in sort-of actual response to what you wrote, the assumption of a lack of God has basis in Western thought. it is similar to the 'innocent-until-proven-guilty' cliche. your argument goes beyond that in stating that our sensory perception isn't advanced enough to observe a God, but, that tends to be my logic. I don't profess to know the truth, which sort of makes me an agnostic, I suppose, but gun-to-my-head, I would 'guess' against the existence of a 'god' so I self-label as an atheist.
Not necessarily. Just that if we wanted to find God we wouldn't know how to look. Science, our most advanced form of gathering knowledge, isn't able or does not have the ability to answer any question about God. That doesn't mean we can't at some point in history superceed science into a higher form of knowledge gatheringDepending on your definition of "God" of course. My bare-bones estimation would be some entity whose existence isn't dependent on what we populaly agree is physical reality. And as we ourselves are incapable of interfacing with anything outside of reality in any observable way, it is unknowable.
The atheist's argument is still important though. More often they argue against religion itself and a collective idea of God than a God itself. Those described by all religions have no evidence. It is only when you strip God down to ideas that it becomes impossible to know for certain.. but those as put forth by major religions are demonstrably unreliable at best.
I didn't read through all the barf on this thread, but if you still consider yourself a hurfy durfy atheist there are some drugs you need to do
The modern mind is an amazing thing, of course, and while no one can deny personal experiences, they're the definition of subjective.
Good thread by the way, I wish I had more to add. Christopher Hitchens is my favourite condescending athiest, by the way. But it's his arguments against organised religion that grab me the most.
