If you are agnostic why don't you just believe anyways?

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: jer0608
...

But any admirable person would not close their minds to new evidence even if he/she had choosen a path. As an engineer, you have to make decisions. Often there is no one true path. But, a decision has to be made.

Suppose people are in space. Suppose their craft has severe problems and they need to return home. Suppose you are one of the NASA engineers who have to devise a solution. You can't just leave the astronauts stranded just because there isn't definitive proof of a clear 100% correct answer. Instead, you take the knowledge you have, and make up the best plan that you can at the moment. As an engineer you constantly are looking for more data and revising the plan. But you still have to have a plan. You have to save their lives. Heck, you will likely develop a half dozen or more plans. But one of them must be eventually followed. You might take one path and the evidence shows it to be a bad idea and backtrack to one of your backup plans - that is what I call admirable. But again, you eventually must take one path. You understand that there are limits and that you may be wrong. But doing nothing is worse that doing something.

The scenario in your analogy above (and in the drowning situation, for that matter) differs from the situation that I refer to. I am talking about causality investigations after the fact. Taking your scenario a step further, suppose the craft has failed and taken the lives of the astronauts (i.e. Columbia). You begin your investigation and process corrections to ensure this never happens again. Two months in, you have assessed the evidence and a couple of hypothesis stand out as likely root cause. However, there is dissension among your investigators as to which one is most likely. As chief of the investigation, do you go with what you feel is correct because you have pressure from Congress or do you dig deeper? I would certainly hope the latter. This is the type of situation I was referring to.

Obviously, an emergency where lives are at stake demands a response. However, I, and most agnostics, would not place questions about belief and existence in that category. The consequences of making a decision (closed-mindedness) are worse than those of remaining undecided (essentially nothing).

One last comment: although agnostics are "undecided", I would guess that most have beliefs concerning the possible nature of God, if it exists. For example, if there is a higher power, I find it preposterous that such a being would punish my skepticism and inquisitiveness with eternal torment. Thus, for me, there is no "downside risk" in not believing.

 

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: jer0608
...

But any admirable person would not close their minds to new evidence even if he/she had choosen a path...

That would be admirable, indeed. Most people will resist new ideas that contradict their decisions and beliefs. They may not be "closed-minded", but there will be resistance, however slight. It's invariably a blow to a person's self-esteem to admit they are wrong.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: jer0608
As chief of the investigation, do you go with what you feel is correct because you have pressure from Congress or do you dig deeper? I would certainly hope the latter. This is the type of situation I was referring to.

Of course, any admirable person would do the latter.

Obviously, an emergency where lives are at stake demands a response. However, I, and most agnostics, would not place questions about belief and existence in that category. The consequences of making a decision (closed-mindedness) are worse than those of remaining undecided (essentially nothing).

Ok I gave examples to catch attention. But you do make choices daily that are in at least some way related to religion. Did you go to a church, temple, synagog, or similar place today? Did you go during the last week or last month? Those were choices you made each and every day. To go or not to go. You make choices on politics, choices on how to interact with others, choices on pretty much every aspect of your life. These choices can almost entirely be traced back to some form of religion. Are you dening the fact that you have personal beliefs and that those beliefs affect your life? If you have personal beliefs, then that is your religion.

Some "agnostics" lead a life which nearly mimicks many Christians but won't go as far as claiming there is a god. Other "agnostics" lead a life which is nearly athiest but won't go as far as claiming there isn't a god. You likely lie somewhere in that range. Those are important decisions that you make based on the evidence at hand. That is now your religion, you can go forth proudly claiming that instead of being an "I can't make up my mind agnostic".

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: azazyel
Bill Hicks talking about taking a heroic dose of magic mushrooms...

"I'm glad they are against the law. You know what happened when I took them? I laid in a field of green grass for 4 hours going my god I love everything. The heavens parted, god looked down and rained down gifts of forgiveness onto my being, healing me on every level, psychically, physically, emotionally. And I realized that our true nature is sprit not body, that we are eternal beings and god's love is unconditional and there is nothing that we can ever do to change that. It is only our illusion that we are separate from god or that we are alone. In fact, the reality is we are one with god and he loves us."

