The end of Dissection

[NegativeVolume]

If I don't believe hunger exists, then am I never hungry?

Hunger never exists, I eat Snickers

 

[Yngvai X]

Not to get involved too much here, but the hunger/sin analogy isn't a good one, because "sinning" or "to sin" is a concept, whereas hunger is an actual physical thing. Not believing in hunger is like not believing in breathing. Not believing in the concept of sin is akin to not believing in say, karma.

And speaking of karma, Rose since you're the devout Christian here, is there anything like that in Christianity? To me, karma, even though also an intangible concept, is a little easier to swallow than something like sinning; Karma relies more on the balance of negative/positive energies and basically getting back from life what you put into it in that way, rather than being born inherently "evil." Although one of the explinations then of why bad things happen to good people is that its bad karma held over from a previous life.

 

[HackerX]

To me, sinning and karma are not so dissimilar concepts.

To simplify it greatly:
Sin (negative karma) and you're punished in your next life
Don't sin/Do good deeds (positive karma) and you're rewarded in your next life.

Original sin being born into an inherently negative world. The main obvious difference of course between the belief systems is that christians only get one shot at it.

I'll probably get flamed for being so simplistic, but if you strip away alot of the religious aspect behind it, both are very similar human concepts.

 

[Yngvai X]

To me, sinning and karma are not so dissimilar concepts.

To simplify it greatly:
Sin (negative karma) and you're punished in your next life
Don't sin/Do good deeds (positive karma) and you're rewarded in your next life.

But much of karma also affects your current life. So in other words, you do good things in this life and you'll also be rewarded in this life.

Original sin being born into an inherently negative world. The main obvious difference of course between the belief systems is that christians only get one shot at it.

Original Sin is not merely being born into a negative world. It is being born an inherently negative person. There is a huge difference.

 

[HackerX]

But much of karma also affects your current life. So in other words, you do good things in this life and you'll also be rewarded in this life.

And there are concepts like this with sinning/christianity to.

Original Sin is not merely being born into a negative world. It is being born an inherently negative person. There is a huge difference.

Yeah, it was stretching it a bit there, and i'm too busy at work to think it through further.

I don't want to make it sound like they're the same thing in my opinion, only that they're based on similar concepts, and that they seem, imo, very human in nature.

 

[Rocky Raccoon]

The Western church made horrible mistakes, as do all individual Christians. We are ALL guilty of sins and mistakes. If I told you I had never accused a person falsely--or even that I'd never drawn blood--I'd be lying. (I threw a rock at a kid on the playground at 5 years old...the kid was OK after the knot on his head healed, but I can say I STILL feel bad when I think about it.)

However, other religions--and atheism--are not exempt from mass killings. Recall Stalin's purges, which were not committed in the name of any god that I'm aware of.

Read here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

To that I would also add China's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

Human nature is such that we will pervert ANYTHING we can get our hands on if we can make it serve our bloody ends, be it the philosophies of religion, atheism, science, sex, ANYTHING...many things that of themselves would be just fine if we didn't twist them. Religion is chief on this list of excuses because when people try to claim they're doing something in the name of God, others are afraid to call them on the injustice of what they're doing. The concept of religion in and of itself is not invalidated--however, those who carried out those actions under false pretenses are responsible as individuals for them.

MrFast, I have some more reading material for you, if you feel like wading through it. I am posting this as a reference for what I'm about to tell you, which was that even during the age of the Crusades, Christianity was not of one mind about such acts. My source is the writings of the Greek Orthodox Church. If you recall your history, the first Great Schism occurred in 1054, about the time the first Crusade kicked off...just a touch before, or perhaps during. This was when the church of the East divided from that of the West. Those churches under the leadership of Byzantium instead of Rome took a very different stance towards those outside of outside of Christianity. They have little to no participation in the Crusades that I am aware of...and this is a SIGNIFICANT branch of the Christian faith which is often forgotten by Americans because our Orthodox population is so small in comparison to Christians descended from the Western Church (of which I count both Catholicism and Protestantism).

In the year 1568 we get this statement from Patriarch Metrophanes III of the Greek Orthodox church when he heard about the mistreatment of Jews: "Injustice ... regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, is still injustice. The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these acts under the pretext that the injustice is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief."

