Quzar wrote:Russell was much more open-minded and careful in his thought that the general lot of people out there though (I remember after reading Frege, 'The Problems of Philosophy' was such a breath of fresh air). His perception of the 'popular' sense of atheist seems to fall in line exactly with what I was saying: denying that any gods (or more narrowly, a judeo-christian God) exist despite not being able to prove it.
Well the burden of proof always falls on the person making the positive assertion, example:
- Theres evidence that a god doesn't/does exist. -
I'm not sure how asserting that it's
improbable is an evidenciary claim, but I think it tries to show certain people it's okay to be an atheist/agnostic.
Eviltaco64X wrote:Atheists do share a general belief that there is no God and that their scientific theories explain the origin of the universe and life. Like a lot of religious folk, they strongly defend these beliefs and many even try to shove it down your throat (I don't care which beliefs you hold, shoving them down someone's throat is completely unnecessary).
Science doesn't need to, or even try to, replace claims that religions make. It is about discovery, and even saying you don't know <insert question> means nothing. Go ahead it's easy...
I don't know.
For me the reason I'm an atheist is, I have found
no naturalistic reason up to this point to believe any god from any religious text exists. You could ask me why I don't believe in your god, and I would probably/hopefully be able to say:
The same reason you don't believe in the ancient Norse, Greek, or Roman deities exists.
Disproving the very existence of say -
the Abrahamic God - would be about as futile as trying to disprove Santa Claus,
you couldn't.
Again I don't know about your little areas of the world, but when your country's leader was the first to even acknowledge atheists, this stuff is a sign of progression beyond dark age thinking.