|
|
Posted by Shelly on 09/18/07 13:54
Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief", but
go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is "disbelief
in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
"agnosticism". Again, from Websters:
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'nδs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from
gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political
agnostics>
For the record, I used to be an agnostic, but then moved to deist and
finally went back to associating with my birth religion. Yes, there is no
objective proor, nor even ANY proof in the belief in a god. It is totally a
matter of faith, and totally unscientific.
--
Shelly
"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:urQHi.35$zy3.32@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
> news:13evgmn96rktr44@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief that there
>>is no god.
>
> lol. at least you say 'sort' of religion. ;^)
>
> let me just say this, shelly. if someone told me that i was going to die
> tomorrow, i'd want proof. until i had it, i would be a fool to believe
> it...right? further, if the source of that information was a doctor, he'd
> have proof. not only that, i could take that proof and show it to another
> doctor. they'd probably come to the same conclusion if the proof was
> irrefutable. other than that, they may just bicker about my expiration
> date.
>
> with religion, it's a whole different ballgame. i can take 'subjective'
> evidence for god (there is no objective evidence) and take it not only to
> different clergy, different people within the same denomination, to
> different groups and cultures. each would have a different take on what
> that evidence suggests. that's the nature of subjective evidence and is
> the reality of religion. where there objective evidence for the existence
> of god, we'd indeed have one god viewed by all people the same way. since
> we don't, we see notions of gods evolving as man's intellect grows...from
> many people-like gods to a single god...from controlling everything good
> and bad to being credited with only good and all bad being the spawn of an
> evil entity - satan.
>
> if i have no evidence by which i can test the theory that god exists, how
> can i prove he does. and in logic courses in college, isn't the onus - the
> burden of proof - on those making the claim? is the rejection, due to lack
> of evidence, of a claim a religion? i don't think so.
>
> why do religious people find it necessary to deem lack of belief in god
> equal to a religion? what does that get them? if you were to try and
> pursuade or convert me to another line of thought, you'd have alienated me
> by not understanding me and worse, incorrectly presuming that you did.
>
>
[Back to original message]
|