1. Tower in Barrens being toppled.
2. Statue at Booty Bay about to eat a giant wave.
3. More Barrens destruction with a chasm opening.
4. Blimp crash in Durotar.
5. Thousand Needles (which is below sea level) having the ocean flow in between the pillars of rock.
6. Unknown Mountain Range... could be near Iron Forge.
7. Docks in Darkshore at Auberdine.
8. The Dam above the Wetlands at Loch Modan.
9. Stormwind.

"Agnostic" is one term that I think is unfortunately pulled in many directions in attempts to apply it to different meanings. I agree that at its core it means "unknowing", specifically with regard to theistic / religious queries. But I think that a refinement of the definition that adds some beneficial structure is to suggest that one is not only "unknowing" or "unsure" about theism or religion, but that they would suggest that it is impossible to have such knowledge.

The lighter definition can spring from ignorance; we're all uncertain about many belief systems or religions of the past (or future) because we've never really been exposed to them and don't know what they are about. The stronger definition is when I think a person that would proclaim themselves to be "agnostic" actually begins to have some real meaning. And I tend to agree with the precepts of that stance -- my preference towards scientific and logical thought tells me that many of the proclamations of religion that I am exposed to are untestable, so the only 100% solid statement that I can make is that I am "uncertain" about whether they are true or false.

However, I also think that stance is a fairly unnecessary cop-out. Religion is not the only source of untestable hypotheses in our world. Many people would have us believe in the factual existence of dragons, fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa Claus. Yet when confronted with questions about any of those, people very rarely feel any compulsion to be "agnostic"; they simply say "no, that doesn't really exist", thereby rolling the dice and being confident in their (self-evaluated) 99.9999999%+ odds.

I wish that more religious concepts were subjected to scrutiny and not just given a free pass for being too taboo to question or criticize. That is why although I cannot scientifically or logically prove that no god or gods exist (and in fact believe that it is impossible to do so), I elect not to use the term "agnostic" to describe myself, but stick with "atheist". Most importantly, I lose no more sleep over the possibility that I am incorrect about the non-existence of any god or gods than I do over the possibility that I am wrong and somewhere out there, if I looked hard enough, I might just find a unicorn.

Wait wait wait... are you telling me that all those people who see UFOs, Bigfoots, Loch Ness Monsters, Jesus in a cheeto could be WRONG?!?!#?$

Agreed that tax at the till is annoying in USA (I'm from UK btw).

On the topic of tipping, some restaurants in the UK pay the staff under minimum wage, legally, based on their tips putting them back on or over minimum wage. Hard Rock Cafe in London is particularly bad for this, paying less than half minimum wage, although Loch Fyne is also below minimum.

Even worse, if you tip on credit card, the staff don't get it (true at Loch Fyne - I'm not sure about Hard Rock Cafe).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish, loch ness monster' to 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish, loch ness monster, sealicant' - edited by RhesusMonk

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish' to 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish, loch ness monster' - edited by doogle

Just because we lack proof of the non- existence doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true. As my little sister often says to me "Just because you can't see something, doesnt mean it's not real." to which i retort, "But that doesn't mean that it IS real either!"

I admit that I would have to concede some kind of faith to definitively say that god does not exist. I would say that the idea is EXTREMELY unlikely (since we're speaking in specifics)

What exactly is the difference between the practical and scientific knowledge? (according to you)

Allow me to borrow a few words from Richard Dawkins, (paraphrased) I assume that when you say god that you mean the judeo christian god and not say any of these :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
You could have picked any of these gods, and lets see here,
Further information: Australian Aboriginal mythology

