robvalue Wrote:By default atheism is being undecided. I don't know why people like Chad insist you have to declare any statement to be true or false. You can simply say you're not sure yet. It's the sensible thing to do when you feel you don't have enough evidence to decide.
”I'm not sure what to say about that. I'll wait until I learn more about it."
"YOU MUST DECIDE NOW! PICK AN OPTION!"
Why it makes some people so uncomfortable that people could be undecided, I don't know.
My position is technically ignosticism rather than atheism. I reject the question as meaningless until it's clarified. You may as well ask me if I believe in dudbdkskndjdkdjdnd.
Well said, robvalue.
IMO, it seems like our field of vision is still way too limited to make any definitive/conclusive statements about reality. Why must we restrict our thinking and choices to any particular modes of thought that currently exist?
IMO, perhaps the particular space of reality that we occupy is like a mathematical function: it has certain inputs that can produce valid outputs, provided that the inputs are within the prescribed rules of the domain of the function. However, what happens when we encounter an input that does not obey the laws of our domain, yet, nevertheless, it produces an output that can be observed in our reality? Do we confine ourselves to our current modes of thought and force ourselves to make a choice; or, do we suspend any conclusions and choices until we have had a chance to explore the possibilities, preferably with an inquisitive mind that is open to modifying our thought patterns in order to fit with the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit with pre-existing and possibly erroneous thought patterns?
