|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/18/07 16:43
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
>>> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>>
>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>
>> negative, ghost rider.
>>
>> 'a' latin: without
>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>
>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>
>
> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
so that means it does?! come one jerry, you're more logical than that!
>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>> resembles anything religious?
>>
>
> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.
i 'believe' i *observe no evidence* that would allow me to *logically* lead
to me to a conclusion that god exists.
that is a PROCESS and not a belief. it is called scientific method. i'm sure
your response will be that science, too, is a religion. just a prediction.
;^)
>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
>> that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
>> clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
>> critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>> asanta-clausian?
>>
>
> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
> convince me my opinion is wrong.
sorry, religious people are in the *business* of converting. as for opinion?
we cannot both be right. and as you have NO evidence to support that there
is a god, the logical conclusion that should be drawn is that there, in
fact, is none. further, that our notions of god(s) evolve over time to match
our changing sophistication of thought is more proof for the idea that man
created god rather than vice versa. so much the case is this, that we have
nietche proclaiming that 'god is dead'!
> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
well, you have proof that something respondse to you. what you infer about
that is up to you. however, you have *objective* evidence from which you can
draw such conclusions.
this is something no one can do for god. subjective evidence is as
interpretationally valid as the delusions of an insane person.
>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
>> make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the
>> start of religion.
>
> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
negative ghost rider,
i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
objective evidence that he does. one is a conclusion and the other, fact.
there is no belief in that equation.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|