Welcome to Gaia! ::

Loved it, of course.

We should probably keep 'em up reallllllllly late so they're too tired to really react. XD

In a metaphysical sense God might exist but we would have no way of knowing, just as all we can be sure of is that our mind exists.

Of course much of the debate over the existence of God has to do with defining what it means for a being to be considered God, which is still under debate.

Of course I also like watching the blindly faithful make poor arguments although I personally believe that if one wishes to take on an attitude of true rationality the only conclusion can be that we can never know whether God exists or not so we should all be agnostics.

I believe the form of Agnosticism Tarquin Aluclaire is talking about is the mentality that they have no reason to believe in a god, but if soild evidence were to be presented, the would believe.

Now, I know that sounds an awful like like the definition of Atheism you provided. But I have personally found that the definitions between the two are often blurred. I have told many people what I believe to be true and people come to different conclusions as to what I am. My views are that if testable evidence of god were to be shown, I would believe it. And while I consider myself an Atheist, seeing how no testable proof of god has ever been shown, I have been told that my views are actually defined under Agnosticism. It's odd and somewhat aggravating that it's still a blurred line even after a definition has been assigned, but it happens quite often.

My favorite. It sounds so foreboding.

I believe (with full, unadulterated gnosis) we should take the "atheism vs. agnosticism" debate to another thread. Besides the fact that we're getting a little off topic, we'd be able to discuss the matter more thoroughly there.