No hell, just us and god. Some of us don't need a middleman.

It's just a ride ...

/pours out a :beer: for Bill

- M4H

 

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Haps
...I personally call myself an athiest. I believe there is no supreme being guiding how the universe forms and develops. However, I believe the universe was always here and always will be here. I may be wrong. Evidence may be learned that disproves my belief. In that case, I'll have to change my belief if I agree with the evidence. However, my belief has meaning to me. Thus it is a religion. You may call my religion hogwash. You are free to do so. But you have your own personal beliefs. Thus you have a personal religion. Being agnostic is the denial that you have your own beliefs.

Hmm, my understanding of the word "atheist" may be overly narrow. I always thought that anyone who entertained the possibility (however remote) that their belief in the non-existence of God(s) could be undone could not lay claim to that term. On the flip side, I always felt that an "agnostic" could have very strong predilections, "beliefs" if you will, one way or the other. It is the admittance of skepticism, however slight, that placed one in the agnostic category. An agnostic need not attribute equal likelihood to the God/no God stances.

 

[azazyel]

Anyone here a Deist?

 

[theking84]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: jer0608
...

But any admirable person would not close their minds to new evidence even if he/she had choosen a path. As an engineer, you have to make decisions. Often there is no one true path. But, a decision has to be made.

Suppose people are in space. Suppose their craft has severe problems and they need to return home. Suppose you are one of the NASA engineers who have to devise a solution. You can't just leave the astronauts stranded just because there isn't definitive proof of a clear 100% correct answer. Instead, you take the knowledge you have, and make up the best plan that you can at the moment. As an engineer you constantly are looking for more data and revising the plan. But you still have to have a plan. You have to save their lives. Heck, you will likely develop a half dozen or more plans. But one of them must be eventually followed. You might take one path and the evidence shows it to be a bad idea and backtrack to one of your backup plans - that is what I call admirable. But again, you eventually must take one path. You understand that there are limits and that you may be wrong. But doing nothing is worse that doing something.

Your analogy is flawed. In it, whether or not the engineer makes a decision affects other peoples lives. They can die if he doesn't act, or die if he makes the wrong decision.

If a person makes a choice to believe or not to believe, or is still undecided, there is no different forseeable outcome, especially not one that effects others - so why does it matter if they remain undecided?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: jer0608
Hmm, my understanding of the word "atheist" may be overly narrow. I always thought that anyone who entertained the possibility (however remote) that their belief in the non-existence of God(s) could be undone could not lay claim to that term. On the flip side, I always felt that an "agnostic" could have very strong predilections, "beliefs" if you will, one way or the other. It is the admittance of skepticism, however slight, that placed one in the agnostic category. An agnostic need not attribute equal likelihood to the God/no God stances.

By your definition, since existance cannot be proven/disproven, then everyone in the world who ever thinks must be an agnostic. It may be a dictionary definition of agnostic, but it is useless. I instead use much more useful definitions. If right at this moment for some strange reason you had to choose would you choose (a) there probably is a god - you are a theist, (b) there probably isn't a god - you are atheist, (c) you are on the fence and just cannot choose - you are agnostic.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: theking84
If a person makes a choice to believe or not to believe, or is still undecided, there is no different forseeable outcome, especially not one that effects others - so why does it matter if they remain undecided?

It most certainly does affect others. Stem cell research - yes or no? Abortion - yes or no? Death penalty - yes or no? These are all intimately religious topics and you likely have taken a stance on them. You may very likely have voted and affected the outcome of the world on those stances.

Your father is on life support - pull the plug or not? Your new boss invites everyone at work to a semi-religious outing - do you go or not? Your next door neighbor invites you to a Christmas party - do you go or not? All of these affect others. You are delusional if you think your decisions don't affect others, and you are more delusional if you think religious beliefs don't play any role in these decisions.

 

[JoeI]

this thread is pointless. Everyone has different beliefs, and it is impossible to change their views 99% of the time.

 

[theking84]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: theking84
If a person makes a choice to believe or not to believe, or is still undecided, there is no different forseeable outcome, especially not one that effects others - so why does it matter if they remain undecided?

