pigsteak wrote:exactly rhunt..that is my point...christian faith and atheism are the two most far fetched positions to maintain. they are closer to each other in their reliance on faith than either side wants to admit...
being an agnostic is the most solid position from which to argue.
You cannot disprove the existence of anything. The dictionary has done more harm to atheists than anything else. "One who denies the existence of god" is an untenable argument, and does not accurately describe any atheist I've ever met.
There is either enough evidence to make something worth believing or their isn't. Most atheists will simply state that it is very unlikely that there is a supreme being in the traditional sense. So unlikely that it is not really worth worrying about. Just like most of us don't really sit around and wonder if unicorns exist, or celestial teapots.
Its more of a stand against the irrational desire to believe in something without evidence than anything else.
People want something to believe because it is instinctual for us to believe others. Belief is an important part of growing up with out dying. So as adults, people search for something to believe in, and when it doesn't make sense they tend towards agnosticism.
The burden of proof is always on the side of existence, not lack of existence. Since you cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, then agnostics technically treat god no differently from anything else that is conceivable. Which makes agnosticism a meaningless stance to have on anything. Its really more of a term for people who are either scared of god not existing, or just scared of what their friends will think of them if they say they are an atheist.
EDIT: caribe beat me to it.
