The battle

Battle of the New Atheism: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=rss.index

Interesting. It is. I've been thinking about one reason to in some way prove God's existence, and this may be a bad one, but I'll give it a shot; I don't think anyone else has thought about this. But what about Paranormal phenomena? No, not the ridiculous kinds: Faith healing, levitation, and other non-real things. I'm thinking about like 'ghosts' in haunted places. There are so many things that people have experienced that's kind of weird, but it does happen. There are like haunted hospitals like the one in Fairfield, and other places where crazy ghost hunters go. People who have no relation to these ghosts or anything go on little adventurous journeys and people see things. From anything to a simple 'orb' or weird things like sudden changes of temperature. Well, I told you, it wasn't going to be the best example, but it makes some sense. If we are supposed to die into nothingness like, I suppose, atheists believe there shouldn't be ghosts or anything paranormal like that which science can't explain. If you're dead you disappear, but if ghosts are real(even in tiny orb forms in pictures, or anything small like that) wouldn't it make sense there's a God of some sort? If there was literally 'nothing' after death why are there ghosts? I'm not saying I know, but it's not a terrible argument. Anyway, this new atheism is pretty bold. I was reading one of the comments left by a user saying, "Atheists are no better than theists

It seems to be generally thought that agnosticism lies on the continuum of belief somewhere between the two extremes of atheism and theism. It also seems like atheism gets this hard rebel radical punk-rock image and agnosticism is just its wishy-washy neighbor. This is not the case.

An agnostic knows that he can't prove that god exists, and he ALSO knows that he can't prove that god DOESN'T EXIST. Atheists like to pick at these proofs for the existence of god...they are in the same boat with the theists! Logically they are practically the exact same form, one is just negative and the other is positive: god DOES exist, god DOESN'T exist. There is equally no evidence and proof for the NON-existence of god, and atheists cannot deny that.

It is really strange that so many scientists and philosophers are atheists because they are the ones who are supposed to be so schooled in logic and scientific method, and here's why: an argument against one side is NOT necessarily an argument FOR the other. And this is the illusion that the atheists are running on. This is a fallacy that just seems to make sense. It was once thought that an argument AGAINST the particle theory of light was necessarily an argument FOR the wave theory of light. But it turned out that neither of them were exactly wrong or right. If we could know NECESSARILY that there are only TWO possible choices, then attacking your opponents arguments might support your own. But we can never know anything NECESSARILY, outside logic and math.

That is the illusion that is created in this debate: that there are only two possibilities. It also seems like much atheism is directed particularly at the Christian god. And I suppose it would be safer to say that in that debate, ultimately, either the god of the Christian bible exists or doesn't. But from a wider perspective, who the hell knows what goes on out there beyond this system/galaxy/universe/etc. Ok, and maybe not the Christian god, but how can you say that THERE IS NO higher being/creator/etc.? (And like I said above, this is NOT at the same time an argument FOR a creator.)

After deposing the debate about whether or not one side has the epistemic upper-hand, where does that leave these believers? (I'm now including atheists in this category as well.) It is obvious that it all just comes down to taste, one's personal aesthetic (and an idolization/aggression towards some kind of oedipal projection of a father).

Atheists often say 'we don't need that hypothesis', or the like. Sure, and that is the way science works: god tinkering along the evolutionary way is untestable. But on the other hand, back in the day when scientists were still trying to prove the existence of atoms, a theory about quarks and gluons would've been more than a bit superfluous. Trying to tell Newton about the behavior of space-time would be the same. This brings to mind the often quoted Asimov on the indistinguishability between really advanced technology and magic (and Michael Shermer's adaptation: the indistinguishability between really advanced technology and god).

THEREFORE, atheists can't criticize faith because they have faith too. Atheists have to take a leap, the length of which is exactly the same as the one the theists have to take. So the spectrum becomes: agnostics on one end, and believers (atheists included) on the other.

Finally¦REAL skeptics/scientists/philosophers are AGNOSTIC!"
Good argument, that's basically the way I am, except after understanding a bit of the Qu'ran(yea..) I'm like a muslim slash agnostic for reasons that others have said and reasons I've tried to find for myself. Most of the motivation I have for remaining that way is the "If you believe and there is One you win, if you don't believe and there is One you lose, if there isn't anything it--it won't matter then," quote. I think that's sufficient enough. Night..