Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DJvodka" data-source="post: 17004475" data-attributes="member: 186185">I've already indirectly answered those questions in my last post, but here I go again.Q1 - Both parties, since no one has a defined way to prove it.Q2 - It should be proven by the person claiming that his father turned in to hulk. Because that statement can simply be checked for its validity assuming the other party has access to the father. If Atheism is majority of time so close to Agnosticism, why coin a new term? To me Agnosticism has a very defined and transparent meaning to it than Atheism. Its really simple. If there is no way to validate something then that something shouldn't be argued about, if it can be tested but no evidence was found about it, then that something is a lie. If that something that claimed to have happened, has material evidence, then it might have really happened. Atheism is very much like agnosticism but goes one step further, further away from logic that is. The difference to me is that Atheists seems to be arguing about things that has no way of proving while agnostics regard such things as pointless to argue about.</blockquote>

Top Bottom