It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy.

Well yes it's imossible to prove a negative claim like that. Fox News uses this all the time -- Is Obama really a space alien? If he's not, why doesn't he come clean about it? What's he got to hide? Substitute innuendo-of-the-day for "space alien" and repeat. Obama does not have to prove he's not an atheist, foreign-born, or Muslim. Nor do Agnostics have to prove they're not agnostic because they want fire insurance. That's something of a slimy move, Steve, and I'd have thought it beneath you.

Oh yeah? Where are these people then? Hands up any atheist on this thread or anywhere else who will declare to the world that God certainly does not exist! You certainly won't get Dawkins to say it!

But he will say believing in God is a "delusion" which presupposes it. Obviously he believes it, but is too something to say it. He should have the courage of his convictions.

You asked for prayers.

And kind thoughts. What, if the word "prayers" is in the sentence do you not read the rest of it?

Mousethief later on:

"Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general."

It's a fair cop. Nevertheless, what I said about baring my soul to a semi-hostile audience. I've been ripped to shreds too many times. Fool me once, shame on you, etc. The problem is that if a theist does mention what their reasons are for believing in God, then they enter into this no-win argument when people start tearing their reasons apart. What end does that serve? To make trigger-happy Atheists feel better about themselves? Get your own happy juice. They're not reasons you would accept. I've already said that. If I told you what my reasons were, you still wouldn't accept them, and you'd gloat over me as well. Who needs that?

I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts.

Oh wait, you already do gloat over me. ::rolleyes smiley:: I claim to have great sex with my wife. I'm not going to tell you what the evidence is. Why should this be a problem? I'm not saying you should believe, or that there's something wrong with you if you don't have evidence that convinces you of the existence of God. Why should my saying that I have evidence that convinces me, but I'm not willing to wrangle about it, somehow be a fault?

(PS and no, I don't think you will go to Hell. I'm a universalist. So don't even go there.)