A "heterodox" is one outside of the church, and the significant part of this quote is that you have a major leader in the Orthodox Church openly condemning violence against unbelievers and stating that the perpetrators will be equally accountable in the eyes of God just the same as if they had done it to a fellow Christian. Of course, some in the Orthodox Church did not heed this teaching...obviously SOMEONE in their church occasioned this finding in the first place, and that wasn't the last incident (the pogroms against Jews in Russia, for instance). However, I reiterate--you have church leadership delivering a condemnation of such behavior that couldn't be clearer.

So in summary, what is my point with all of this? My point is that all Christians are NOT of one mind, and that non-Christians are just as guilty of crimes against humanity. Christianity, Islam, atheism ALL have blood on their hands--do not dare condemn one and act as if no practitioners of the other are guilty.

(P.S.: My source for the material on Eastern Orthodoxy-- http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp )



Thank you to showing respect for those who do not share your beliefs. This is much appreciated.

Its radical beleifs that kill people weather they be christian, satanic, muslim, communist or whatever.. Anyone with a strong idea that they are right and others are wrong etc is gona cause wars and killing..

So basically John lennon had the right idea, if the was no religion and countries (politics) there would be no where near the amount of bloodshed that there currently is....

 

[dargormudshark]

Its radical beleifs that kill people weather they be christian, satanic, muslim, communist or whatever.. Anyone with a strong idea that they are right and others are wrong etc is gona cause wars and killing..

So basically John lennon had the right idea, if the was no religion and countries (politics) there would be no where near the amount of bloodshed that there currently is....

Correct me if I'm wrong but "radical" as you put it could be substituted as certainty. Do you believe that certainty is the root of all this, if so, than the idea that you hold is a contradiction. Believing that Lennon was right you are holding certainty. My second question is: With Lennon's beliefs how do we implement ideas. Should people have beliefs but not act on them? Should people be allowed to have different opinions? Would you prefer it if we were all a unified land with no control? Would you prefer a unified land with one government? Would you believe that ideas are evil and that man should be an ignorant animal feeding on whatever he is told he should do?

I have a great idea for a way to implement Lennon's beliefs into the world. We'll have everyone in the world line up at there respected community meeting centers (City Hall, Neighborhood front, a school, a hospital, anywhere for a big gathering) and drill our brains out. That may be going too far, we'll just take out the parts that allow us to create abstract thought. All we need is to survive, the last thing we need is for people to have ideas. Ideas are what got us into all these wars. Lennon was such a genius; you know thinking about it...he wasn't too far from the other guy who had a last name that is pronounced the same way.

 

[Rose Immortal]

At what level of sin does it go beyond our choice to counteract with, at what point is it just irresistable due to original sin.

Far greater minds than mine have argued themselves to an impasse on that subject--it's split church denominations in two (free will versus predestination). My best attempt at it is that theoretically choice should always be within our power, but that our flawed nature is such that we will never get it right 100% of the time. At least as far as my experience goes, our control seems to wax and wane over the course of a life--at one moment, you might commit a really flamboyant sin, and at another moment you might resist one that has minimal impact on others. Some of us might have a better overall batting average than others, but the Christian believes only one ever had a clean record. I go with a free-will approach in the end, that while opposite powers might contend for our allegiance, it's up to us what we'll do--and the fact that we never get it ALL right is what proves original sin. For me it is because observation of myself and others lines up with the doctrine that I accept it.

Well being that I've never been around a person 24/7 I could not tell you that in full consciousness. Even if I did know someone who wasn't weak and didn't resort to those things they would be on different grounds. Lying, Cheating, and Stealing are never justifiable and never appropriate; there is no rational justification for lying, cheating, or stealing that doesn't come at the expense of yourself or others. As far as hate and lust go, the two are only justifiable if they are rational reasons. If you love someone for the right reasons, lust would be a natural follow up...just as long as its not dangerous. If someone did something to you that they deserved hatred in return, then hatred is what they get and its appropriate. By my views on your forms of evil you could infer that I don't exactly hold Jesus Christ, or how he is depicted in the Bible as a hero, or anything close to that.

