both of you are correct, but...
I firmly believe in no God. I will stand by that until I am given evidence that contradicts it. On the other hand, I have seen much evidence to counter the exitance of God, though I have not seen proof of his non-existance. I believe what I do (or do not in this case) because the line of thinking which got me here has been proved correct so many times before, which leads me to believe that it holds here, even if I cannot prove it. The fact that this thinking has led me to prove and disprove other things is a major contributor to my continuing this line of thinking and hence my belief in no God.
As I said, you are both correct in the idea that I stand by my athiesism as much as others stand by their thiesm, but using the analogy I used earlier, just because I can't prove that black holes aren't filled with jelly doughnuts doesn't mean that the idea is philosophical or that all sides and beliefs in the matter are inherently equal. It also doesn't mean that accepting that both may be correct and just being in the middle until further evidence is given is the solution. As in poker and many things in life, you aren't given all the answers and you just have to make your decisions with what information you have. I stand by the idea that my beliefs are created in more sound judgement and thinking than others and the fact that I can't prove it does not deter me at all from that.
I hope I have not sounded mean or insulting. If I did, that was not my intenetion. I am just strong in my beliefs, particularly in this case.
|