It most certainly does affect others. Stem cell research - yes or no? Abortion - yes or no? Death penalty - yes or no? These are all intimately religious topics and you likely have taken a stance on them. You may very likely have voted and affected the outcome of the world on those stances.

Your father is on life support - pull the plug or not? Your new boss invites everyone at work to a semi-religious outing - do you go or not? Your next door neighbor invites you to a Christmas party - do you go or not? All of these affect others. You are delusional if you think your decisions don't affect others, and you are more delusional if you think religious beliefs don't play any role in these decisions.

Um, I am about as angostic as they come, and I can still easily answer all those questions without thinking about religion. I'm sure countless others can, too.
Stem cell - yes
Abortion - don't agree with it, but I do think it should be legal
Death penalty - yes
life support - depends on situation
semi-religious outing with the boss? sure if it seems the least bit fun and will get me closer with the boss
Christmas party? Sounds like fun

I don't need to believe in god/religion one way or ther other to be able to make a decision. If you base every single decision you ever make off whether or not you believe in god, that's up to you. I can do without.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: theking84
Um, I am about as angostic as they come, and I can still easily answer all those questions without thinking about religion. I'm sure countless others can, too.
Stem cell - yes
Abortion - don't agree with it, but I do think it should be legal
Death penalty - yes
life support - depends on situation
semi-religious outing with the boss? sure if it seems the least bit fun and will get me closer with the boss
Christmas party? Sounds like fun

Good. You just answered a wide array of intimately religious questions. All of which utilized your belief system. You were definitive on all your answers - and not at all agnostic (unable to choose) in any of them. Thus you have a religion which is your set of beliefs. You no longer have to label yourself as unable to choose. You have chosen. Now you can free yourself of that agnostic label. You are a stout believer in the TheKing84 religion.

 

[LongCoolMother]

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is not necessary to make your mind up - thats WHY there are agnostics. They don't have 'peace of mind' either way - knowing either choice is likely 50% wrong with NO way to prove anything.

As i said in an edit - MOST people accept their parent's religion withOUT questioning . . . that can NOT be good.

imo, the "burden of proof" rests with the believers . . . if "god" wanted us to have "proof" - we would have . . .

I 100% agree that is it really bad to blindly follow your parent's religion. Same goes with political views. But I truely think if agnostics sat down and assigned weights to each piece of circumstancial evidence, then there would be nearly zero people who at the end of the day say it is exactly 50%/50%. Most agnostics would end up with 49%/51% or 51%/49%. From there, it is easy to go with one side. If the evidence or weighting changes, change sides.

What evidence? There is no evidence that god exists. None whatsoever.

well then....

there is also no concrete evidence that god does NOT exist. none whatsoever. so which do you believe? i think thats what dullard has been trying to say. you can neither prove nor disprove god. its all in the eye of the beholder. some people think circumstantial evidence suggests more strongly the existence of a god. some people believe the opposite. to say one side is more credible than the other is only a subjective matter. being agnostic is being unable to decide. or rather, taking no stance simply because you dont know. i dont really care, in my opinion, both there being a god and not being a god seem equally likely/convincing, the former being moreso slightly.

 

[theking84]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: theking84
Um, I am about as angostic as they come, and I can still easily answer all those questions without thinking about religion. I'm sure countless others can, too.
Stem cell - yes
Abortion - don't agree with it, but I do think it should be legal
Death penalty - yes
life support - depends on situation
semi-religious outing with the boss? sure if it seems the least bit fun and will get me closer with the boss
Christmas party? Sounds like fun

Good. You just answered a wide array of intimately religious questions. All of which utilized your belief system. You were definitive on all your answers - and not at all agnostic (unable to choose) in any of them. Thus you have a religion which is your set of beliefs. You no longer have to label yourself as unable to choose. You have chosen. Now you can free yourself of that agnostic label. You are a stout believer in the TheKing84 religion.

Which definition of Agnostic are you using, though? There are two primary ones.
1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I fall under the first definition. My ability to make decisions about other things does not eliminate that fact.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: jer0608
As chief of the investigation, do you go with what you feel is correct because you have pressure from Congress or do you dig deeper? I would certainly hope the latter. This is the type of situation I was referring to.

