[ArneFufkin]

It's about faith. The religious follower has faith, absent empirical proof, that his concept of a Supreme being has the characteristics and manifestations that his church teaches and worships. The agnostic has faith, absent empirical proof, that the Western manifestation of one supreme and responsive heavenly being is most likely a human construct and understandable and constructive lore. The Atheist, who flatly denies something he cannot definitively disprove, IS an idiot. The religious zealot, who flatly denies and assails any manifestation of God different than his own, is also an idiot. The last two examples discard faith, and its humility, for blind, arrogant and unwarranted certainty.

[Festa]

Amen on almost all the points. I do think though (as I wrote in my essay) belief in God, if thought logically, is based on a lot of fact and a lot of faith. It isnt how hollywood portrays it, "ohh, well I guess there must be a god you know". THink about it. It is much more logical that there is a God than there isnt.

I put it this way. The theist has thought through the facts and come up with the only logical conclusion. THere must be a God because the other way does not make any sense. The Agnostic says, yeah the evidence leans towards that way, but I am still not sure. I do not want to take a position because it is not 100% proven. The atheist is an idiot because he has no support for any of this beliefs.

[jejones]

You can't prove that the sun will "rise" tomorrow...but most people plan their actions on the assumption that it will. Or, to quote Ring Lardner, "The race is not always to the swift, nor victory to the strong...but that's the way to bet."

Theoretically, it's possible that there's a god; but after millenia of people trying unsuccessfully to prove it, I don't have the time to waste. Call me an "operational atheist" if you will; I respectfully submit that I'm not an idiot (save perhaps for getting into these discussions of apologetics :)).