It takes strength for that. Perhaps the difference in thinking
is akin to my choice in this area; many people find a lack of
empirical evidence and decide to be atheist. I see the same lack
of empirical evidence and decide to be agnostic. For some
they're interchangable. For me, it's not. To me, the lack is
rather like a possibility. It remains-to-be-seen. I don't need
proofs because I'm not looking to believe or not believe. I
simply don't know either way, and I'm ok in the "I don't know"
state because I have other more humanistic things to attend to
than beliefs in this matter. For some, the lack is evidence
means one can shift to "God does not exist". They're atheist.
I'm cool with that, as long as it doesn't become anti-theism,
which then leads to wars with words... and wars with words often
lead (eventually) to war with swords, as it were. Enough time,
enough power, it's possible. Lack of political clout I think
keeps that from happening just _yet_. But to me, going from a
"don't know" / "not enough evidence to support" is like going
from 0.00001% to 0. A rounding error. I look at myself. I could
easily be rounded out of existence statistically. But I'm still
here smile emoticon I can't speak for anything else that might
be roundable out of existence, or logically proven out of
existence. I simply don't know, although I learn more heavily
towards "likely not" yet the lack of empirical evidence compels
me to just leave the I don't know an I don't know.
