the average atheist and average religious person are both retarded

[Hess]

Everyday there is some extremely low IQ argument that comes from both sides that have never meaningfully engaged in any form of research unless it actively conforms to their beliefs, atheists here have zero understanding of the religions they critique or what the actual arguments are, meanwhile actual skeptics that have studied the field and debated extensively have regularly conceded ground to theism and have said that although they are still atheists, they believe that said theists have proved and established perfectly logical arguments for their beliefs and are far less arrogant than the average retard that debates on here, this just proves that the average person on both sides arent actually interested in finding the truth but trying to get a slam dunk for internet points while they understand nothing about the actual debate over the subject of theism or skeptic debates in general (both atheists and Christians on here are guilty of this)

 

[JewishNationalist]

god can be logically proven and disproven as well so all of those ontological or cosmological are just retarded and dont even slightly make any sense. in reality all of that transcendent bullshit just doesn't exist including logic itself thats just our own tool. its always when something is supposed to be transcendent it just doesn't exist because its not even supposed to be material. if its not supposed to be material then wtf are we even talking about lol i can also say that some transcendent invisible unicorn cums his transcendent cum in your mouth in this moment so we basically can make up any shit @PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[Hess]

god can be logically proven and disproven as well so all of those ontological or cosmological or just retarded and dont even slightly make any sense. in reality all of that transcendent bullshit just doesn't exist including logic itself thats just our own tool. its always when something is supposed to be transcendent it just doesn't exist because its not even supposed to be material. if its not supposed to be material then wtf are we even talking about lol i can also say that i'm transcendent invisible unicorn cums his transcendent cum in your mouth in this moment so we basically can make up any shit @PrinceLuenLeoncur

if logic does not exist or affect actual reality then you are defacto saying your own argument is meaningless, also we interact with non-material things everyday and treat them as fact, by saying this then you are saying time, math or physics are not real just because they are not material, restricting existence only to things made of matter is silly, as for the unicorn analogy that is just a misunderstanding of what god would be in this context, the transcendent unicorn is a contingent physical concept that you arbitrarily labeled invisible, it doesn't refute any philosophical argument, the hard materialism that you are arguing for is also a fringe theory that is very hard to meaningfully argue for when concepts like quantum mechanics (matter stops acting like solid material, particles exist in clouds of probabilities and they dont take a definite form until they are measured or observed)

 

[JewishNationalist]

if logic does not exist or affect actual reality then you are defacto saying your own argument is meaningless, also we interact with non-material things everyday and treat them as fact, by saying this then you are saying time, math or physics are not real just because they are not material, restricting existence only to things made of matter is silly, as for the unicorn analogy that is just a misunderstanding of what god would be in this context, the transcendent unicorn is a contingent physical concept that you arbitrarily labeled invisible, it doesn't refute any philosophical argument, the hard materialism that you are arguing for is also a fringe theory that is very hard to meaningfully argue for when concepts like quantum mechanics (matter stops acting like solid material, particles exist in clouds of probabilities and they dont take a definite form until they are measured or observed)

who decides what is meaningless or not? or do you actually want to say that the concept of meaning is a substance rather than a made up mental construct lol? if logic is real then show me where is it placed ig. time is not immaterial it has been proven by epstein that time is not a substance and that its just our own construct that is relative and depends on earth orbit which was conventionally picked. math and physics were also invented not discovered. otherwise show me these laws in reality not on paper with nominal symbols that mean our explanations of reality but not reality itself. unicorn analogy is totally correct. if they said that there's some all knowing all powerful superduper ubermensch being but its just in some shadow world not in this and they say trust me bhai then i can also say that my unicorn that fucks you in the mouth is transcendent you should believe in him otherwise inquisitors will purge you. and i'm not a materialist either, the existence of matter has never been proven, because it was never proven that anything exists outside of my thoughts

 

[Hess]

who decides what is meaningless or not? or do you actually want to say that the concept of meaning is a substance rather than a made up mental construct lol? if logic is real then show me where is it placed ig. time is not immaterial it has been proven by epstein that time is not a substance and that its just our own construct that is relative and depends on earth orbit which was conventionally picked. math and physics were also invented not discovered. otherwise show me these laws in reality not on paper with nominal symbols that mean our explanations of reality but not reality itself. unicorn analogy is totally correct. if they said that there's some all knowing all powerful superduper ubermensch being but its just in some shadow world not in this and they say trust me bhai then i can also say that my unicorn that fucks you in the mouth is transcendent you should believe in him otherwise inquisitors will purge you. and i'm not a materialist either, the existence of matter has never been proven, because it was never proven that anything exists outside of my thoughts