* Adnoartina - the lizard guard of Uluru
* Altjira - God of Dreams
* Anjea - Fertility goddess
* Bagadjimbiri - Two brothers and creator gods
* Baiame - God of rain
* Bamapana - A trickster god who causes discord
* Banaitja - A creator god
* Bobbi-Bobbi - Supernatural being who lived in the heavens in the Dreamtime
* Bunjil - The supreme god, represented as an eagle
* Daramulum - Son of Baiame
* Dilga - Goddess of fertility and growth
* Djanggawul - Three siblings, two female and one male, who created the landscape of Australia
* Eingana - Creator goddess
* Galeru - A rainbow snake who swallowed the Djanggawul
* Gnowee - A solar goddess
* Julana - A lecherous spirit who surprises women
* Julunggul - A rainbow snake goddess
* Karora - A creator god
* Kidili - Ancient moon-man
* Kunapipi - Mother goddess (patron deity of heroes)
* Mangar-kunjer-kunja - Lizard god who created humans
* Numakulla - Two sky gods who created all life on Earth
* Pundjel - Creator god
* Ulanji - Snake-ancestor of the Binbinga
* Wala
* Wawalag - Sisters who were daughters of Djanggawul
* Wuriupranili - A solar goddess
* Yurlungur - Mythological copper snake

Do you believe in these gods as well? Do you concede faith to them because their existence can't be disproven?

Give it up, if you were born and raised in Africa you'd be worshiping Jengu (water/river spirit). All I'm asking for is a re-evaluation of your opinions with what fits with the facts.

If your doctor came into the surgery room with all sorts of unproven ideas about how to operate on you, you'd understandably feel uncomfortable. AND THATS A GOOD THING!! The demand for solid evidence has given us clean water, a healthy abundant food supply, modern medicine, and brought an end to witch hunts! Well...Almost.
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/10/03/book-burning-fueling-flames-of-censorship/

More people that are willing to re-evaluate their opinions (something encouraged by a scientific approach) means less crazy ideas running rampant and more sensible honest people.

In reply to this comment by nadabu:
Oh, good, it seems we're more on the same page than i thought. If we lack proof of God's non-existence, then it seems to me quite wrong to limit the options for theists like myself are not limited to liar, ignoramus or (self-)deceived. So, may we now consider the option of faith? Faith being neither pretense, ignorance nor deception, but rather a sincere belief (possibly of varying degree) in that which is clearly unproven in any scientific sense and yet also admittedly impossible to disprove.

It seems to me that limiting what we "know" (in the practical sense, not the scientific sense) to that which can be scientifically proven is absurdly, paralyzingly impractical. We constantly live "by faith" in all sorts of little and big things. All humans regularly act as though "[we] know more about something than [we] possibly could". Why then, when it comes to the issue of theism, should my faith merit your derision? My theism didn't come from proof, and i'm not ever going to prove it. I believe one day God will force the matter, but i sure as hell can't do it for you. If you want to know what and why i believe about God and how that works in my life, i can talk about that.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

Oh, good, it seems we're more on the same page than i thought. If we lack proof of God's non-existence, then it seems to me quite wrong to limit the options for theists like myself are not limited to liar, ignoramus or (self-)deceived. So, may we now consider the option of faith? Faith being neither pretense, ignorance nor deception, but rather a sincere belief (possibly of varying degree) in that which is clearly unproven in any scientific sense and yet also admittedly impossible to disprove.

It seems to me that limiting what we "know" (in the practical sense, not the scientific sense) to that which can be scientifically proven is absurdly, paralyzingly impractical. We constantly live "by faith" in all sorts of little and big things. All humans regularly act as though "[we] know more about something than [we] possibly could". Why then, when it comes to the issue of theism, should my faith merit your derision? My theism didn't come from proof, and i'm not ever going to prove it. I believe one day God will force the matter, but i sure as hell can't do it for you. If you want to know what and why i believe about God and how that works in my life, i can talk about that.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

In reply to this comment by nadabu:
No, i didn't think you meant to insult, nor was i insulted. It was only hypocrisy i saw in the words you chose, which really took all the sting out of the accusation. The more interesting thing out of it is that you find insincerity to be less negative than ignorance or being (self-)deceived. If so, then we ought to take great care in what we assume about each other, as we clearly have different mores.

As to your question, since it's unlikely anyone realizes they are (self-)deceived and yes, i'm quite sincere, i'll have to take ignorance. Of course, why being a theist makes me either a liar, fool or nutjob is something you'll have to explain to me. Exactly what am i so ignorant of in my theism? Is there proof that there's no God that i've not heard about? Or did i answer wrong? Is there proof of God's non-existence that i've convinced myself is false? Please don't be afraid to tell me so.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
For the record, I chose the word pretending because it has less negative connotations. And though this may sound suprising, I'm not trying to be insulting.

