@el_tino Said Well from a purely rational perspective agnosticism is the most rational. Though the atheist viewpoint is also based on a lack of any empirical evidence whatsoever, as well as some evidence that does contradict certain religious texts.
The dubiousness of religious texts is undoubtable, but has nothing to do with the actual existence of God, just the truth of religious traditions. You are right in supposing that all religions are fundamentally incorrect, but wrong to be certain about God's absence.
@el_tino Said And from the perspective of hypothesis testing (something used in science all the time), you assume that something is NOT true until you get evidence to the contrary.
That works both ways: the hypothesis that God does not exist is not necessarily true until disproved. Since no strong evidence exists either way, neutrality is wise.
Ultimately, God's nature must be absolutely nothing like any religious traditional supposition, if God does indeed exist. So don't lose sleep over it.
Oct 20, 2007 @ 20:43:09
