re: #93 Romantic Heretic

I often find atheists are simply reflections of their fundamentalist counterparts. They know they are right. They know that there can be not the slightest deviation from their beliefs. They know anyone who does is evil. Not mistaken. Not possessing a different opinion. Evil.

It’s why I’m an agnostic. I haven’t the faith to support either stance, and am annoyed at people who believe I’m wicked for being that way.

re: #184 Ming

I’m nit picking, but I would like to mention the problem I have with agnosticism. Imagine if someone says, “I’m agnostic about Zeus. Maybe he lives on Mount Olympus, and maybe he doesn’t. I have equal respect for either position.”.

Or, same thing, “I’m agnostic about Argentinian astrology. Maybe it’s the key to understanding some phenomena, like why a person’s birthday determines his emotional disposition, and maybe it’s not. I have equal respect for either position.”.

Wow. I missed this earlier.

I’m sorry but the statement that atheists are the other side of the fundamentalist coin from the religious is a classic false balance, with a hint of straw man.

Could there be a god as described in the Bible, Koran, etc.? Sure. If you can prove it, I’ll haul my ass back to church tomorrow.

But that’s the rub: you can’t prove the existence of a being who, by its very nature, can defy all natural laws as we know them; or chooses to identify itself in the most oblique ways possible.

Shit, even Dawkins is on record as saying there’s a chance he might be wrong, and there is some sort of Big Dude pulling the strings. At some point, though, you’ve got to admit you have nothing. You can’t keep playing the whole “God works in mysterious ways” gambit.

I think the population of atheists who would admit they were wrong if there was truly hard evidence for a god is much bigger than you think.