Nekhrun wrote:inhuien wrote:Naïve mind wrote:I never imagined a discussion between agnostics and other agnostics could get so heated.
You misunderstand, it is a discussion between an agnostic an an atheist. Unless of course I misunderstand.
I suppose I consider myself an atheist, though I think the very idea that I would need a label to identify that I only believe in things for which there is evidence is absurd. It requires absolutely no faith for me not to believe. Should evidence present itself that is contrary to one of my current beliefs then I would change my mind based on that. It is not faith to believe in something which can be observed and repeated.
Sure you can approach it from a non theist angle and that's fine. I've taken the liberty of bolding part of your post and you are of course completely correct. That's the very keystone of empirical and peer review scientific research, taking a theory to a law, in a scientific context. But, and you seen this coming like a train, at this point in time we can not disproof God in what ever way. Something caused this universe to exist, if we are merely the effluence of extra dimensional happenings, so what.
I used to fall into the atheist camp myself, over time I came to realise that that was a conceit of opinion based on nothing but disbelief. To quote Bill, It's just a ride, and I don't have a horse in this race, and If there was a race, I think there would only be one horse.