you don't believe in god, don't know if there is one of not, but are willing to be convinced either way if a good proof comes along.
That's me as well, then. What were we arguing about, exactly, throughout the day? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
whistle, whistle,
has the teacher gone, Colman?
Here take that, and you DoDO, buh, argh, uff, autsch
with regards to Jerome,
wouldn't know - don't feel competend to comment
...
hehe, another funny comment, as if that had ever stopped me...
Making a decision.
I am a weak atheist who even has time for the religious gnostic argument, that you can know the truth of a religion by faith. Only: as all kinds of religions have believers who think faith was a route to Truth for them, which one to try first?
Similarly, as long as none of them seems more well-founded than a couple of others, you don't need to pose 'absolute' standards of proof for various gods and religions.
A further issue is whether you see the knowability of the existence of gods as a question different from say the knowability of the existence of Saturn or giant squids or fairies or toothbrushes (and that would lead to a whole discussion about the meaning of "to know"). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
