You can not believe in a experience or experiences alone, without rationalizing it, and braking it down Figuring it out with something like the scientific method.
Experiences them self is not enough, one must be able to put understanding to the experience. Hence add logical awareness to the experience. Creating rationality.

Saying anything is possible so you can skip rationalizing things is why Agnosticism is illogical.

No one is saying we're believing in experiences alone, the rationalization process is included as a given. The point I'm trying to make here is, no matter what you observe or how you want to rationalize something, you can never be sure that you are actually right. If you read a few posts back, I've already stated the two requirements for acquiring knowledge and they are both insufficient to be justified as absolute truth.

First of all you need to trust your senses but there is no unwavering evidence for us to actually trust our five senses.

Secondly you need to have a reliable method to verify your beliefs. How do we know the process is reliable? It must produce correct results. How do we know the results are correct? We must verify them with a reliable method. This is an infinite regression.

When someone applies the scientific method while bearing in mind the faults and imperfections of it, it's much easier to see what the results are actually showing you. If someone has so much faith in the scientific method to the point of it being blind devotion, their eyes are just as clouded as the religious zealots they seek to persecute. This is the exact reason why you have such a hard time accepting what I'm trying to say and why you continuously throw straw mans and red herrings at me.

I do not say all things are possible because I've skipped the rationalization step. I have rationalized my surroundings and I concluded that "As far as we(human beings) know, everything could be possible" <- conclusion
"because we have no way to prove that it's impossible." <- rationalization

So tell me do you put "non-of-the-above on every question" wen taking a test?
Or do you fill in the dots with the most logical answer?
Logic dictates that one should fallow the path that the evidence leads. If their is no evidence for a God logic dictates that is not likely the path to take. - That is rationalizing logically.




(Funny Idea makes me wish to be back in collage.)
By chance are you in collage? If so next time you do a test Put non-of the above on every question, Wen your professor/teacher ask you why you did that, tell him your an agnostic. (I would find that Amusing. wouldn't you. )

How many times must I tell you that 'possible', 'probable', and 'inevitable' are completely different from each other before you finally understand? Just because I believe everything is possible, does not mean I believe them all to be EQUALLY possible.

You even said it yourself, "If there is no evidence for a god, logic dictates that is not the likely path to take." I completely agree, it's not likely, but that does not make it impossible.

That is my point Atheist are somewhat agnostic in their views, but we do not sit on a fence, we pick the most logical choice. That is the difference. We rationalize the evidence in order to pick the most likely choice.

We find it irrational to say Ooooh but their is a 0.00000000000000000001% chance of their being some type of god out their so we must not take a side. There always be uncertainty no matter the choices one makes. But not to make a choice it irrational. (It is not like you can not change you mind later if new evidence is found. ) That is why Agnosticism is not a stance. Its Hiding from making a choice. (Now do you get what I am getting at.)

I see a point in making the most likely choice on something that will actually effect our everyday lives. Whether god exists or not is not directly effecting my life, so to make a decision about it right now is unnecesary. It only serves to boost ones ego.

"God might not affect are lives, But religion does. Religions affect us no matter if we believe or not. "
In some states you have to believe in god just to run for Office.
In some countries to not believe in a certain religion means a Death Sentence.
Have you listen to FOX news of late. God this god that. You tell me that are information and country is not affected by the god religion.

sucks to be an american then or an iranian. come to canada we don't give a s@#$#.

I still think we should have made Shatner our new Governor General.

Imagine him at a state dinner and substitute shaman for GG, and Canada for WOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Fs7IpNVCo

I might take you up one that, how is the Job market there. For say non-Canadians? And How long does it take to get my VESA in Canada. 3 years?


As for WOW ! (WOW Sucks! compared to DAoC.) Hello I am Jerid and I am a Thane.

I have an American friend who is working on it... I does take a while. As for the job market I think it depends on your skills.
someone with a highly technical trade like yours might do okay (I'm not sure but I can't imagine we have a lot of people who do wha tyou do)

I am listening to fox news right now.. The law to ban Same sex mirage in Florida has been dropped by the courts. An Fox news is in a up roar about it.. Just another point to how religion affect all of us. Wen they try to pass laws based on religious views.
I am thankful that religion has yet to fully get there way, That some of are rights still exist, even if the religious will not stop trying to change that.

Good news for the Gays, your rights have not been fully taken away yet by the Christians. But careful there still trying. over 7million Christians in the Florida area feel your rights are worth less than their religion.

While I might not be gay, I still believe in equal freedom for everyone.

Same sex marriage and divorce have been legal in Canada going on about 6 plus years.
our biggest protestant church the United Church of Canada actually was on the pro-same sex marriage side both when advocating for the law. and when encouraging a new socially conservative government not to reopen the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada

We briefly discussed de-criminalising weed but that kicked up a diplomatic shitstorm with our biggest trading partner with all sorts of rabid talk about security risks and closing the borders, so we let it drop. but we don't bother much with enforcement.

We set a great deal of stock in being 'nice' and being 'multicultural' We're far from perfect but you can read 'The best country to live in' thread for opinions other than mine about how we do.

And as my American friends said to me when some fox pundit mocked my countries blood won efforts in afghanistan: "Dude, it's fox"
Aparantly that's all that needs to be said.

And I don't ever remember saying I agreed with any religion in any way, shape or form. In fact I'm against most forms of organized religion. Even though I believe there is a chance that I will win the lottery if I buy a ticket, I still think it's stupid to actually buy a lottery ticket, but I'm not going to outright say it's 'impossible' to win the lottery.

Let's use your God example. You've admitted that there is a 0.00000000000001% chance that God exists, so let's go with your own words. That means there is a 99.99999999999999% chance that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that there is a 99.99999999999999% chance that God does not exist, but 0.00000000000001% chance that he does. Atheists make the assumption that 0.000000000000001% = 0% and jump from 99.99999999999999% to 100%. Who is the one making baseless claims simply to fit their own perspective now?

In real world practice, atheism and agnosticism often seem very similar, because they are both free of the poison of commercialized religion. Though atheism be free of religion, they've just taken up another different type of poison whereas agnosticism is the one able to remain technically neutral.

Well you don't see Atheist attacking Deist do you. No..
Why Because Deist do not force their Ideals on other people.

Atheist do not place god above anything else and so believes it is only natural to dismiss it like you would anything else. That does not fallow with what the evidence for it dictates.

You putting god on a pedestal above other topics, wile atheist don't do that, if the their is no evidence for something than it is not likely, than it must be something else. An we seek for that something else. No point in thriving on the unlikely. Hence matters are best closed not left open, till the time new evidence comes.
a 0.0000000000001% chance is unlikely enough to close the matter till evidence is found.

their is a 0.001% chance that we are wrong about how gravity works. Does that mean we should not consider Gravity a fact at this time?

I thought I should point out that the one who keeps bringing this conversation back to god is you. We were talking about cognition, acquiring information and reliable methodology when you suddenly brought up god. The one who is putting god on a pedestal is you, not me.

Like I've also said before, even though I believe all things are possible, I do not believe all possibilities are equal. As long as I do not believe all possibilities are equal, I can easily pick out the most plausible possibility and act on that. So stop using the "you are unable to make a choice if you think everything is possible" argument against me.

You see where we differ? Even though we make the same choice, agnostics realize our choice is just the most plausible/practical whereas atheists believe their choice is the absolute truth.

Now before you make another response, can you please carefully consider to see if I have already answered the very same question in a previous post? I feel like a broken record here, having to constantly repeat myself.