Late to this thread for sure,
I thought this was covered in Intro to Philosophy courses around the world forever. On the question of the existence of "anything " in the universe, only three honest solutions are logical. Something does exist, something doesnt exist , or; .... we don't know if it exist . Agnos ....unknowing
Say, I ask about the existence of a red headed blackbird ? If there's no imperical evidence from science, (ornathologist ) to support their existence , then I'm left with only two choices; .....I can say , no the red headed blackbird
does not exist( ie. no historical evidence) , or I can honestly take the third position, and say just because we don't have evidence , I will take the position that I am still not convinced either way, .......I just honestly
don't know. ...... Like ,maybe we should give the birdwatchers more time to look or something.
If I could care less about the question of the damn bird's existence ( which by the way , I
could care less ) My personal apathy won't effect the possible answer or solution to the problem. The one of the existence of said bird.
So watered down Athiesm, so that it's personally palettable, is like watered down Theism. Both probably just as ill-conceived as misunderstanding and watering down Agnosticsism.
Schools of thought , like Eastern or Western religions, really have little to do with "discussions" on the earlier , more fundamental questions of existence.
Just my take ; ya know . Things I thought I learned from a library book
