What do you mean there is no proof either way? The non religious sides proof is where is the believers sides proof?
You're proof is that there is no proof?
Considering there is no proof doesn't the ball fall in the non believers court?
But you are a beliver, there is no proof to sup[port your position yet you have made a leap of faith.
The ball falls in the "there's no way to know/I don't know" court.
We don't say 'there is no way to know so why bother' because time and time again belief in Gods have proven to be harmful,
So has nearly everything should we ban that too?
But if everyone took the "there's no proof so I won't decide then there would be no problem would there? (well aside from people killing each other over everything else but that's apparently define)
there are those who wish to fly planes into buildings, kill girls for learning and implement a dark age style of law.
Yet the numerous sectarian murderers/fascist regimes/genocidal dictators, are all some how better because they did it, just because, rather than in the name of some being?
Hence why an active effort is made for people to justify their beliefs, their tax free status, their immunity from the law and criticism.
No they have to justify their claim to tax free status because it's an expensive allowance from the state not because religions have been used as an excuse in the past.
As far as when actual evidence which is clearly demonstrable comes about them the majority of atheists will have no choice to believe but until then why would they?
Of course they will have a choice to believe, as i said lots of people don't believe what many consider facts and visa versa.
Yes there would be a few unwilling to but these are fringe conspiracy theorist like the 9/11 truthers or the guys who go to bed at night fearing the illuminati.
Or the several billion people who had chosen another religion or the hundreds of millions of entrenched atheists who say "there is no god" and are as vehement in their belief as any religious person.
They wouldn't change.
No one takes them seriously. The main point here is when clear evidence comes about then that will be the time to believe,
Actually when clear 100% undeniable evidence comes, it will be impossible for any one to believe.
They would all know.
doing it on a whim is just well pointless,
Yet you have decided on a whim that you cannot say "I don't know" and instead have decided to believe based on even less proof than the average religion has.
what if your praying to the wrong God your just making him angrier and angrier - Homer Simpson.
If you're going to use that as an argument surely flat out denying his existance is worse than saying "I don't know and so can't decide"?
(iirc in most religions those people sort of go to the middle ground be tween heaven and hell)
What if god doesn't care or know of your existence?
We may just be "gods" version of the e-coli experiment, sealed in a jar and left to breed to see if anything interesting happens.
Maybe god died at the point in which he created the universe
who knows maybe he got bored around 2000 years ago and left to try again.
maybe he doesn't exist and we are the spectacular creation of quantum chance and mechanical certainty
Until someone puts proof either way in from of me I'll stick with not knowing.
