Quote:
Originally posted by Superman
I'm going to do my best to stay away from this thread too, but I have a question or two. Perhaps an observation. I wonder how we are defining "atheist." To me, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not synonyms. Having doubt makes decent sense to me. Adopting and defending a negative position does not. That is, in science the existence of some thing or principle is, at least, potentially defensible. The non-existence of some thing or principle is MUCH more of a longshot.
Again, I can understand doubt. That's easy. But how many people here are sufficiently foolish and arrogant as to pretend to be convinced there is no God?
|
I often wonder why so many people are “sufficiently foolish and arrogant as to pretend to be convinced there is a god” when all they have is a belief, conviction, feeling, intuition, whatever word you want to call it.
(Why did you use the word “pretend?” Do you think that atheists secretly believe in a god, yet pretend to be convinced there is not? Let me assure you that this is not the case.)
You say: “Having doubt makes decent sense to me. Adopting and defending a negative position does not.” Isn’t the opposite just as valid? Like this: “Having doubt makes decent sense to me. Adopting and defending a positive position does not.”
There are probably very few atheists who state with absolute certainty that god does not exist. Most take the position that Mike states: “Most - if not all - atheists simply feel that the probability is low enough to simply say I don't think gods exist.” On the other hand, far more believers take the approach that they are 100% certain that god does exist. To me, adopting and defending this positive position does not make sense. It is, as we have seen on the other thread, indefensible. All believers can say is “I believe a god exists, therefore I am 100% certain that I am correct.”