Hare Krishna

[Darkstar]

Thanks for a more polite response. With you, I can just respectfully agree to disagree. But with full respect.

I agree that it might be true. I just don't have to swallow it until there's proof. I think that's how a lot of atheists feel about God, right? Tend to be real skeptical, right? That's how I feel about the life comes from chemistry hypothesis.

Thanks for the distinction between theory and hypothesis.

But...that's a double standard, isn't it? You admit that 'we atheists' are skeptics when it comes to god, but you are willing to suspend all disbelief in that area. It has only been proven that non-living matter can become organic matter; said matter was not truly alive. It is true that you don't have to accept it as fact until there is proof. However, when looking at the merits of two competing, unproven hypotheses, it would be most logical to either claim agnosticism until the proof is in, or side with the one that has greater evidence. As of yet, I have seen evidence for abiogenesis, although not proof, but I haven't seen any evidence for god. So, by my reasoning, it would be most logical to either say I don't know, or place my bets with abiogenesis. Is there a reason you have concluded god on this point?