But isn't there a difference between what one is 100% certain of and what one thinks others should be 100% certain of? I have no problem saying I don't believe in any gods. I don't think any such thing makes any sense at all in a literal way. But aren't we all put off by the theist who assumes he knows better what is good for us than we do ourselves? I just don't want to be that guy.
"I see no reason to believe in gods" seems to me a far cry from the claim "there is no good reason for anyone to believe in gods." "I don't believe in gods" does not entail that "no one should believe in gods". Are there universally shared standards for what should be believed and on what basis? Trying to convince others what to believe in the absence of evidence is pretty pointless. If you see the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as I do, you won't believe. But someone who has a story they like about why their clever god has decided to require faith will be unreachable. Seems pointless to try and I don't see the need.
"I see no reason to believe in gods" seems to me a far cry from the claim "there is no good reason for anyone to believe in gods." "I don't believe in gods" does not entail that "no one should believe in gods". Are there universally shared standards for what should be believed and on what basis? Trying to convince others what to believe in the absence of evidence is pretty pointless. If you see the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as I do, you won't believe. But someone who has a story they like about why their clever god has decided to require faith will be unreachable. Seems pointless to try and I don't see the need.
