(January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am)genkaus Wrote: The requirement of 100% certainty on your part is unreasonable because that would make acceptance or rejection of any title/label/claim indefensible.But that is the definition of an atheist.
Less than 100% certainty that there are no gods and you become an agnostic.
Quote: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.Assuming for one moment that I have any, I can not talk for my sub-conscious beliefs only for my conscious beliefs and about that I can be 100% sure that I 'know' nothing about the existence of gods.
Quote: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.A scientist follows 'scientific' method so can certainly be called a 'scientist'. Scientific method does not 'allow' one to 'believe' that you know anything with certainty, simply that your hypothesis has been proven or not - please excuse the shortened explanation.
Quote:What is required is not absolute certainty but reasonable certainty.Strictly speaking, 'certainty' can not be qualified. What we are discussing is in reality 'doubt' - which can be qualified. I have little doubt that there are no gods, an atheist has no doubt that there are no gods.
A sensible man should not demand of me, or hope that when we mention a subject, we shall make a complete exposition of it. - Maimonides
