God is a logical conclusion.

Definitively speaking, then Dawkins would be an Agnostic, not Atheist. If all Dawkins has is uncertainty about the existence of God, then surely he must be Agnostic.

 

Letters of the alphabet.

 

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

Gnosticism deals with knowledge, theism with belief.

 

You know the answer to this already, why not skip the whole build up thing and just say what you want to say?

 

Are you afraid to answer the questions that I posed? You again are being presumptuous in thinking that you know what I 'know already'. You see, I am not so presumptuous as to think that I know what you 'know already'.

 

Who said anything about 'Gnosticism'? I spoke of the possibility of someone being at best "A-gnositc" (written in the same style as "A-theist").

 

I see you skipped over your "atheist"/"agnostic" fart.
Don't blame you.
Undermines your whole hysterical semantic expert pose.
(Don't worry. Nobody takes it seriously!)

 

And your point?

 

The only thing that is worthy of skipping over is your farts and the piles of crap that you leave behind.

 

Artful, Dodger!

 

The point is your first post makes the ignorant assumption that the two positions can not be maintained by the same person, when of course they can, and often are. Another bonafied boner on your behalf.
You are the gift that keeps on giving, Inc.

 

Agnosticism and atheism stem from Gnosticism and theism, so I'm not sure why you have to go out of your way to make the distinction. But if you must, fine: agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief.

 

I'm pointing out that if anybody said that an airplane (if we are talking about the human invention, but I never know with you) was made naturally or always existed, they'd be flat out wrong. There is only one possible correct answer to your questions and that answer is "No" or some variation of no.

 

Thank you for that direct answer to a very direct question. Now, would you consider that the universe is far more complex than an airplane?

 

Are you now suggesting that 'atheism' has a belief? How can an atheist deal with something that is not physical?

 

Then you are saying the same thing that I stated. Dawkins cannot be a true 'atheist' if even in part he is also an agnostic. They are mutually exclusive,,, and if you are going to claim (make the positive assertion {which you already have}) that they are not mutually exclusive, then you have the burden of proof to show that they are not mutually exclusive.

 

The people that are actually educated on here, and not those that are simply trying to appear so, already understand your gaff. They know the definitions of the two words. I can cut and paste definitions, but you can look them up yourself just as easily.
I am not remotely saying the same thing you are saying. You are once again demonstrating your ignorance and your pride.
Seeya.

 

Sure. Can you prove that complexity required an intelligent designer?

 

They are completely mutually exclusive. Even if I think that the God question is unanswerable, I could still completely believe that there is a God.

 

I said it deals with belief, not that atheism is a belief. Try to keep up.

 

Good morning!
Doesn't Inc make us feel smarter than we are, just by our having the most basic grasp on simple definitions?
What a blessing he is.

 

Its only inevitable because we are here typing these messages. If something has a probability of 1 in a trillion, that means it has happened once. As humans, it is hard to compute these probabilities because relitively speaking, we have short lives. Probability is relative. If a cell reproduces every second and one cell mutates every hour that means the odds of a mutation are very small, but in the lifetime of a human that means that there have been several million mutations. That is quite a lot of mutations even as low as the probability of that cell mutating is. When you consider life on earth in comparison to the age of the universe, you can see that the mutation that would have had to occur in order for there to be multiple species could have happened several million times and still be highly improbable. You don't need a designer to explain the existence of life if you look at it in those terms. Just because something is highly improbable, does not mean we need a designer to explain why it happened.

 

All irrelevant dodging.

 

My questions were not a means of dodging anything. They were asked as a means of countering the former questions which they addressed. Whether or not that other writer 'believes' something is the irrelevant part. Facts are facts... airplanes did not evolve from the elements found on earth but were fashioned together by intelligent design. To assume that something as complex as the universe just suddenly appeared without the benefit of some intelligence behind that appearance, is just as ludicrous as perhaps you and others would say about Theists declaring "God did it."