I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

I'm only now having a look at this thread. (The title was off-putting.)

So what do we have here. An agnostic who thinks atheists overstate their case? So what else is new? Yes many do but not everyone here does. Admittedly you frequently hear the demand for evidence followed by a lot of self congratulatory hooting about how anything that doesn't carry the good-science-keeping seal of approval is just a remnant of the dark ages.

So you, jelliedsoup, are questioning how strongly wed to evidence we could be if we carry around assumptions regarding the march of progress and infallibility of science? You must think a lot of us atheists are just on the rebound from a failed love affair with god. Perhaps we are still in love with the comfort of certainty and the feeling of being in the know, and those really are the hallmark of a true-believer's mindset.

Sorry about the title.

Yes correct. Why would anyone actively non-believe something, unless you believe that you're privvy to some sort of truth, and/or previosuly had some emotional attachment to that which you now deny. And yes the infallibility of science, this is an article of faith. Tick tick tick, it's as if you know me.

So how about you? In your righteous agnosticism do you lean one way or the other regarding the place of the supernatural? I admit to being a flat-earther when it comes to natural explanations. Anything that doesn't have a place in the natural world doesn't have any place at all as far as I can see. That's a bias I'll cop to and it inclines me to carry on as though there aren't any gods.

Now I have no issue with anyone who does believe in gods, so long as they aren't intent on getting me to adopt what they believe for circular reasons. I actually enjoy discussing cosmology with agnostic theists most of all. Rare breed though. Hard to come by and I do wish this site would give them a better welcome when they do stop by. Chad Wooters was here for a while and I couldn't always get my head into all his ideas but I did enjoy trying.

Most days I don't know, some days I lean either way. My bias is not believing humanity must possesses the qualities to assess the problem, or obtain the 'evidence'. I think that is where we'll always differ. I think in an age where religion is seen as superstitious we require some philosophical 'certainity', science fills in this void for some.