Of course, any admirable person would do the latter.

Obviously, an emergency where lives are at stake demands a response. However, I, and most agnostics, would not place questions about belief and existence in that category. The consequences of making a decision (closed-mindedness) are worse than those of remaining undecided (essentially nothing).

Ok I gave examples to catch attention. But you do make choices daily that are in at least some way related to religion. Did you go to a church, temple, synagog, or similar place today? Did you go during the last week or last month? Those were choices you made each and every day. To go or not to go. You make choices on politics, choices on how to interact with others, choices on pretty much every aspect of your life. These choices can almost entirely be traced back to some form of religion. Are you dening the fact that you have personal beliefs and that those beliefs affect your life? If you have personal beliefs, then that is your religion.

Some "agnostics" lead a life which nearly mimicks many Christians but won't go as far as claiming there is a god. Other "agnostics" lead a life which is nearly athiest but won't go as far as claiming there isn't a god. You likely lie somewhere in that range. Those are important decisions that you make based on the evidence at hand. That is now your religion, you can go forth proudly claiming that instead of being an "I can't make up my mind agnostic".

heh, so you are a christian or an athiest. What about all the other religions out there? So an agnostic who wont eat pork is a muslum? A agnostic who likes to sacrifice humans on top of large hills a aztec?

Here's my take on the examples.

2 people drowning. I wouldn't care what they would belive, I would choose the one I had the best chance of saving without harm to myself (or the hot one if they were women) Thats like saying a republican, liberal, and democrat are drowning, and your an independant, who do you save? Its a stupid comparison to a belief system. The poster of this question is claiming a christain would let a person die if he was not a christian.

"The scenario in your analogy above (and in the drowning situation, for that matter) differs from the situation that I refer to. I am talking about causality investigations after the fact. Taking your scenario a step further, suppose the craft has failed and taken the lives of the astronauts (i.e. Columbia). You begin your investigation and process corrections to ensure this never happens again. Two months in, you have assessed the evidence and a couple of hypothesis stand out as likely root cause. However, there is dissension among your investigators as to which one is most likely. As chief of the investigation, do you go with what you feel is correct because you have pressure from Congress or do you dig deeper?"

To relate this question to being agnostic, one has to assume that an agnostic cares about death (or life after death). Being as I do not care if there is a heaven or hell, I can say that my answer to this question would be that congress simply was too worried about supreme court nominations to bother pushing the investigation, and I had more important things to do then keep probing after my inital assesment.

Other questions posed in this thread

Stem cell - Sure, why stop knowledge, who knows what we can learn (although I suspsect it will be a dead end like gene therapy)
Abortion - Sure, exept for late term abortion
Death penalty - Sounds good to me, we need more of this
life support - No
semi-religious outing with the boss? If it sounds like a good time. I dont push my beleifs on other's. As long as they do the same, I'll go and have fun.
Christmas party? Sure, but I dont bring gifts. This is no different then my hindu and jewish friends coming to my mom's x-mas party. I will come and celebrate your beleifs with you if its a good time.

So the answer to the question why not choose to be atheist or follow a religion is simply because it doesn't matter to us. We place no importance in it. Its just a novel concept we muse ourselfs with when we are bored. It falls into does man have a soul, or who made god, what is the nature of evil, what is time, do aliens exist. You think about it, you go eh, time to go to work so I can hang out with my wife or play some halo. Maybe after 5-6 beers you have a "Deep" discussion about it with your friends and the implications of time travel. In the end, I will die and then I will either be gone, or I will know the truth and that will be enough comfort for any hell.

 

[Cobalt]

I do believe and am agnostic at the same time. There is no reason you cannot be. Agnosticism just says that we, as a race, or as people will never know for fact if there is or isn't a God, there isn't a way to prove there is or prove against one. That doesn't mean you cannot believe in one.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: theking84
Which definition of Agnostic are you using, though?