The symbols we make up for things like math, physics or time are subjective but the actual universal reality they describe are real, einstein proved that time is relative to speed and gravity, time dilates near a blackhole even if earth never existed and we did not have the calendar to base our time on, the fact it can bend and stretch based on physical variables proves that time is an objective property of the universe and not a psychological illusion, and the unicorn argument is not a fair comparison to arguing that a universe that is changing and contingent thing which theistic logic here would dictate that there must be a non-changing non-contingent foundation that keeps it in existence, its just a silly adhom that doesnt engage with the argument, the whole time is not real thing is silly in general its like saying the continents of africa or south america are not real because we had to name them and discover them for them to be invented

 

[DrRodger]

Dnr kys

 

[Hess]

Dnr kys

Low IQ

 

[Hess]

The symbols we make up for things like math, physics or time are subjective but the actual universal reality they describe are real, einstein proved that time is relative to speed and gravity, time dilates near a blackhole even if earth never existed and we did not have the calendar to base our time on, the fact it can bend and stretch based on physical variables proves that time is an objective property of the universe and not a psychological illusion, and the unicorn argument is not a fair comparison to arguing that a universe that is changing and contingent thing which theistic logic here would dictate that there must be a non-changing non-contingent foundation that keeps it in existence, its just a silly adhom that doesnt engage with the argument, the whole time is not real thing is silly in general its like saying the continents of africa or south america are not real because we had to name them and discover them for them to be invented

Also to respond to your first part more properly, I believe it is a false dilemma to say that we decide what is meaningless or not because it isnt a matter of opinion, reality dictates it, if i say something like the square circle is drinking the colour green that sentence is just meaningless no one had to decide it was meaningless, its meaningless because the concepts contradict each other and dont map to anything that can possibly exist, meaningless is a structural fact of logic not some subjective opinion, as for if the concept of meaning is a substance or made up mental construct i find this to be a false dilemma, I don't believe something needs to be a physical substance to be an objective reality, if that were the case then software code would not be real @JewishNationalist

 

[JewishNationalist]

The symbols we make up for things like math, physics or time are subjective but the actual universal reality they describe are real, einstein proved that time is relative to speed and gravity, time dilates near a blackhole even if earth never existed and we did not have the calendar to base our time on, the fact it can bend and stretch based on physical variables proves that time is an objective property of the universe and not a psychological illusion, and the unicorn argument is not a fair comparison to arguing that a universe that is changing and contingent thing which theistic logic here would dictate that there must be a non-changing non-contingent foundation that keeps it in existence, its just a silly adhom that doesnt engage with the argument, the whole time is not real thing is silly in general its like saying the continents of africa or south america are not real because we had to name them and discover them for them to be invented

again the concept of time is just our construct. its a concept. it doesn't exist in material reality (if we assume that material reality even exists). if its not a concept aka our explanation of reality then try to touch, smell or feel time (you wont). the unicorn claim isn't shit wtf again it follows the same logic as those theologicans do. even if that ideal platonic realm exists then why do they assume that logic here even slightly works? and i don't get why there should be necessary some non-changing non contingent foundation rather than unicorns. again none of that is even slightly proved

 

[JewishNationalist]

Also to respond to your first part more properly, I believe it is a false dilemma to say that we decide what is meaningless or not because it isnt a matter of opinion, reality dictates it, if i say something like the square circle is drinking the colour green that sentence is just meaningless no one had to decide it was meaningless, its meaningless because the concepts contradict each other and dont map to anything that can possibly exist, meaningless is a structural fact of logic not some subjective opinion, as for if the concept of meaning is a substance or made up mental construct i find this to be a false dilemma, I don't believe something needs to be a physical substance to be an objective reality, if that were the case then software code would not be real @JewishNationalist

you cant imagine square circle is drinking the colour green because thats just how your brain evolved to work. it doesn't mean that its necessary meaningless. and again i don't believe that such thing as meaning even exists outside of our brains

 

