| Louie said: Well it is quite obvious that you can't prove or disprove any deity. The reason why I'm so heavily in favour of atheism in these discussions is that knowing your faith is based on believing and not evidence is important to me. When someone says "I know I can't prove it. It's just my personal believe I know it could be different" then I have no problem accepting it. It's completely fine so why should I try to disprove a person who obviously gains something from it? It only cracks me up when people try to explain their believe with amazingly complicated theories and - as a side effect - throw everything else we know so far out of the window. I wouldn't call that faith anymore, it just stops you from accepting anything that contradicts your personal belief. So to me it's not the question do you believe in god that counts, it's the way you believe in him (or her |
)I couldn't agree with this more. Including the fact that I consider myself agnostic but recognize that I lean atheist based on the limited and incomplete information available to me.
The key is that the skeptic's "default" position is not atheism, it is agnosticism. Agonsticism is "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)", while atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Skepticism has to do with questioning and doubt not certainty, so it is agnostics who are the skeptics, not atheists.
I actually think the majority of people who call themselves athiest are actually agnostic, but it's impossible to know for sure.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
