Because maybe some atheists recognize the limits of their knowledge.
I would go so far as to assert there is no personal god. However, I remain agnostic about a deistic god. The idea that a god created everything and then is hands off and unconcerned with our lives is a hypothesis that isn't very testable, at least not now. So, that means I believe the idea of a personal god (Answers prayers, does miracles, sent down his son, etc...) is testable and we can form a good argument to prove the premise that no personal god exists.
It's really about intellectual honesty. I don't believe absolute knowledge exists so I like to recognize that I can't know everything, so to the best of my current knowledge I can assert there is no personal god and I have to remain agnostic about the deistic one.
What's interesting to see, is when theists argue to death a deistic god and then make a leap to the personal one.
I would go so far as to assert there is no personal god. However, I remain agnostic about a deistic god. The idea that a god created everything and then is hands off and unconcerned with our lives is a hypothesis that isn't very testable, at least not now. So, that means I believe the idea of a personal god (Answers prayers, does miracles, sent down his son, etc...) is testable and we can form a good argument to prove the premise that no personal god exists.
It's really about intellectual honesty. I don't believe absolute knowledge exists so I like to recognize that I can't know everything, so to the best of my current knowledge I can assert there is no personal god and I have to remain agnostic about the deistic one.
What's interesting to see, is when theists argue to death a deistic god and then make a leap to the personal one.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report