[Hess]

again the concept of time is just our construct. its a concept. it doesn't exist in material reality (if we assume that material reality even exists). if its not a concept aka our explanation of reality then try to touch, smell or feel time (you wont). the unicorn claim isn't shit wtf again it follows the same logic as those theologicans do. even if that ideal platonic realm exists then why do they assume that logic here even slightly works? and i don't get why there should be necessary some non-changing non contingent foundation rather than unicorns. again none of that is even slightly proved

Time not existing in material reality does not mean it isnt real, again you are conflating the labels we made to describe the concept with the actual concept of time itself, just because we invented seconds/minutes does not mean that the physical relations they measure are not real or were invented by us, relativity gives us experimentally testable differences in elapsed proper time so saying you can not touch or feel time is not an argument against its physical reality

As for the unicorn thing, it doesnt actually challenge the cosmological argument or is it even hardly related to it, the argument isnt “the universe changes therefore God” A logical argument asks why contingent reality exists at all and whether an explanation consisting entirely of contingent things can be ultimately sufficient. You can reject the premises, but saying “why not unicorns" doesn’t address the argument. If unicorns are contingent, they require an explanation too so if you’re claiming unicorns are necessary, you now have to provide an argument for their necessary existence, I don't believe in the cosmological argument but I think this is jusf a very weak refutation

 

[Hess]

you cant imagine square circle is drinking the colour green because thats just how your brain evolved to work. it doesn't mean that its necessary meaningless. and again i don't believe that such thing as meaning even exists outside of our brains

A meaning of a word does partly depend on our minds and linguistic conventions, but thats not what im getting at with my example, the point is that some prepositions are objectively impossible given the definitions involved, also we don't need to "evolve" to be unable to concieve of a square-circle or imagine vague contradictory images, there is just no possible object that fits both definitions at the same time

 

[Johan]

i mean god may exist but its definently not these religions we have been presented with

 

[JewishNationalist]

Time not existing in material reality does not mean it isnt real, again you are conflating the labels we made to describe the concept with the actual concept of time itself, just because we invented seconds/minutes does not mean that the physical relations they measure are not real or were invented by us, relativity gives us experimentally testable differences in elapsed proper time so saying you can not touch or feel time is not an argument against its physical reality

As for the unicorn thing, it doesnt actually challenge the cosmological argument or is it even hardly related to it, the argument isnt “the universe changes therefore God” A logical argument asks why contingent reality exists at all and whether an explanation consisting entirely of contingent things can be ultimately sufficient. You can reject the premises, but saying “why not unicorns" doesn’t address the argument. If unicorns are contingent, they require an explanation too so if you’re claiming unicorns are necessary, you now have to provide an argument for their necessary existence, I don't believe in the cosmological argument but I think this is jusf a very weak refutation

all of that doesn't prove that time is real it just proves that what the concept of time describes reality but not time itself. its just our interpretation how the world works. you fuckign can't know the real reality because of your brains perception
if you ask why reality even exists then its a retarded question because it conceptually just cannot don't exist (because reality is what exists basically if we follow common definition). and i don't know why we even should follow logic to prove or disprove if god exists or not, i'm not a rationalist so idc honestly

 

[isis_Bleach]

You are not capable of understanding me. you are not expected to. i am beyond good and evil. I am beyond your experience.

 

[JewishNationalist]

A meaning of a word does partly depend on our minds and linguistic conventions, but thats not what im getting at with my example, the point is that some prepositions are objectively impossible given the definitions involved, also we don't need to "evolve" to be unable to concieve of a square-circle or imagine vague contradictory images, there is just no possible object that fits both definitions at the same time

word itself and its meaning doesn't just partly depend on your mind but it 100% depend on it. you also cant prove if its possible or impossible to imagine that square circle object because your brain doesn't work that way

 

[Hess]

all of that doesn't prove that time is real it just proves that what the concept of time describes reality but not time itself. its just our interpretation how the world works. you fuckign can't know the real reality because of your brains perception
if you ask why reality even exists then its a retarded question because it conceptually just cannot don't exist (because reality is what exists basically if we follow common definition). and i don't know why we even should follow logic to prove or disprove if god exists or not, i'm not a rationalist so idc honestly

a temporal structure is an objective feature of physical reality, and relativity gives us measurable, observer-independent physical differences in proper time, saying "that's merely our interpretation" doesn't refute the evidence, you would have to explain why the physical phenomena being measured are not real, though we are just going in circles tbh with this discussion I just dont agree with your take that we cant prove something is not real using logic

