Quote Originally Posted by Hensmon View Post
I my recent years I have started to change my perspective on whether or not there is a God.

I was Atheist for most of my life, but now take a more agnostic approach as I find a majority of Atheists to be painfully narrow-minded and extremely arrogant in their beliefs that God does not exist. They believe that scientific evidence is proof, when realistically it can and never will explain the beginning of everything. Could a higher being be responsible for creating elements of the life we know?...absolutely. Can sheer science alone explain everything? ...impossible.

What's even more interesting is the argument of evolution. I bet most people don't realise that evolution has never actually been proven. It is still theory, not fact, as we have yet to discover one single piece of fossil evidence that fully confirms it (so far only hints towards it). What's even more interesting is that there are fossils that actually CONTRADICT the theory of evolution...not just one, but many. Museums in fact have been show to even hide these fossils from public viewing.

So what we have is one theory that is considered evidence towards a godless world, that is backed up by unproven hypothesis and another theory hypothesizing that evolution is in fact not true, that is backed up by real evidence and fossil records. Quite ironic when you consider most atheists believe there views are built on fact, not speculation.

I personally believe evolution IS true, based on what I see with my own eyes - the striking similarities between monkeys and humans for example - but if the history of science and human knowledge has taught us anything, it's that we have been certain of truths over and over again, only to have them be dis-proven or turned upside down repeatedly. It is the arrogance of Atheists to believe that their truth is an absolute and a belief in God as closed-minded, when in fact it applies both ways.
You can still be considered Atheist, just an Agnostic Atheist. Problems arise from Gnostic positions because logically they're fallible, to be taken as anymore than faith themselves is leads to the problems you describe. The problem in these threads and discussions is few make the distinction over claims to knowledge. Terms are used interchangeably to discuss what are very different stances.

P.s. A good thread to look at and understand what I've just mentioned > http://www.trancefix.nl/showthread.p...have-a-problem