I must admit, that when I first joined this Forum it was shortly after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I was amazed by how much of a rant this book was. The only book of I have read that has a similar style is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler! I began to wonder if all atheists held such a viciferous view.
Since that time, in this Forum, I have come across, what I would call Fundamentalist Atheists (and some that prefer not to use a civil tone). But I have noticed that fundamentalists seem to exist in all walks of life. Apart from these, however, I have discovered another group of, what I would term, more moderate Atheists and from these I have had a great discussion and learned much. Relative to this group, my own agnostic position is but a hairs breadth different from their's. The outcome of the discussion can be distilled into the following statements:
'There is no empirical evidence that currently exists to support the notion that God exists, therefore, I do not believe in God'
'There is no empirical evidence that currently exists to support the notion that God exists, therefore, God's existence is unlikely'
I tend to the latter statement, moderate atheists seem to prefer the former. The distinction is small but subtly different. The first statement is, at a shade, slightly more closed than the second. I prefer the second since it most accurately reflects the facts as they stand and , at a shade, is more open minded than the first phrase.
Since that time, in this Forum, I have come across, what I would call Fundamentalist Atheists (and some that prefer not to use a civil tone). But I have noticed that fundamentalists seem to exist in all walks of life. Apart from these, however, I have discovered another group of, what I would term, more moderate Atheists and from these I have had a great discussion and learned much. Relative to this group, my own agnostic position is but a hairs breadth different from their's. The outcome of the discussion can be distilled into the following statements:
'There is no empirical evidence that currently exists to support the notion that God exists, therefore, I do not believe in God'
'There is no empirical evidence that currently exists to support the notion that God exists, therefore, God's existence is unlikely'
I tend to the latter statement, moderate atheists seem to prefer the former. The distinction is small but subtly different. The first statement is, at a shade, slightly more closed than the second. I prefer the second since it most accurately reflects the facts as they stand and , at a shade, is more open minded than the first phrase.
