I'm a bit reluctant to post about what's been on my mind the past few days, mainly because the subject has been hashed and re-hashed since the first guy ever came up with the question.
Recently, I've been wondering about atheists.
To give you some background, I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Douglas Adams. Douglas Adams is famous for writing the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, a slightly mirthful experience at worst, and a side-splitting read at best. I have a penchant for British humor; it just strikes me as particularly funny. Douglas Adams is a 'radical atheist.'
Atheists have always intrigued me. I've never met an atheist who didn't have an agenda to convert people. Not that converting people to your own viewpoint is bad. Mormon missionaries (at least this one) spend the entire two years of Church service in full proselyting activity. This meant talking to anyone who didn't tell me to bugger off, all day. Many of the French are, by cultural heritage, secular and atheistic. Put two and two together, and you can safely say I've spoken with many atheists.
Some atheists, Douglas Adams for example, say that they are convinced there is no God, because there is no evidence for His existence. Any rational person should agree, right?
But there's something I just don't get. Rationally speaking, why would you accept a lack of proof of existence as proof for non-existence? Don't you need corroborative evidence that He doesn't exist to draw the conclusion that He indeed does not exist?
More on atheists later.