it to the existence of a God.

Just let that sink in every one...

What's the point? If you hypothetically refute my arguments and opinions then I'll be left with an "I don't know." No refutation will lead me to believe that a deity exists, how rationally could it?

Then, by logical deducing, you would still be associating with the least logical explanation. It certainly will not make my claims veridical, but it'll make your claims weaker than mine, which is the whole premise of debating. We both know there is no scientific proof of a God existing or not existing as of now.

You still have not touched upon my question of subjective morality.

Because it's irrelevant.

As I said, if you convince me I'm wrong on for example morality I'll just switch to an "I don't know" position which is significantly more logical than suggesting something for which there is no evidence.

In terms of a general debate, this isn't the place for that. This thread is for debating the existence of a god. By all means make a thread dedicated to morality or whatever else though.

There is an abudance of evidence for morality being objective among other things, and of course this is the place for that.

You could apply the same premise to this very debate about God, i'll switch to "I don't know" and I'll win! That is not how a debate works.

Seems you're unable / unwilling to continue after some penetrating questions.

If you switch to "I don't know" then arguably you're correct, so don't be afraid to do that.

I don't debate to win, I debate to see if there's reasoning or evidence I'm unaware of in order to form better educated opinions. Evidently our goals here are different.