Me and my sticky fingers do it again….

Except that religion has the distinction of being unchallengeable, which therefore makes it far more dangerous than other “opinions” people hold.

I’m not settled on this question, but I do notice this: We are a people that reproduce exponentially and are fighting over limited resources. Those fights are inevitable and will go on for so long as our population expands. But we very seldom confront the truth about ourselves. We are greedy and want what others have. So we attack them. But we lie to ourselves, and often use religion as a justification for our avarice.

But if not religion, it would be something else. Point is, we will fight in perpetuity, no matter our belief system. So not having religion would have no adverse impact on our condition.

I can’t understand strong atheism, since rejecting unprovable notions doesn’t please me.

Well, I don’t understand that statement. Some people have a misguided sense that things need to be proven to believe (or disbelieve) them. I believe government run health care would be better for this country. Can I prove that? Not even close. I still believe it, will try to convince others of it, and will vote based on that belief. We don’t generally prove things about the natural world. We accumulate evidence, sometimes to the degree where it would be perverse to deny its implications, and we believe accordingly. I don’t believe a caring God exists because I believe the existence of suffering is evidence against that. I have an argument for that and I think it’s convincing. Do I think it “proves” anything? Nope, I just think it’s a good argument. It could be wrong. There are arguments against a more watered down version of God. For example, any definition of God usually includes some kind of ability to break the observed laws of nature and exist outside of the natural world. All of our observations of the natural world indicate that such abilities aren’t possible. Does that prove anything? No, but it’s an argument that you can judge either way and incorporate it with the other arguments you’ve heard. If someone found it convincing, I would expect that person to be a strong atheist and I would completely understand, even if I myself wasn’t convinced.

I fail to see how, when there is no more compelling reason to make a choice, that method of choosing harms anyone.

Assuming of course, that I don’t demand others follow me as well…

Who said anything about harm?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be implying in your post that the consequences of belief in a god factor into your decision whether to believe or not. That I very much don’t understand. Sure, I’m aware that it will be a factor in any person’s belief - we’re all human, after all. But we shouldn’t embrace it, we should try to correct for that and decide based on information that’s actually useful in determining truth.

Given that, and the fact that I do not find a belief (or lack thereof) in god to be either intrinsically helpful or harmful, I see no compelling reason, on the whole, to outright accept or reject the notion of god; neither one, automatically, presents positive benefits. I can’t understand strong atheism, since rejecting unprovable notions doesn’t please me. I also cannot understand subjecting wholly to belief, as the inability to defend my views would make it impossible for me to expect others to follow me.

It might snow tomorrow, it might be 55. If I can have proof of either, then I will react accordingly. However, if I have no evidence to help me choose (my internet is down and I can’t find the weather channel), then I am going to go with gut; probably follow hope, and put on some shorts.

I fail to see how, when there is no more compelling reason to make a choice, that method of choosing harms anyone.

Assuming of course, that I don’t demand others follow me as well…

Isn’t a “weak atheist” the same as an agnostic?

I guess it depends. Colby’s agnosticism most certainly isn’t the same as weak atheism. Yours essentially is. As I said, it’s somewhat a matter of emphasis. That’s where Lina’s point about agnostics not quite going all the way comes in.

No, not weak, just illogical. But that wasn’t really my point. I disagreed with your assertion that it’s *equally* likely there IS a God than there isn’t. None of us has the ultimate explanation, but that doesn’t mean anything and everything is in the running as plausible.

“I have no doubt in my mind that the personal and ‘caring’ God that religious people pray to does not exist.”