So do I. “Ambiguous-at-best” implies that some of the evidence offered against the proposition is ambiguous, i.e. not provably false. Which in turn implies that believing the proposition firmly is unjustified.
The language is loose. But in a less atheistic forum, I might say the evidence of God is “ambiguous, at best.” I’d never say that evidence against God is ambiguous.
Functionally, it’s a politeness-induced vagueness, not intended as a precise statement of the OP’s confidence in the state of the evidence. Or so I read it.
And calling people out based on politeness-based vagueness is an aggressive stance that does not appear to be justified in this instance. Particularly since:
making self-assured apodictic assertions about difficult and controversial topics, without any supporting argument and in a way that implies that reasonable disagreement is impossible
is a valid, interesting, and totally independent criticism.
So do I. “Ambiguous-at-best” implies that some of the evidence offered against the proposition is ambiguous, i.e. not provably false. Which in turn implies that believing the proposition firmly is unjustified.
The language is loose. But in a less atheistic forum, I might say the evidence of God is “ambiguous, at best.” I’d never say that evidence against God is ambiguous.
Functionally, it’s a politeness-induced vagueness, not intended as a precise statement of the OP’s confidence in the state of the evidence. Or so I read it.
And calling people out based on politeness-based vagueness is an aggressive stance that does not appear to be justified in this instance. Particularly since:
is a valid, interesting, and totally independent criticism.
Point taken. I retracted that part of the comment.