 

[Hess]

i mean god may exist but its definently not these religions we have been presented with

I think one can make a case for some abrahamic religions, they tend to be the only ones with consistent logical arguments and the cosmological argument is one that is mostly for a monotheistic god as opposed to all the thousands of polytheistic ones that are presented as just immortal humans, though im not a believer in any of them

 

[Hess]

word itself and its meaning doesn't just partly depend on your mind but it 100% depend on it. you also cant prove if its possible or impossible to imagine that square circle object because your brain doesn't work that way

I agree that the word square and the linguistic convention attached to it are dependent on our minds but I don't agree that the actual properties we are describing are mind dependent, if all of humanity vanished tomorrow the word "square" would be gone but the actual reality of a 4 sided euclidean object and the logic relating to it would not cease to exist with the symbol/label

 

[Johan]

I think one can make a case for some abrahamic religions, they tend to be the only ones with consistent logical arguments and the cosmological argument is one that is mostly for a monotheistic god as opposed to all the thousands of polytheistic ones that are presented as just immortal humans, though im not a believer in any of them

Monotheism sounds the most valid yes, but the abrahamic religions are just full on bullshit

The stories are so retarded in the books

 

[Hess]

Monotheism sounds the most valid yes, but the abrahamic religions are just full on bullshit

The stories are so retarded in the books

Depends, idk abt the rest but the bible is widely seen as a rather valid historical document that has had a lot of the historical things it has listed as very valid, I don't think its retarded as an agnostic and that a lot of misconceptions of it are mostly based on misreading or misinformation on it

 

[qrdd]

Low IQ

“yes on average people aren’t smart sometimes”

durrrr

 

[JewishNationalist]

I agree that the word square and the linguistic convention attached to it are dependent on our minds but I don't agree that the actual properties we are describing are mind dependent, if all of humanity vanished tomorrow the word "square" would be gone but the actual reality of a 4 sided euclidean object and the logic relating to it would not cease to exist with the symbol/label

alr if squares are objective then show me them

 

[JewishNationalist]

a temporal structure is an objective feature of physical reality, and relativity gives us measurable, observer-independent physical differences in proper time, saying "that's merely our interpretation" doesn't refute the evidence, you would have to explain why the physical phenomena being measured are not real, though we are just going in circles tbh with this discussion I just dont agree with your take that we cant prove something is not real using logic

if they were objective you'd be able to touch or smell or feel them

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

god can be logically proven and disproven as well so all of those ontological or cosmological are just retarded and dont even slightly make any sense. in reality all of that transcendent bullshit just doesn't exist including logic itself thats just our own tool. its always when something is supposed to be transcendent it just doesn't exist because its not even supposed to be material. if its not supposed to be material then wtf are we even talking about lol i can also say that some transcendent invisible unicorn cums his transcendent cum in your mouth in this moment so we basically can make up any shit @PrinceLuenLeoncur

I agree

I’ve been saying this for years and religious people get what I mean but look shocked or offended

It’s a fact though most GAYtheists are idiots and most religious people are complete brain dead morons

Different sides of the same coin

You notice this with how the religious person bends over backwards to justify morally dubious things in their religion or inconsistencies. You also see the GAYtheist fully crash out when confronted with compelling evidence or things that break down their own worldview.

Atheists lash out and ad-Hominem when cornered.

Religious people run mental Gymnastics and pure copium to deal with theirs

Both are fucking retards

From your replies to the other dude it seems you fall into the idiot GAYtheist category as well ngl or confused hypocritical Agnostic coping with the reality that your own paradigm cannot possibly account for transcendentals such as Logic mathematics identity over time ethics etc, so now your saying they are human conventions (typical GAYthiest response btw) if it was human conventions then explain why if all humans disappeared today if 2 rocks are on the floor it’ll remain 2 rocks meaning humans have no power or say over any of this shit, the logic of this and mathematics prove humans didn’t create them they exist as laws regardless of what idiocy you think as a dumb GAYtheist agnostic idiot yourself

 

[Hess]

if they were objective you'd be able to touch or smell or feel them

But thats the thing, it doesnt need to be material to be objective

 

