over all Thought-man I may be with you. both far ends are stupid. militant and fundie wacko texas type nuts.
but
thought age, are you saying that some atheist and many more theist make claims that are past our present data set? Some of the most well know scientist call themselves agnostic. But they are atheists by definition in that they don't believe in "that type" of god. They are agnostic because they understand that the universe complexity is past our understanding so we really don't know. so no-nothing doesn't seem reasonable. But that is based on what is known. These guys do not make claims with what is not known. they use only what is known.
ok we don't know it all. so what, now what do we do? Base a belief on what we don't know? be Agnostic? that's a load. My sect of agnosticism makes claims based on what is known to the best of "OUR" ability. Then we see how many human conditions the claims can seemly help describe.
but
thought age, are you saying that some atheist and many more theist make claims that are past our present data set? Some of the most well know scientist call themselves agnostic. But they are atheists by definition in that they don't believe in "that type" of god. They are agnostic because they understand that the universe complexity is past our understanding so we really don't know. so no-nothing doesn't seem reasonable. But that is based on what is known. These guys do not make claims with what is not known. they use only what is known.
ok we don't know it all. so what, now what do we do? Base a belief on what we don't know? be Agnostic? that's a load. My sect of agnosticism makes claims based on what is known to the best of "OUR" ability. Then we see how many human conditions the claims can seemly help describe.