|
Very interesting responses, thank you all.
There were only a few deviant ones, so thanks for that.
Two things. Just thought's I have in summary I guess. If you want to respond feel free otherwise thanks for the above.
1. I'm very impressed by the Ockham's Razor response. I think it was restated a number of ways. Essentially, the best evidence points to the non-existence of god. Although I tend to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence - I have to admit that this brings me no closer to proof. This is why I'm impressed by this first response. It says, "here's the evidence, scientific and biblical (as it would be rather un-empirical to leave out such even biblical evidence) and I just feel more comfortable with the no-god theory." That's a smart move and, at least in a folk psychological way, people generally believe that, that for which there is the easiest explanation is the most "justifiable" (not necessarily true, just most justifiable."
2. My second thought is inspired by Ducknutz very clever approach and a few other posts. I'm not as impressed by the response that atheism is just a denial of theism and nothing else. It is something more - not just a negative belief, but the affirmative assertion that there *is no god.* and Affirmative assertions need support, especially if they fault theism for lacking such support. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's enough to say that atheism just denies belief in theism (certainly agnosticism does that too.) what defines atheism is that it makes such an affirmative claim, and I believe that needs support of some kind. (Consequently, this is why I like the Ockham's point - because that is a form of support).
To sum that very long winded thought up:
Denial of theism is necessary but not sufficient for atheism.
Okay. There we go - just trying to be provocative.
__________________
Tbor
Madison, WI
|