re radical agnostic not reply to zazen austin ibm com e h welbon there is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt that a god does not exist but if anyone has one by all means tell me what it is therefore lacking this ability of absolute proof being an atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself and this i cannot accept i accept nothing on blind faith invisible pink flying unicorns need i say more i harbor no beliefs at all there is no good evidence for god existing or not some folks call this agnosticism it does not suffer from blind faith at all i think of it as don t worry be happy for many atheists the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an epistemological consideration what do we accept as a reliable way of knowing there are no known valid logical arguments for the existence of gods nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist most philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that must be accepted on faith faith is belief without a sound logical basis or empirical evidence it is a reliable way of knowing there is probably nothing else most people would accept in the absence of any possibility of proof even when we agree to take someone elses word on faith we just mean that having found this person to be reliable in the past we judge him likely to be a reliable source now if we find faith less reliable than logic and empirical evidence everywhere else why assume it will provide reliable knowledge about gods the difference between the atheist and the theist is fundamentally then one of whether or not faith is held to be a reliable way of knowing rather than as some agnostic posters would have it whether ones faith is in gods or no gods the theist believes that faith is an acceptable basis for a belief in gods even if he rejects faith as reliable at other times for example in his work as a scientist the atheist believes that only logic and empirical evidence lead to reliable knowledge agnosticism seems to me a less defensible position than theism or atheism unless one is a sceptic in regards to all other knowledge without evidence why should we believe in gods rather than santa claus or the easter bunny i would also like to point out as others have that the atheist doesn t require absolute knowledge of the lack of gods i don t believe that there is any such thing as absolute knowledge atheism is the best and simplest theory to fit the lack of facts and so should be held until contrary evidence is found david nye nyeda cnsvax uwec edu midelfort clinic eau claire wi this is patently absurd but whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities bertrand russell