But to use your words, as a theist, if you're not pretending which are you: ignorant? or self decieved?

Bob's your uncle:

"Loch Lomond" -- Scottish traditional

1. O whither away, my bonnie May,
Sae late and sae dark in the gloamin'?
The mist gathers gray o'er moorland and brae.
O whither sae far are ye roamin'?

I trysted my ain love last night in the broom,
My Donald wha loves me sae dearly.
For the morrow he will march for Edinburgh toon,
Tae fecht for his king and Prince Charlie.

Chorus:
O, ye'll tak' the high road and I'll tak' the low road,
An' I'll be in Scotland afore ye.
For me and my true love will never meet again
By the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond.

2. O braw Charlie Stewart, dear true, true heart,
Wha could refuse thee protection?
Like the weeping birk on the wild hillside,
How gracefu' he looked in dejection.

O, weel may I weep for yestre'en in my sleep.
We lay bride and bridegroom together.
But his touch and his breath were cold as the death,
And his hairtsblood ran red in the heather.
Chorus:

3. As dauntless in battle as tender in love,
He'd yield ne'er a foot tae the foeman.
But never again frae the fields o' the slain
Tae his Moira will he come by Loch Lomond.

The thistle may bloom, the king hae his ain,
And fond lovers will meet in the gloamin'.
And me and my true love will yet meet again
Far above the bonnie banks o Loch Lomond.
Chorus:

http://ingeb.org/songs/byyonbon.html

"Loch Lomond" -- Scottish traditional

1. By yon bonnie banks and by yon bonnie braes,
Where the sun shines bright on Loch Lomond.
Where me and my true love were ever wont to gae
On the bonnie, bonnie banks O' Loch Lomond.

Refrain:
O ye'll tak' the high road and I'll tak' the low road,
An' I'll be in Scotland afore ye;
But me and my true love will never meet again
On the bonnie, bonnie banks O' Loch Lomond.

2. 'Twas there that we parted in yon shady glen,
On the steep, steep side O' Ben Lomon',
Where in purple hue the Hieland hills we view,
An' the moon comin' out in the gloamin'
Refrain:

3. The wee birdies sing and the wild flow'rs spring,
And in sunshine the waters are sleepin';
But the broken heart it kens nae second spring,
Tho' the waefu' may cease frae their greetin'.
Refrain:

http://ingeb.org/songs/byyonbon.html

>> ^Trancecoach:
Give that woman $1.50


Ok, but I still aint giving that Loch Ness Monster no tree fiddy.

This is a pretty big answer, so I've split it in chunks with their own headline.

We may have some common ground, but it is smaller than you've indicated. I said I was inclined to think that the universe always existed somehow, but this does not spread to other ideas - I don't think that we existed always or that something other than the universe existed always. My assumption here is actually not reasonable, but I make it because it has no descernable effect on my daily life.

Re: Believers are just as logical as non-believers
For purely principle reasons it is obvious that the scientific method cannot directly prove nor disprove God, but there is a difference in the two. We can gather evidence that indicate, if not directly proves/disproves something. Take the Loch Ness Monster. While we cannot directly disprove it unless we do an exhaustive search of the lake, we can take the many observations and searches as "evidence" or at least conjecture that the monster probably does not exist. If someone thinks that the monster does exist for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to prove that it does, not everyone else's to prove that it does not. So, while there may not be directly contradicting evidence to God's existence there is plenty of evidence that makes more sense if he does not, in addition the religion around this God has plenty of "plot holes" about God, which also leads us to think that it does not make sense. For instance, if God is the God of Young Earth Creationists, then there absolutely IS evidence that he does not exists. You'll agree to this, right? Whenever Science gets closer, it seems that God conveniently retreats into the unknown areas, which again is the God in the Gaps. I think that people who believe in God ARE less logical or reasonable than those who do not.

Which is the reasonable assumption to make, when there is absolutely no evidence for or against something?

