> it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic.
Surprising for someone with his background to not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and obviously not understanding that these two are not mutually exclusive.
> "I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.”
That's absolutely not what atheism is.
Atheism is a single position on a single claim. The claim is "There is a god", and the position is "I don't accept that claim".
How can this be even remotely against the scientific method? It's not even a claim, let alone a hypothesis.
This person seems to be so confused about basic epistemological definitions.
Surprising for someone with his background to not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and obviously not understanding that these two are not mutually exclusive.
> "I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.”
That's absolutely not what atheism is.
Atheism is a single position on a single claim. The claim is "There is a god", and the position is "I don't accept that claim".
How can this be even remotely against the scientific method? It's not even a claim, let alone a hypothesis.
This person seems to be so confused about basic epistemological definitions.