[Hess]

alr if squares are objective then show me them

A 4 sided eucleadian object, they still exist if the word square dissappears tomorrow, same as the colour red still being a thing if we are no longer here

 

[JewishNationalist]

But thats the thing, it doesnt need to be material to be objective

you believe in some platonic realm lol. i just prefer to not believe in that ideal realm because no proof of that it even slightly exists. logic is just how our brain works, and perhaps you can imagine square circle if you evolved differently. like, if you had 2 brains or some 1 superbrain then maybe you'd be able to imagine square circle although i'm not sure. i don't believe that material "reality" is objective as well, again the assumption that physical reality even exists is an axiom. this is a conventional stuff, that is again subjective. monotheistic god is even worse, his attributes are absolutely arbitrarily. like even if he exists, why do you think he is all knowing all powerful superduper being? maybe he doesn't know something? and again its assumed that he is not material, we can basically make him with any attributes as they are completely arbitrarily

 

[mlglocalfatkid]

too many wwords

 

[thickbitch]

Atheists used to be smart back when you weren't born into it and had to work through the problems of theology and science to reach your position

 

[JewishNationalist]

I agree

I’ve been saying this for years and religious people get what I mean but look shocked or offended

It’s a fact though most GAYtheists are idiots and most religious people are complete brain dead morons

Different sides of the same coin

You notice this with how the religious person bends over backwards to justify morally dubious things in their religion or inconsistencies. You also see the GAYtheist fully crash out when confronted with compelling evidence or things that break down their own worldview.

Atheists lash out and ad-Hominem when cornered.

Religious people run mental Gymnastics and pure copium to deal with theirs

Both are fucking retards

From your replies to the other dude it seems you fall into the idiot GAYtheist category as well ngl or confused hypocritical Agnostic coping with the reality that your own paradigm cannot possibly account for transcendentals such as Logic mathematics identity over time ethics etc, so now your saying they are human conventions (typical GAYthiest response btw) if it was human conventions then explain why if all humans disappeared today if 2 rocks are on the floor it’ll remain 2 rocks meaning humans have no power or say over any of this shit, the logic of this and mathematics prove humans didn’t create them they exist as laws regardless of what idiocy you think as a dumb GAYtheist agnostic idiot yourself

tbh all of that is just a debate over axioms which is already weird because axioms cannot be proved. imo the debate atheism vs religion doesn't make sense

 

[JewishNationalist]

possibly account for transcendentals such as Logic mathematics identity over time ethics etc, so now your saying they are human conventions (typical GAYthiest response btw) if it was human conventions then explain why if all humans disappeared today if 2 rocks are on the floor it’ll remain 2 rocks meaning humans have no power or say over any of this shit, the logic of this and mathematics prove humans didn’t create them they exist as laws regardless of what idiocy you think as a dumb GAYtheist agnostic idiot yourself

tbh idk if rocks will continue exist or not if i die again there's no proof that objective reality exists whether idealistic christian or physical one but at least i can experience physical reality on myself so if anything i would prefer to believe in materialism than in idealism. and whether these are 2 rocks or just 1 rocks stands with other rock is again subjective and conventional

 

[Hess]

you believe in some platonic realm lol. i just prefer to not believe in that ideal realm because no proof of that it even slightly exists. logic is just how our brain works, and perhaps you can imagine square circle if you evolved differently. like, if you had 2 brains or some 1 superbrain then maybe you'd be able to imagine square circle although i'm not sure. i don't believe that material "reality" is objective as well, again the assumption that physical reality even exists is an axiom. this is a conventional stuff, that is again subjective. monotheistic god is even worse, his attributes are absolutely arbitrarily. like even if he exists, why do you think he is all knowing all powerful superduper being? maybe he doesn't know something? and again its assumed that he is not material, we can basically make him with any attributes as they are completely arbitrarily

Im not a theist or anything i just remain unconvinced of pure materialism honestly

 

[Hess]

“yes on average people aren’t smart sometimes”

durrrr

Insanely low iq comment

 

[Hess]

Atheists used to be smart back when you weren't born into it and had to work through the problems of theology and science to reach your position

Ya but now the table has shifted, majority of atheists take it for granted while a lot of christian converts have to axtually engage in skeptic debates, theology and history to formalize their beliefs

 

[JewishNationalist]

