Quote:
Originally Posted by LesMts
My point is that, if pushed, I would have to concede that I cannot prove absolutely that, for example, Thor, doesn't exist. No matter how strong my suspicion that he doesn't exist is (and it's pretty fucking strong), it could never be proven.
As a result I'd have to, as much as it pains me to write the words, concede further that I believe there is always the possibility that Thor does exist. So I can't be an atheist. I must be a can't-know-agnostic.
|
As I said, if you don't believe in a God, you're still an atheist. There is always the possibility that ANYTHING exists, but conceding that, doesn't imply that you believe in it.
I was slightly wrong in my definition of agnosticism, it's someone that believes that the existence of a god is unknowable OR unknown. It's still completely compatible with atheism.
As for an argument for why non-extreme variants of religious belief are still harmful, I would argue that since religion belief is based on faith, and not evidence, that it's very easy for extremist variants of a religion to pop up. If a scientist claimed that the earth is flat, with only the most flimsy evidence to back up their claims, they'd be laughed at. If a worshiper of Moblor the sky dragon claims that all true Moblor followers must murder non believers, and that those that disagree are heretics, then there's not really much you can do to argue with that, since the whole belief system is based on faith rather than evidence in the first place.
I don't think destroying religion would solve the problems caused by religion though. Irrational thinking isn't confined to religion. White supremacism and holocaust denial are two belief systems that aren't necessarily religious, but rely on faith, sticking to the same belief in the face of opposing evidence.