We're likely arguing for different but related positions, sure. And all of what you say makes sense, I don't think I have a quibble with any of it.
One issue, I think, is that the logical result of applying deductive reasoning and the Scientific Method to the existence of God is not in fact atheism, it's agnosticism. Atheism requires the additional step of assuming some version of Occam's Razor, that is, that if the natural phenomena of the universe can be adequately explained without a reliance on Deity, then no Deity must exist. But Occam's Razor isn't hard logic, even though it's a rational, reasoned approach. So atheism requires a quasilogical assumption.
I certainly agree with you about people who spend so much of their time attacking theists. I see the reason in a certain amount of challenge -- such as against those religions that put children at risk by refusing medical care -- but blanket bitterness towards religion doesn't accomplish anything useful.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 04:53 pm (UTC)One issue, I think, is that the logical result of applying deductive reasoning and the Scientific Method to the existence of God is not in fact atheism, it's agnosticism. Atheism requires the additional step of assuming some version of Occam's Razor, that is, that if the natural phenomena of the universe can be adequately explained without a reliance on Deity, then no Deity must exist. But Occam's Razor isn't hard logic, even though it's a rational, reasoned approach. So atheism requires a quasilogical assumption.
I certainly agree with you about people who spend so much of their time attacking theists. I see the reason in a certain amount of challenge -- such as against those religions that put children at risk by refusing medical care -- but blanket bitterness towards religion doesn't accomplish anything useful.