An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

Part of Islamic dogma is that one is born a Muslim. Therefore anyone that 'converts' to Islam is technically reverting and are commonly called 'reverts'. So yeah, the term is already in use I'm afraid.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I suppose it could be looked at as hedging. A more neutral way of looking at it would be that atheists accept that they are fallible people capable of making mistakes. That atheists believe that knowledge is always tentative.But saying that atheists are hedging may in fact be misrepresenting the situation.When I say I can't conclusively state that no god exists, I say that in exactly the same way I say I can't conclusively state that no invisible pink unicorn exists, no garage dragons exist, no FSMs exist, no domovoi exist, no leszi exist, no djinn exist, no goblins exist, no Nephilim exist...It might be technically hedging, but is it practically hedging to say that 'Theists might be right in the same way that there might be a Celestial Teapot orbiting the sun?And if it is hedging, could you explain why hedging might be a problem?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What's surprising about it exactly? As I said, it's the very minimal amount of hedging that it's possible to have. The same kind of hedging that I partake in when I say there is (probably) no CIA base on the moon that reads my thoughts and mind-controls my family.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It's not that they are saying 'there is no supernatural; there maybe a supernatural' which would be odd. What they are saying is 'There is probably not a supernatural. It can't be absolutely ruled out. However, there is no reason why we should believe there is.'. They may criticize you for making certain errors in reasoning that is used to justify those beliefs, but that doesn't come into tension with their underlying belief that 'the unfalsifiable cannot be falsified (ie., we cannot rule out the supernatural)' When the majority of people are making the kinds of reasoning mistakes that can lead to disastrous or immoral policy decisions...I think it's perfectly fair for the atheists to be provocative.

From the evidence provided so far, I conclude that God is a man made idea with no non-trivial relationship with reality. That is: God is a made up entity. I'm constantly reviewing the evidence as new information comes in. Nothing that Mr Flew has brought up, has caused me to change my conclusions. Why don't you let go of your arrogant disdain for anyone who does not believe in God? I'm not sure why you think it is a 'myth' that there might be variation in the strength of the conviction within the population of those that do not hold the belief 'a god exists'. Pascal hedged his bets. I, on the other hand, am betting 'no God' straight up. No bet hedging for me. I won't believe in some gods a little bit just in case my original bet turns out to not come in.I will provide some hedging to my conclusions, as I previously explained to you. You say that there is nothing wrong with hedging, so why should I quit that?