tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6743937774106241957.post2033618243292060938..comments2008-12-15T15:14:29.035-05:00myuchahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04539008530875206053noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6743937774106241957.post-31087634087883087032008-12-15T15:14:00.000-05:002008-12-15T15:14:00.000-05:00Agreed. To restate your point another way: the onus of proof is on the person claiming knowledge - not the one asking for proof :)myuchahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04539008530875206053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6743937774106241957.post-81080754724094763232008-12-15T14:17:00.000-05:002008-12-15T14:17:00.000-05:00"I cannot say definitively that there is not a God and every attempt I have made to understand God and religion has ended up with accepting it on faith" -MY<BR/><BR/><BR/>-Be careful, this statement is skeptical. "How can one really know anything for sure?" <BR/><BR/> If you believe that reason is the only proper way to gain knowledge then you can say definitively that there is no God. By your own account you state that faith is the only way to accept it. If you have no reason to believe then why do you consider yourself agnostic? Remember, you cannot prove a negative.thadgauthierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03117269696459697783noreply@blogger.com