In the scientific method, one always allows that one might be wrong in any facet of its knowledge. Future discoveries may cause us/science to modify our ideas. While acknowledging that, we still accept that our current state of knowledge is the best so far. Room for doubt is a rational attitude. It does not mean that we can't accept the status quo as our position.
Refusal to be swayed by a better argument or new information is precisley the kind of thing most atheists despise in the religious. To be intellectually honest, we need to leave a pocket of room for doubt, on the off chance that some new information comes along to cause us to change our minds. In the meantime I label myself an agnostic atheist. That means I call myself atheist, because I acknowledge no god, serve no god, take instruction from no god, fear no god; yet I have that pocket of room for change, which I feel is the intellectual imperative of the person who is science minded.
I tack on the prefix agnostic, because I cannot disprove the existence of "God", because it is a logical impossibility for anyone disprove a universal negative. If a god is supposed to be perfect and ALL LOVING, then that god must be 100% loving. I am not a god, any more than the guy religionists call "God", so I can be atheist, with some room for doubt, (doubt which I explore on an almost daily basis, in the interests of my own valued intellectual honesty and integrity).
So far I remain an agnositc atheist.
@ Gila "In the scientific method, one always allows that one might be wrong in any facet of its knowledge. Future discoveries may cause us/science to modify our ideas. While acknowledging that, we still accept that our current state of knowledge is the best so far. Room for doubt is a rational attitude."
Again, we are talking about God here. We have zero knowledge of God. How can we be wrong in our knowledge toward God? How can we modify our knowledge of God? What is our current state of knowledge in regards to god? How can we have a rational attitude in regards to God?
We can't apply science to God.
You are serious about not understanding how to disprove a god hiding as a negative?
The abrahamists don't have a monopoly on god. There are other ideas of what god is. I don't believe in them, but I leave the possibility that i'm wrong open with anything.
99.9999% for me is more short for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
I just don't feel like typing all those 9's. besides, its 100% anyway.
@ Paul "however one can't be 100% sure of any assertion based on any observed bit of evidence, as it is always possible to be wrong on our evidence"?
Paul you are 100% correct here and this is the basis of science.
The the topic of conversation here is God. And it is impossible to mix science with God. And the reason is nobody has ever observed God.
I know as a fact, that is 100% true, nobody here has ever observed God. And until such time, science, by definition, can never be used to prove or disprove God.