Im not a theist or anything i just remain unconvinced of pure materialism honestly

im atheist and i believe in physical matter but key word here is the "belief", its not like i can prove that it actually exists or not. its just my assumption

 

[ICXCLuvr]

but trying to get a slam dunk for internet points

Sounds like what you’re doing

I hate “both sides are bad” types of people, so performative, and I know you think you’re smart because you’re “above it all”. If you’re actually unbiased and being objective theists are the dumbest people I have ever spoken to. With the rise of atheism getting popular the only dumb ones are the ones using emotional and political arguments (women online)

 

[ICXCLuvr]

I think one can make a case for some abrahamic religions

They can’t so retarded

 

[Hess]

Sounds like what you’re doing

I hate “both sides are bad” types of people, so performative, and I know you think you’re smart because you’re “above it all”. If you’re actually unbiased and being objective theists are the dumbest people I have ever spoken to. With the rise of atheism getting popular the only dumb ones are the ones using emotional and political arguments (women online)

Have you ever meaningfully engaged with thomistic metaphysics? Even a good chunk of smart atheist skeptics that have debated the issues for years have conceded a lot of ground to them and changed to agnostiscm bcuz of it, if you actually were interested in finding the truth you would know this but people like you don't actually properly engage with anything that does not directly support their beliefs, its only the low iq ones that consistently try to get slam dunks and think the issue is resolved 100 percent

 

[ICXCLuvr]

if it was human conventions then explain why if all humans disappeared today if 2 rocks are on the floor it’ll remain 2 rocks meaning humans have no power or say over any of this shit

What type of rebuttal is this, what are you even trying to debunk with this? Why are theists so retarded and emotional

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Have you ever meaningfully engaged with thomistic metaphysics

Yeah it’s all circular with retarded leaps and premises no one agreed to.

Even a good chunk of smart atheist skeptics that have debated the issues for years have conceded a lot of ground to them and changed to agnostiscm bcuz of it, if you actually were interested in finding the truth you would know this but people like you don't actually properly engage with anything that does not directly support their beliefs

Nigga my username legit means Jesus Christ lover, I think I know both sides of this pretty well, and theism is just not true. Only dumbasses concede to their disingenuous and fallacious arguments, agnostics are retarded cowards, unless you mean deism, which is much more plausible but still very much distinct from a personal god. If ur agnostic on the idea of a personal god ur just slow

 

[Hess]

Yeah it’s all circular with retarded leaps and premises no one agreed to.

Nigga my username legit means Jesus Christ lover, I think I know both sides of this pretty well, and theism is just not true. Only dumbasses concede to their disingenuous and fallacious arguments, agnostics are retarded cowards, unless you mean deism, which is much more plausible but still very much distinct from a personal god. If ur agnostic on the idea of a personal god ur just slow

I think it can be critqued and argued against but not something that is easily done so I consider it a "valid" enough to be a decent argument even if flawed in a lot of ways in my opinion, im more inclined to schopenhauer's idea of Will or eternal reccurrence though rather than classical theism, I just find it silly to treat their ideas as dumb rather than just engaging in healthy debate

 

[ICXCLuvr]

I just find it silly to treat their ideas as dumb rather than just engaging in healthy debate

Why? Their arguments are circular and have multiple holes and their position has like 5 main counter arguments. Why would I give classical theism an ounce of space?

, im more inclined to schopenhauer's idea of Will

how is this relevant

I think it can be critqued and argued against but not something that is easily done so I consider it a "valid" enough to be a decent argument even if flawed in a lot of ways in my opinion

it’s not valid, it never was and never will be. that’s why theists cope with “god can never be proven or disproven, you just have to have faith” even though it can be disproven

 

[Hess]

Why? Their arguments are circular and have multiple holes and their position has like 5 main counter arguments. Why would I give classical theism an ounce of space?


it’s not valid, it never was and never will be. that’s why theists cope with “god can never be proven or disproven, you just have to have faith” even though it can be disproven

I will respond in depth when im done with college

how is this relevant

I like to establish common ground and discuss personal views when I talk to ppl like this

 

[ICXCLuvr]

I like to establish common ground and discuss personal views when I talk to ppl like this

ok what argument makes u agnostic rather than atheist, and I mean agnostic in the sense of the possibility of a classical personal god existing rather than a deistic one