As for lust, I really should've defined that one a LOT better instead of leaving it open to interpretation. "Lust" in my book is not equated with all sexual desire. You and I would probably agree that sexual desire for one's marriage partner is healthy and correctly acted upon. Lust as I understand the definition is misdirected sexual desire.

As to hate, the belief I follow is that to hate the person is unacceptable; to loathe the action of that moment is permissible because that instructs us and may serve as a reminder when we need to remember not to act in the same way. To find a behavior disgusting is constructive insofar as it moderates our own actions. Loathing the person just leads us to commit our own injustices against them which are no more justified than the original act.

While ultimately I think we'd be hard-pressed to find a completely conclusive study, I suggest that if you observe the behavior of each person you know, you'll find that not one isn't subject to the rare moment of weakness.

Although I come across slightly pissed, I totally respect your right as well as all others' rights to any mystic belief; I don't respect the ideology but I respect conviction. You have to keep in mind though that God has not been proven yet, and until he has science will go on untamed, as it should. Whoever first came up with the concept of god and told it to everyone else they should have been the first ones to ask "Why?", "How?", or "When?", it wasn't their duty to take it on faith. All religions have similar fundamental basis', they either believe there is something higher than man, and that the reward for living life lies in the afterlife, although it looks more like a grave to me. For someone to take something unproved and believe in it just incase "It's better to be right about than wrong" is living their life in fear and thus de-valuing it in the process. We live in a world where reason is an absolute, so why do we take the biggest of all questions on faith? Its not the goal of science to prove their is no meaning of life, just not a dogmatic one. Did you ever think what your meaning of life would mean if reason in your world excelled from the middle of the road and became absolute, thus the destruction of faith. If science gave a full proof explanation for the creation of the universe (obviously I'm not a fan of the big-bang theory) what would your meaning be? You're only choice would be to accept reality and then build it into the way you see fit, just like all the great minds of history who were able to take us from being Cavemen to NYC (and not the cavemen living on the street in NYC )

I don't know where this impression comes from that Christians aren't supposed to think. Some make that mistake, but just the same, I'd submit to you that some who are raised as atheists (for instance) take things just because others said so.

I believe that it IS right to ask why, when it comes to matters of God and faith. The problem one gets into is that by nature, a "God hypothesis" is unfalsifiable by the finite means provided by physical science. Proof or disproof in a scientific manner would require knowledge of all data and all variables in existence in the universe. Ouch! As far as I see it, we should strive absolutely to the limits of our reason and our science, because I think the exercise does us good and makes sure that we understand as best as possible what we're getting into. Ultimately, though, we're left with the fact that as finite beings, we never will have all of the answers, and in order to come up with a sensible way to interact with the universe, we have to decide one way or the other on those critical questions for which we will have no concrete proof one way OR the other.

My personal feeling is that when it comes to the universe, we're looking at a thing of infinite complexity, and that there always will be one more layer, one more question to answer. We may get from the Big Bang to finding some evidence for what string theory posits, for instance, but once we get to that stage, I have a feeling we'll uncover just as many further questions as we do answers, and that we'll be stuck with the very same philosophical questions as we are now. The full-proof explanation of the universe is something I do not expect to ever occur: the adding of additional layers, yes (and those I look very much forward to hearing about), the complete solution, no.

If that is the case and we are indeed left with something unfalsifiable, then we're left with evidence of a subjective nature and thus to take a "leap of faith" or a "leap of unfaith" because in this existence we just will not be able to get at the complete truth with our own (scientific) means.

 

[dargormudshark]

Far greater minds than mine have argued themselves to an impasse on that subject--it's split church denominations in two (free will versus predestination). My best attempt at it is that theoretically choice should always be within our power, but that our flawed nature is such that we will never get it right 100% of the time. At least as far as my experience goes, our control seems to wax and wane over the course of a life--at one moment, you might commit a really flamboyant sin, and at another moment you might resist one that has minimal impact on others. Some of us might have a better overall batting average than others, but the Christian believes only one ever had a clean record. I go with a free-will approach in the end, that while opposite powers might contend for our allegiance, it's up to us what we'll do--and the fact that we never get it ALL right is what proves original sin. For me it is because observation of myself and others lines up with the doctrine that I accept it.

