Why haven't you taken the /agnostic/ redpill Sup Forums?

why haven't you taken the /agnostic/ redpill Sup Forums?
accept that there is no evidence of god or evidence against god.

bump

one last bumperidoo, third time's the charm

Well I for one don't have a problem with them. It is an entirely rational and logical position to hold.

" pol - Politically Incorrect "
idiot

Though I am also the guy from the other thread who said I didn't think Sup Forums cared about agnostics.

>why haven't you taken the /agnostic/ redpill Sup Forums?

I have, I'm an agnostic theist.

pascal's wager

Do you consider yourself a deist?

No then I'd be an agnostic deist.

Yeah, but God knows what's in your heart, so only believing for fearing the consequences is essentially being a non believer. You're going to hell, user.

what is the distinction in your mind between agnostic deist and agnostic theist?

Fuck off,
The faith is true, the church is false
fuck niggers too

>no evidence of god
>nothing exploded and became everything
>this is concrete science, airtight

you can't believe in god itself
you can only believe in the idea of god

everyone therefore is fundamentally an atheist but the religious are idolators as they worship a mental image

There's also no evidence for or against Russel's Teapot. Should I be agnostic about that, too?

well, something exploding and creating everything that you understand doesnt negate the existence of god.

if god is true, why would it be outside his powers to create a big bang? thing is, it wouldnt be outside his powers. the big bang does not prove nor disprove the existence of god.

> t. Ahmed

What's the distinction between a deist and theist?

Same with evolution, desu.

Disprove the resurrection

I don't think there generally is one if you are talking about an agnositic theist or a deist. I always viewed a deist as an agnostic theist. Now a theist can also include say a christian, or a jew, or a muslim, or a zoroastrian.

So what justifies your belief then? And why is God required to start the universe?

>if god is true, why would it be outside his powers to create a big bang? thing is, it wouldnt be outside his powers.
precisely
>the big bang does not prove nor disprove the existence of god.
how the fuck did you make that causal leap

>it proves the existence of a higher power than what we know
>"god" is the assertion that a higher power created "creation"
>a basic understanding in religion conveys the understanding that scripture is a tool for the unwashed masses and god is not a literal man in the clouds

You need to check ignosticism which is much smarter than agnosticism.

evolution is the presence of order against chaos, to a certain extent

it is not purely random, it's genetic destiny
there is an argument to be made that any sort of "order" is a point in the god-column, but inb4 someone points out the retarded giraffe nerve that supposedly disproves the existence of any natural order whatsoever

>I don't think there generally is one if you are talking about an agnositic theist or a deist
Why exactly? Deist and theist are distinctly different claims.

This is an ontological debate about what constitutes "God" if everyone already agrees that there is an inevitable *something* that created-creation.

If anything, accepting a pre-Big Bang in any form is accepting a form of deity by our current standards

>how the fuck did you make that causal leap
Considering that I am agnostic, I dont see it as much of a leap. Now, I believe that there are better arguments for the existence of God than arguments against the existence of God. However, there are two main possibilities causes of the big bang (if true to begin with) that I see, either God, or some other natural explanation that we havent come to terms with.

>it proves the existence of a higher power than what we know
In what way does it prove anything other than there was a big bang?

>Deist and theist are distinctly different claims.
What are their claims then?

Already took it, and I feel grEAT

Intervention vs non-intervention.

>In what way does it prove anything other than there was a big bang?
What exploded?
What existed before the big bang?
Did you not just accept a sort of pre-existence?

>What exploded?
>What existed before the big bang?
I dunno m8, wasnt there.

>Did you not just accept a sort of pre-existence?
Personally, not really. I dont necessarily take the big bang as fact, I was just explaining my perspective that if the big bang happened, it wouldnt prove nor disprove anything other than that the big bang happened.
Again, it couldve just been something within the natural realm that we just dont understand yet. I suppose it would be similar to dark matter in that aspect. Could be supernatural, could be something we just cant wrap our heads around.

If this helps make my perspective clearer, if I was forced to choose between believing that God exists and that God doesnt exist, I would be in favor of his existence. So, I see what youre saying in that something would have to be there before the big bang so therefore it would have to be God because something cant come from nothing.