Nice commentary Malcolm! Perhaps you could expand on what "... on balance good for nature or not." means to you?
On Apr 9, 12:38 pm, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes the atheist has made the same leap of faith that the theist has > made and only the agnostic is protecting his views with rational > argument. > > I suppose that the choice between theism and atheism will always be a > leap of faith. For me it is just a matter of what seems most credible > but could change. > > The important question, I suppose, is whether or not, theism is, on > balance good for nature or not. > > OnApr 10, 1:13 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:52 AM, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 2:22 pm, Chuck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 7, 5:18 am, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > IMO atheism is just as wrong as theism. It is an unsubstantiated > > > > belief in the absence of a god. > > > > I cannot sustantiate that there is no yeti or bigfoot. Nor can anyone > > > can substantiate anything that is based on inductive reasoning. > > > The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist makes > > an affirmative statement that god does not exist where an agnostic says that > > there is no evidence for the existence of a god. > > > The difference being that the agnostic is making a statement about lack of > > evidence where an atheist is making a concrete statement about the > > non-existence of god. He is saying "There is no proof that god exists > > therefore god doesn't exist". This is an unsubstantiated and unsupportable > > statement.