There is no proof of a gods existance nor proof against a gods existance. Thus by definition #1, anyone who thinks about religion must be agnostic. Labeling everyone in the world agnostic dilutes the meaning of the word and makes it useless. Thus that common definition of the word must be excluded. We need a more descriptive word so that we can differentiate the 6 billion different belief systems out there.

Definition bold #2 must therefore be used if we are to have real religious debates. I listed my definitions in a post above. If today you MUST decide, are you (a) leaning towards existance of god - you are a theist; (b) leaning towards the non-existance of god - you are an athiest; or (c) cannot commit to either (a) or (b) - you are an agnostic.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
heh, so you are a christian or an athiest. What about all the other religions out there? So an agnostic who wont eat pork is a muslum? A agnostic who likes to sacrifice humans on top of large hills a aztec?

Like I said earlier, I call myself an athiest. I think that the evidence for a supreme being having direct/indirect control on the universe is slim to none compared to the evidence against it. Thus I cannot and do not at this time believe in any such supreme being. Can I prove that to others? No. But I certainly am not agnostic. That is why the common definition of agnostic is useless.

 

[theking84]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: theking84
Which definition of Agnostic are you using, though?

There is no proof of a gods existance nor proof against a gods existance. Thus by definition #1, anyone who thinks about religion must be agnostic. Labeling everyone in the world agnostic dilutes the meaning of the word and makes it useless. Thus that common definition of the word must be excluded. We need a more descriptive word so that we can differentiate the 6 billion different belief systems out there.

Definition bold #2 must therefore be used if we are to have real religious debates. I listed my definitions in a post above. If today you MUST decide, are you (a) leaning towards existance of god - you are a theist; (b) leaning towards the non-existance of god - you are an athiest; or (c) cannot commit to either (a) or (b) - you are an agnostic.

That is definition #1, though.
Also, definition #1 doesn't have anything to do with proof. "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." Many believe that it IS possible to know whether there is a god. I do not believe it is possible to know, therefor I fall under that definition.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: theking84
Also, definition #1 doesn't have anything to do with proof. "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." Many believe that it IS possible to know whether there is a god. I do not believe it is possible to know, therefor I fall under that definition.

The only way to truely say you know something is if you can prove it. Thus you can think you know the answer. But if you can't put your logic into a form that others can agree with, then you don't really know it. Proof and knowledge are virtually the same thing.

Anyone with any sort of thought realizes that we cannot know for certain whether there is a god. Thus, by definition everyone who thinks about religion is agnostic.

 

[theking84]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: theking84
Also, definition #1 doesn't have anything to do with proof. "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." Many believe that it IS possible to know whether there is a god. I do not believe it is possible to know, therefor I fall under that definition.

The only way to truely say you know something is if you can prove it. Thus you can think you know the answer. But if you can't put your logic into a form that others can agree with, then you don't really know it. Proof and knowledge are virtually the same thing.

Anyone with any sort of thought realizes that we cannot know for certain whether there is a god. Thus, by definition everyone who thinks about religion is agnostic.

What I'm trying to say is that the definition alone does not talk about proof. "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." I know people who believe in god. They don't need to provide me with physical evidence that they "know" there is a god. They can, however, claim several things such as our existance or the bible or how certain events go in their life. I do not have to agree with it, but that is how they know. It's kind of like how children "know" there is a Santa. Their partents tell them there is, they believe it, and then on December 25th there's gifts under the tree from Santa.

I, on the other hand, do not know. I don't "feel god in my heart." I don't see him helping me in my daily life. But does that mean that there isn't one? I don't know. I believe it is impossible for me to know. If I avoid a serious accident on the way home from work by a hair, was that god helping, or was that just pure damn luck? Some would say it is god, others luck, some would be undecided. I would just be happy.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Legend
Because I believe that if there is a God, it would not judge people on trivial things like "have ya'all been saveda?" I believe it would judge the person solely on their morals and actions in life. Not words. If it were beliefs, then some random saint of a person in Mongolia or China died, they'd go straight to hell. But some losey drunk in the US would get salvation. Sorry, not buying that load of bull.