If you believe in Freewill and Original Sin at the same time then you are facing a small contradiction. If God could create man to lean torwards evil, or small sins, than we aren't living our lives free. If we are living under his power than we aren't free, its like calling the people who lived in the Soviet Union free. Religions are about selflessness, while freewill is about being selfish. If you want an aesthetical example I think everbody here knows what the best song to listen to is for this subject...."Freewill" by Rush.

I don't know where this impression comes from that Christians aren't supposed to think. Some make that mistake, but just the same, I'd submit to you that some who are raised as atheists (for instance) take things just because others said so.

All religions require that you do not think. The fundamental base for all religions is that there is a higher power and that the meaning of your life is to serve said higher power, then you are rewarded or punished after you die. Thus ignorance is the preferred way of living. If you want another example just read the story of Adam and Eve...ignorance is bliss. And no, I was not raised by Atheists.

I believe that it IS right to ask why, when it comes to matters of God and faith. The problem one gets into is that by nature, a "God hypothesis" is unfalsifiable by the finite means provided by physical science. Proof or disproof in a scientific manner would require knowledge of all data and all variables in existence in the universe.

But when a theory is made it is up to the person who came up with it to prove it. It isn't my duty to disprove the theory of God, "No one is ever called upon to prove a negative".

Have you ever known any scientific method to be this way? All problems that have been solved by science are the result of getting down to a primary reason, a finite complex. What have you ever seen that is inifinite, what do you know of that is infinite? There isn't any evidence suggesting that the Universe is infinite, but if you look around and see that everything is finite it gives you a hell of alot more reason to believe that the universe is finite.

My personal feeling is that when it comes to the universe, we're looking at a thing of infinite complexity, and that there always will be one more layer, one more question to answer.

So we should just give up, right?

If that is the case and we are indeed left with something unfalsifiable, then we're left with evidence of a subjective nature and thus to take a "leap of faith" or a "leap of unfaith" because in this existence we just will not be able to get at the complete truth with our own (scientific) means.

If you have any evidence at all than it isn't faith.

 

[Rose Immortal]

If you believe in Freewill and Original Sin at the same time then you are facing a small contradiction. If God could create man to lean torwards evil, or small sins, than we aren't living our lives free. If we are living under his power than we aren't free, its like calling the people who lived in the Soviet Union free. Religions are about selflessness, while freewill is about being selfish. If you want an aesthetical example I think everbody here knows what the best song to listen to is for this subject...."Freewill" by Rush.

While we lean towards evil that doesn't mean we don't have a chance to fight. To use a physical force in comparison, gravity may incline us to stay on the Earth's surface but that doesn't stop us from building airplanes to temporarily overcome that force.

All religions require that you do not think. The fundamental base for all religions is that there is a higher power and that the meaning of your life is to serve said higher power, then you are rewarded or punished after you die. Thus ignorance is the preferred way of living. If you want another example just read the story of Adam and Eve...ignorance is bliss. And no, I was not raised by Atheists.

While you weren't, I've known others who were, who just accepted what their parents told them at face value without any questioning that I'm aware of.

About the story of Adam and Eve, you might be interested in reading about the suggestion of felix culpa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa

I'm not sure yet whether I agree with this particular doctrine, but it is thought-provoking nonetheless, and would call into question what you say about ignorance as the preferred state. It may be (under this theory anyway) that for finite beings, there's no other way for us to exist in the knowledge of good and evil than for us to struggle with sin.

Again, I haven't got my mind made up on the idea of a felix culpa. But I thought you might find it interesting.

Have you ever known any scientific method to be this way? All problems that have been solved by science are the result of getting down to a primary reason, a finite complex. What have you ever seen that is inifinite, what do you know of that is infinite? There isn't any evidence suggesting that the Universe is infinite, but if you look around and see that everything is finite it gives you a hell of alot more reason to believe that the universe is finite.

It may be now that we are getting to a point where "universe" is no longer an inclusive-enough term to account for all that science will have to discover, and if that's true, then I should've used a term more like "all of existence," which would include everything within this universe as well as anything that may exist without. String theory, for one, is one of the theories suggesting the existence of multiple universes; so too do some theories about quantum mechanics. Research to prove or disprove both of those is still in early stages, so there's no way to say whether or not there is a multiverse and if it is bounded or unbounded.

