Ask an agnostic

[timtofly]

But from my point of view you're on the side of the argument/discussion that's claiming an exemption from reason:
"It is true that people demand proof. Doubt is hard to overcome. It is no human's responsability to provide that proof."

I'm not sure why you're agreeing with my on that!


I do agree with you that people who claim to believe something without seriously examining how, why, when, and by what method, they arrived at those beliefs are very rarely worth engaging in a serious discussion. I gave up talking with my mom about her bible study classes years ago for this very reason. She was not willing to accept that the stories about Jesus in the New Testament may not be accurate. It was taken by her on faith alone, which meant there was nothing that I could provide to her that might make her change her mind.

It seems like she wants to believe more than anything.

I will admit that your assumptions about me are spot on. I also hate it when any discussion ends in the fact that proof must be given. I would never start any discussion that would end in that fact, even though most predictably will. I am not here to fight any battles or even prove any points. I am here to cast doubt. That may be the biggest cop out or excuse to one who is looking for a debate. However it does work for both sides of any debate whether one likes to admit it or not.

Edit:

Spoiler :

Fighting a battle for any one else, but yourself is futile. Even if you win, it is hollow. Having peace in doing so though, can make a difference. A personal relationship is quite different than trying to explain that relationship to others, no matter what the topic is.

 

[warpus]

I usually don't ask for proof, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there's no evidence, there's nothing worth talking about, usually.

 

[timtofly]

I know.