(January 24, 2013 at 5:32 am)Aardverk Wrote: Can I just re-word that slightly - The existence of gods is extraordinary unlikely but it's also far from impossible.
Unless we can be 100% sure there is no god, and rationally we cannot be, a title which declares there are no gods cannot be defended any more than a theist's claims can be defended. We cannot provide proof, all we can do is critique the 'evidence' for gods presented by various religions. That is a very negative process and it is hardly surprising that atheists are generally seen by theists as hateful, rude and angry.
As a one-time atheist, now a 'born-again agnostic', the door is now open a crack to allow for the possibility of a god. That does not mean that I have any expectation of Him or Her pushing it any wider.
I must say that I like the term 'naturalist' given above but that is open to complete misunderstanding.
The requirement of 100% certainty on your part is unreasonable because that would make acceptance or rejection of any title/label/claim indefensible.
You cannot be 100% certain that you don't know/believe whether god exists or not. Maybe somewhere deep within your ssubconscious you do believe one way or the other. So your agnostic label as indefensible as the theist's claims.
A scientist cannot be 100% sure that relying on evidence is the right way to judge reality. So the title of a scientist is as indefensible as the theist's claims.
What is required is not absolute certainty but reasonable certainty.
