We are all agnostic, in the sense that nothing is really known, nor ever can be. Everything we hold to be true, requires faith in something.
Fair comment. Though if there was an all being creator would he really want us all blowing each other up and shooting each other? No. It’s bollocks mate.
For me, in simple terms, these are exactly the things we are told not to do. If the whole test in this life is what we believe then there will be those who fail.
Well as PNP said, you could apply the same to every religion as well. Which means if we use what you've said, everyone - muslim, christian. jewish, hindu, jedi are all agnostic?
Not really I say I believe in a creator and a creator exists You believe one doesn't I can't physically show you a creator and point to the "proofs" I have You can't prove one doesn't and can only point to the "proofs" you have Edit. I just seen @Treble reply. So yeah I can see why you say what you said
You've slightly misrepresented my position, but you've basically said that both beliefs are mirrors of each other. That would mean that you think either both should be agnostic or neither should.
1. The philosophical question is whether a falsifiable test for the existence of God(s) can ever be devised by humans. 2. The scientific question is whether said test can be constructed with CURRENT tech. I am not religious, and my to answer to #2 / #1 is : no / perhaps. My answers do not make me agnostic.
But in terms of currently existing relgions which claim to the the one truth, then their falsifiable claims can currently be tested and each are found to be BS. Prayer does not work in helping people recover. Fact. Saying some words does not turn wine into blood. Fact. The Earth was not created 6000-10000 years ago. Fact. So IMO agnosticism can be used as a justification for some kind of general spirituality but certaintly doesn't allow any of the current major religions to be considered plausible.
Both your examples are not really relevant to the issue of a creator. Unless you only base it on certain elements of christianity
Well, there's no way to say that prayers do not work in helping people to recover. There is an overarching theological question as to whether a prayer is being answered, and if not why not? For a greater purpose which we may not understand at the time. The idea of changing wine to blood is symbolic not literal. The Earth being created 6000-10,000 years ago is a misinterpretation. But even if it is taken literally and a mistake to do so (as I believe) does not mean everything else is wrong or that God doesn't exist - merely a failing on our part. That last point is just the same as you'd apply with any scientific enquiry.
You don't have to be religious in the discussion about a creator. I can believe in a creator and not ascribe to a religious ideology. Current science tech (your words) could arguably be used to justify existence and non existence
Let's not turn this into a religion thread. Although I can see 100 pages if we do and that would be just me and @DMD