Anyway, my general point is that if you're looking at this particular universe, I am aware of the theories you're talking about, but that some theories suggest there may still be more than the universe currently detectable to us.

So we should just give up, right?

No, we keep going--but not for the sake of answers about whether there is a God or not, but for the sake of whatever physical things we learn about the universe in the process. It's one of those things where the process has merit in and of itself even if we will not discover a conclusion.

If you have any evidence at all than it isn't faith.

You would not count it as evidence, to judge from what I've seen of you; that's the whole thing with subjective evidence--it's up to the person who experiences it to decide what it means because no one can help them with it. It's not the kind of thing you can wave around and show to everyone else and they'd instantly have to admit the same conclusions as you. Doubts arise in people from having to decide without help whether the purported evidence is "admissible"...if you ask me, the question posed by faith is not one of sufficient or insufficient evidence--but a question of admissibility of certain items.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

Jon Nodveidt was an accomplice to murder. As far as I know all he did was witness it and help hide the body. His friend is the one who did it. Granted, this isn't a good thing either, but people need to stop referring to him as a murderer. He didn't actually kill anyone, and everyone seems to forget this when they talk about him.

 

[Yngvai X]

Jon Nodveidt was an accomplice to murder. As far as I know all he did was witness it and help hide the body. His friend is the one who did it. Granted, this isn't a good thing either, but people need to stop referring to him as a murderer. He didn't actually kill anyone, and everyone seems to forget this when they talk about him.

To me, if you witness a murder and do nothing to stop it, you're just as guilty of murder as the one who actually did it.

 

[dargormudshark]

While we lean towards evil that doesn't mean we don't have a chance to fight. To use a physical force in comparison, gravity may incline us to stay on the Earth's surface but that doesn't stop us from building airplanes to temporarily overcome that force.

So keep man in chains while he fights a battle for good that he can't win

While you weren't, I've known others who were, who just accepted what their parents told them at face value without any questioning that I'm aware of.

Complete oppostite for me which will lead into the next part. I didn't even know there wasn't any evidence for the existence of God until I was 8 or 9 maybe.

About the story of Adam and Eve, you might be interested in reading about the suggestion of felix culpa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa

I'm not sure yet whether I agree with this particular doctrine, but it is thought-provoking nonetheless, and would call into question what you say about ignorance as the preferred state. It may be (under this theory anyway) that for finite beings, there's no other way for us to exist in the knowledge of good and evil than for us to struggle with sin.

Well given that the theory is from St. Thomas Aquinus, I don't have really any disdain for it...as I do have respect for him. The reason for that is he tried to apply Reason, Aristotle's principals to mysticism which was then and still regarded as by many people take as straight fact. A good effort on his part, more than any of his predecessors attempted.

It may be now that we are getting to a point where "universe" is no longer an inclusive-enough term to account for all that science will have to discover, and if that's true, then I should've used a term more like "all of existence," which would include everything within this universe as well as anything that may exist without. String theory, for one, is one of the theories suggesting the existence of multiple universes; so too do some theories about quantum mechanics. Research to prove or disprove both of those is still in early stages, so there's no way to say whether or not there is a multiverse and if it is bounded or unbounded.

The universe according to Wikipedia is the summation of all matter that exists and the space in which all events occur. This is also the only definition I have ever known it to be. Nothing exists out of the universe, the universe is the summation of everything that exists. Unless you believe contradiction exists.

No, we keep going--but not for the sake of answers about whether there is a God or not, but for the sake of whatever physical things we learn about the universe in the process. It's one of those things where the process has merit in and of itself even if we will not discover a conclusion.

What about the man who does set out to prove the negative, although he isn't called upon to do so?

You would not count it as evidence, to judge from what I've seen of you; that's the whole thing with subjective evidence--it's up to the person who experiences it to decide what it means because no one can help them with it. It's not the kind of thing you can wave around and show to everyone else and they'd instantly have to admit the same conclusions as you. Doubts arise in people from having to decide without help whether the purported evidence is "admissible"...if you ask me, the question posed by faith is not one of sufficient or insufficient evidence--but a question of admissibility of certain items.

Subjective evidence would be a theory, nothing that is fullproof is subjective. For example, 2+2 in our mathematical system is objective.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

To me, if you witness a murder and do nothing to stop it, you're just as guilty of murder as the one who actually did it.

