Quote:
I think some people get angrier with agnostics than with out and out atheists.
The agnostic has simply not come to any conclusions yet; the atheist and the believer have, for those having trouble with the concept.
|
You cannot conclude decisively on a matter in which there is no evidentiary proof for either side. It makes far more sense to avoid making a judgement until further evidence is presented, since this is not excactly a time-critical decision. People only make decisions based on airy assumptions when they're rushed or they are under the delusion that the assumption is correct. I choose rather to avoid assuming at all, and wait for accurate evidence to be presented. If no evidence ever comes forward (I presume none ever will) then it's no "skin off my balls" because I know that among many who jumped to conclusions, I never made a rash assumption and chose a side. Effectively, I'm never wrong; whereas if there is a God, atheists are wrong, and in God's absense, theists are wrong.
That's what jumping to conslusions based on assumptions gets you; the chance to be wrong. And in this case, 50% chance to be wrong is pretty bad. Wait for better odds.