Hi bobbins,
I agree with your fine post completely.
I am convinced that there are no unicorns or fire-breathing dragons on this planet - convinced of that entirely and without doubt. I'm also convinced that there are no fairies, leprechauns or Gods. It doesn't mean that I am a "fundamentalist" on these issues. When a unicorn or a fire-breathing dragon or a leprechaun is reported in PNAS I'll change my opinion as fast as anybody else. The "fundy" is the person who has made up their mind without any interest in the evidence, and the person who will maintain their belief irrespective of any future evidence that arises.
I am an atheist and as such I believe that there is no God. Indeed I am convinced that there is no God. But when irrefutable evidence mounts against my belief, I'll change it. I can live quite happily with that.
added in edit:
Catholic Scientists comment (below) doesn't make any sense to me
CS writes:
People on this forum have said that this is incorrect. They’ve said that atheist are ‘without a belief in god’ but are not ‘with a belief in no god’.
What's the difference between not believing in God, and believing in no God? No difference, as far as I can see. It's just the same as not holding a candle, and holding no candle. The sentences appear to be semantically identical.
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 07-17-2005 03:00 PM
™ Version 4.2