This isn't a question of what anyone's personal moral beliefs are. He was tried and convicted on the charge of "accomplice to murder", not as a murderer, and thats why he didn't get the max sentence. Therefore its misleading to say that he killed anyone, and I just find it incredibly annoying that nearly everyone out there thinks he stabbed or shot someone. He did his time and expressed regret over the situation. Moreover, there's so many scenarios that would make your statement above seem stupid.

 

[cro4eva]

This isn't a question of what anyone's personal moral beliefs are. He was tried and convicted on the charge of "accomplice to murder", not as a murderer, and thats why he didn't get the max sentence. Therefore its misleading to say that he killed anyone, and I just find it incredibly annoying that nearly everyone out there thinks he stabbed or shot someone. He did his time and expressed regret over the situation. Moreover, there's so many scenarios that would make your statement above seem stupid.

From what I read he inflicted pain on the victim, he was part of the torturing but the other guy just shot him. Is this true? Or did he just sit there and watch?

 

[Yngvai X]

Moreover, there's so many scenarios that would make your statement above seem stupid.

Well obviously if you can't possibly stop a murder from happening then its different...I should clarify...if you are willingly not stopping a murder because you want to see the person who's being killed die, then you are no better than the killer to me.

Can we actually get back to the religious debate, its 100x more interesting than Jon.

 

[dargormudshark]

Can we actually get back to the religious debate, its 100x more interesting than Jon.

Your mom is more interesting than Jon! How's that for an intellectual comment?!

 

[Horus]

Pwned by dargormudshark.

 

[HackerX]

Subjective evidence would be a theory, nothing that is fullproof is subjective. For example, 2+2 in our mathematical system is objective.

2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2

 

[Rose Immortal]

[/quote]So keep man in chains while he fights a battle for good that he can't win[/quote]

The first Christian response would be that from the eternal standpoint there would indeed be victory. But I'm going to lay that aside for a moment to address something else.

The question is, what if the alternatives are worse? To deprive humankind completely of all will after their creation would very likely qualify--so would standing by and allowing complete self-destruction of the human race by not requiring them to try and fight at all. The third alternative--never creating other beings in the first place--may also be problematic, though less so than the other two. The nature of love is such that one must give it away in order for it to be complete, rather than keeping it inside solely for self-love. That turns the usual atheistic characterization of the Christian God as a megalomaniac of sorts on its head. Some criticize him for what he asks of humanity (respect, worship, etc.)...but it may well be that for love to have no beneficiary would be problematic and unbecoming of a being said to be perfect in love.

I know that may sound weird, but this is the first time I've ever tried to put that into words--pardon me if it isn't coherent.

Complete oppostite for me which will lead into the next part. I didn't even know there wasn't any evidence for the existence of God until I was 8 or 9 maybe.

Conclusive evidence to the scientific standard--no. But that gets to another issue further down...

Well given that the theory is from St. Thomas Aquinus, I don't have really any disdain for it...as I do have respect for him. The reason for that is he tried to apply Reason, Aristotle's principals to mysticism which was then and still regarded as by many people take as straight fact. A good effort on his part, more than any of his predecessors attempted.

Aquinas was a very interesting person, wasn't he? That's good to see your respect for him.

The universe according to Wikipedia is the summation of all matter that exists and the space in which all events occur. This is also the only definition I have ever known it to be. Nothing exists out of the universe, the universe is the summation of everything that exists. Unless you believe contradiction exists.

I think we're operating off of two fundamentally different definitions of what the universe is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Are you suggesting the "universe", if one of these theories is true, would contain everything described in this definition?

What about the man who does set out to prove the negative, although he isn't called upon to do so?

Prove the negative in what circumstance? Sorry...could you clarify this question?

Subjective evidence would be a theory, nothing that is fullproof is subjective. For example, 2+2 in our mathematical system is objective.

Right--this is the fundamental difference I'm trying to get at. You appear to believe that God can be conclusively proven not to exist.

I and an agnostic would agree that no such conclusion in either direction could be made based on scientific means.

Where the agnostic and I would differ is that I admit the evidence of certain experiences (subjective because you can't know them) and from there make an extrapolation about that unprovable, that is also termed a leap of faith.