<< Of course, as is correctly
pointed out by Zacharias below, it is not really possible to be an absolute
atheist, since that would require knowledge that is not available. So,
although I function as an atheist, by strict definition I am an agnostic.>>
That's very good, and very honest. It is not possible to "prove" the
non-existence of God. Rather, one becomes a de facto atheist through
"default." It is the nature of the default that ought to be explored.
<<To be an atheist or agnostic, I don't need to believe anything based on
faith, revelation or authority. I simply either disbelieve or withold
judgement until sufficient (for me) evidence turns up to cause me to rethink
my position.
All of the other options require that I make a "leap of faith" and accept
one or more premises that cannot be demonstrated or even logically derived.>>
But the "leap of faith" for the de facto atheist is faith in the very thought
processes that he presumes to rule his life. Further, logic itself is a
concept that is meaningless without an "outside" referrent. So to be presumed
"reasonable" is an act of faith. Which is why I'm puzzled by this:
<< This simply means
that logic is of no use in deciding to be a theist or atheist.... Faced with
this choice, a person who is sceptical about unverified revelation, faith, or
authority will reasonably choose atheism or agnosticism.>>
How can one "reasonably" choose if "logic is of no use" in deciding? Where is
the standard that determines this reasonableness? There seems to be a bit of
confusion here, a "borrowing" from theistic reality in order to justify an
atheistic conclusion.
<<Zacharias has made an error by focussing on the "straw man" of the
strict atheist position, rather than atheism as a working hypothesis. My
personal experience is that atheism as a working hypothesis lives quite well
with itself.>>
As long as one recognizes that this is, and can only be, a strictly subjective
stance, there is not much argument. But atheism, by its terms, cannot give us
universal morality. So while it may live quite well with itself on a personal
level, on a communal level it's disastrous. One need go back no further than
Stalin for confirmation of this reality.
As I've asked many times before: Can the atheist give a logical argument to
prove that Stalin was evil? I don't think so.
So, a person MAY live without God, but it will be, perforce, an insular life.
Jim