:thumbsup:

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: theking84
What I'm trying to say is that the definition alone does not talk about proof. "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." I know people who believe in god. They don't need to provide me with physical evidence that they "know" there is a god. They can, however, claim several things such as our existance or the bible or how certain events go in their life. I do not have to agree with it, but that is how they know. It's kind of like how children "know" there is a Santa. Their partents tell them there is, they believe it, and then on December 25th there's gifts under the tree from Santa.

Ok if you don't like my word "proof", I can deal without it. The child you speak of THINKS he/she knows Santa exists. But if that child really tries, he/she will realize it is impossible to know whether there is or is not Santa. You can believe in Santa, but it is impossible to know he exists. Belief does not equal knowledge. That is our sticking point. You express that a person who has belief in God means he/she knows God exists. I disagree.

In fact, many people believe in God, yet simultaneously know that it must be a BELIEF. Something that you just believe, not something that you know or something that you prove. They recognize the fact that they cannot know there is a god, so they instead just believe there is a god (so by definition they are agnostic even though they fully believe in God). I cannot count the endless number of times I've been told to stop thinking and just believe (as religious people try to convert me). They aren't trying to get me to know God exists, they are trying to get me to believe God exists.

As long as you insist that belief = knowledge while I insist that belief != knowledge, this debate will get nowhere. So I'm off for today. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[theking84]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: theking84
What I'm trying to say is that the definition alone does not talk about proof. "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." I know people who believe in god. They don't need to provide me with physical evidence that they "know" there is a god. They can, however, claim several things such as our existance or the bible or how certain events go in their life. I do not have to agree with it, but that is how they know. It's kind of like how children "know" there is a Santa. Their partents tell them there is, they believe it, and then on December 25th there's gifts under the tree from Santa.

Ok if you don't like my word "proof", I can deal without it. The child you speak of THINKS he/she knows Santa exists. But if that child really tries, he/she will realize it is impossible to know whether there is or is not Santa. You can believe in Santa, but it is impossible to know he exists. Belief does not equal knowledge. That is our sticking point. You express that a person who has belief in God means he/she knows God exists. I disagree.

In fact, many people believe in God, yet simultaneously know that it must be a BELIEF. Something that you just believe, not something that you know or something that you prove. They recognize the fact that they cannot know there is a god, so they instead just believe there is a god (so by definition they are agnostic even though they fully believe in God). I cannot count the endless number of times I've been told to stop thinking and just believe (as religious people try to convert me). They aren't trying to get me to know God exists, they are trying to get me to believe God exists.

As long as you insist that belief = knowledge while I insist that belief != knowledge, this debate will get nowhere. So I'm off for today. Thanks for the conversation.

Ok, I understand better now at what you're saying. I'm not trying to necessarily say that belief = knowledge, but I do know some people who believe in god as well as say they know he exists, much like you know people who believe in god but say they cannot know if he does exist.
Because of the fact that there are people who say they know god exists, that is why there is a word to describe people who say it is not possible to know, one way or the other - agnostic.
I once had a long conversation with a friend of mine who insists she knows that god exists. She told me many of the things that I mentioned before (or existance, etc). I don't agree with them. I don't think there is enough evidence for or against, but she believes there is plenty for it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is not necessary to make your mind up - thats WHY there are agnostics. They don't have 'peace of mind' either way - knowing either choice is likely 50% wrong with NO way to prove anything.

As i said in an edit - MOST people accept their parent's religion withOUT questioning . . . that can NOT be good.

imo, the "burden of proof" rests with the believers . . . if "god" wanted us to have "proof" - we would have . . .

I 100% agree that is it really bad to blindly follow your parent's religion. Same goes with political views. But I truely think if agnostics sat down and assigned weights to each piece of circumstancial evidence, then there would be nearly zero people who at the end of the day say it is exactly 50%/50%. Most agnostics would end up with 49%/51% or 51%/49%. From there, it is easy to go with one side. If the evidence or weighting changes, change sides.

short work day . . . i like that.


ANYWAY, if so, then you might as well toss a coin and use your computer to "weight" the results based on percentages of belief or disbelief.

Agnostics find 'god' irrelevant to their lives.

WHY does someone HAVE to make a choice? Especially if you feel it doesn't matter either way?