|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/18/07 14:54
>> sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
>> evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same
>> conclusion with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present
>> evidence of
>
> I thought you might find that phrase amusing.
gave me pause to chuckle. ;^)
>> god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your
>> case is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.
>
> Again from www.m-w.com
> Main Entry: dis·be·lief
> Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
> Function: noun
> : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
>
> These says (in this context) the declarative that "there is no god", not
> "I haven't been convinced into believing that there is a god". It is not
> "rejecting the belief in a god". It is "rejecting the belief in a god
> because the existence is untrue". It is declarative, not passive. I
> don't have to present "proof" for you to reject. There is no proof.
which has no bearing on atheism or agnosticism, actually. but the act of
rejecting a notion does not constitute a religion. and, the biggest
difference between an atheist and and agnostic is what they do mentally
*after* the rejection.
an atheist only claims that there is no *evidence* that god and exists, then
draws a conclusion from there that one must not exist.
an agnostic, though not having evidence, may well reject the postulate
however not conclude that god does not exist as a result thereof. for him,
god's existence may be a possibility but could very well be unverifiable
because of the nature of our existence and the nature of his/hers.
is that understandable? and, i really don't care what i'm called. i just
hate religious people telling me what i believe without even know the
differences between what they are labling me. were i to be religious, i'd be
very concerned that my god(s) didn't care enough about me to even give the
slightest bit of objective perceptability of themselves. being logical and
loving to infer, i can only assume they/he/she/it is very disinterested in
me. likewise, if i cannot perceive a thing, if it has no intelligable impact
or influence on me, of what value should it be to me. obviously if i'm not
thinking of god, you know my response.
>>> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
>>> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
>>> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
>>> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
>>> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
>>> the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.
>>
>> which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
>> presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel
>
> I understand what you believe. I totally understand it. I was almost
> there once, myself. I am giving you the dictionary definition of the
> words atheist and agnostic. What you call atheist, is more properly
> classified encompassing both [dictionary] atheist and agnostic.
i hope you understand the point i was drawing out above. in the end, i
really don't care what i'm called as long as the lable isn't a barrier to
someone actually understanding or getting to know me.
>> shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
>> flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in
>
> I should by her flowers every now and again, now that you mention it.
as should we all...respective spouses...not yours specifically. ;^)
>> your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been
>> sleeping
>
> I have been married to my wife for over 44 years.
sorry...'shelly'...either assumption correct and you are in same sex
marriage...or, assumption incorrect and i should appologize. ;^)
my point however, was not lost hopefully.
>> next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you
>> assume that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that
>> warranted your lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that
>> god exists? you have
>
> I have NO evidence that God exists because there is none. I simply take
> it on faith after taking my logic to the point where I cannot go any
> further without invoking the supernatural. I don't presume to try to
> prove it, because it cannot be done.
finally! most christians say this or that is evidence, even so much so that
theirs is the correct interpretation of said this/that. what gets me though
is your lack of desire to prove it. if it cannot be proven, how can god(s)
hold us accountable for disbelief? especially when the consequences are so
dire? if i was made logical, he's got no one to blame for himself when i say
it is illogical to just believe. he's got no one to blame but himself since
he gives me no way to find him given the way i was 'created'. to me, that's
just fucking mean!
>> faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which
>> i'm engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your
>> proof'?
>
> Nothing.
>
>> think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
>> history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
>
> Yes.
>
>> down to the origin of the universe.
>
> ...err, with that last one there are theories -- and only that. I find
> even the "Big Bang" uncomfortable (and I am a scientist) because I then
> question "where did all that super-condensed matter come from in the first
> place". I guess the best definition of "God" is "that which is beyond
> mankind's ultimate understanding". No, I do not believe in an interactive
> God.
kind of like the question no intelligent design person will ask, or
answer...if complex things need to be created by a designer, then the
designer must be at least equally complex, who then created that
designer...and so on, and so on.
i can tell you that even though the origin of the universe *prior* to
singularity may well be unknowable, what happened afterward is completely
explainable...and any question answered by goddidit is wholly inadequate.
science doesn't give goddidit answered. but, i digress.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|