Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Agnosticism. [View all]rug
(82,333 posts)48. No, I'm saying it's not yours.
As to the stronger arguments, I stick with the philosophical ones, Epicurus specifically. Those arguments are not based on observation but on logic and internal contradictions and extrapolations. Those are much harder to rebut, especially since the common definitions of gods include supernatural attributes which by definition are beyond natural observation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, I didn't say it was foolish to reject something that for an individual has zero evidence.
cbayer
Jul 2014
#8
I fail to see any petty insults or baseless character assassinations, but if that is
cbayer
Jul 2014
#50
I double down on this because I disagree with the argument about what this word means.
cbayer
Jul 2014
#22