I have not seen any evidence that contradicts the existence of fairies, but I have neither seen evidence that support it; which should I assume? There are three possible assumptions:

1) I'm fairy-agnostic - they may or may not exist, but I make no assumptions one way or the other.
2) Fairies probably do not exist, because if they did, evidence that supported their existence would have come about, and as such I can assume that they do not exist.
3) Fairies probably exist, because there has been found no evidence against them.

I would in general choose the second option, because if things exist they tend to show themselves - somehow. I think that people who take the third option of believing that fairies exists are making an unreasonable assumption, because there is neither evidence that supports it, nor traces of evidence such as fairy-droppings, fairy houses or something similar. Do you follow my logic that people who believe in this way are less reasonable/logical?

Your definition of your God and my arguments against him
* God is perfect (a perfect being).
* God is not bound by time and space in the same way we are.
* God does not break "natural laws".
* God has always existed, in one form or another.
* God created all created things, but not all things.

This is the definition you provided, and I will base my arguments on that.

There are some words that need further specification.

"Perfect" is a very big, vague and subjective word. Do you mean that God is infallible or all knowing? It must include that he cannot be perfected in any way: become any better.

"Natural laws" is also a bit vague. Your example, the principle that nothing comes from nothing, is a logical argument, but natural laws are something else. Newtons law, Einsteins theory of relativety, how temperature spreads, gravity: those are natural laws, but if God is not bound by time/space then he obviously is not bound by gravity. I think the point here is that you mean God does not engage in logical paradoxes: "Can God make a toast so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" But if he is perfect, then he must and by being perfect he proves that he cannot exist.

God created all created things? Well, that can be true, but if nothing is created that is explained away. I doubt you'll be satisfied by that answer though, so I'll argue that this again breaks your definitions. What did he create all created things from? Nothing? Was God created? You'll obviously argue no, because then he needs a creator of his own and we'll have en infinite regress. But if God was not created, did he come from nothing?

"God has always existed in one form or another, as have we. We were "something" before we were "created.""
The first part can only be answered, perhaps, if he exists. Concerning humans, you are of course technically correct, but not in the way that you think. "We" are who we are, I am me and you are you. "We" have never existed in any other form in any reality. Our bodies, however, is merely a collection of atoms, which of course always were something before they were coagulated and rearranged into the meta-structure that is our bodies. it is this way with all things, the atoms and molecules have always existed somehow, but have been shaped into the arrangments they have now by our environement.

I was obviously not created by God, I naturally grew in my mother womb as a direct result of massive cell-generation which started with the combination of sperm and egg. This was a rearrangement of atoms from food and energy into matter, namely my body ("me"). Nothing created me, I naturally grew.

Curveballs and God-theory
By curveballs I just meant that it was tough questions.

The two first explanations are exactly more logical than the God-theory because the God-theory falls back on either 1 or 2 at some point. The God-theory is a non-explanation for the existance of the universe, because it just moves the question one step - instead of asking "how did the universe come into existence", it is "how did God come into existence, so he could created the universe". And if we use the same explanation for god, that he was created by a super-god, then it becomes "How did super-god come into existence, so that he could create God who could create the universe" this is an infinite regress and is a non-explanation for anything. It must be grounded somehow, which both the other explanations do.

I submit again that the three explanations may not be exhaustive, because the Universe is far more mysterious than we can scientifically explain at this point, so there may be some fourth explanation that covers it. In any case, the God-theory does not explain it.

Faith and logic
There are parts of the bible which are directly opposed to one another? How do you interpret your way out of those? Genesis directly contradicts reality, how do you interpret your way out of that?
In my mind interpreting an answer from the Bible is just picking and choosing which parts fit your point of view and ignoring the parts that don't fit. This is a Bad Thing.

"You said that the fact that we have never had empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God "does seem to show a tendency.""
That's not true. I said that the distinct lack of evidence for the existence of God show a tendency. As I explained above, if the evidence for and against something both is zero, then the reasonable assumption is that it does not exist.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

^ Can you really call someone a "pussy" when they don't believe something so stupid?

He also doesn't talk about bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

Loch Ness is an appalling place, every B&B or cafe has some damn gimmick. Avoid.