|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/18/07 14:05
"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evj2pqislbh1e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>>
>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>> proper dictionary definition.
>>
>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>
> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
> www.m-w.com
>
> Main Entry: athe·ism
> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French athιisme, from athιe atheist, from Greek atheos
> godless, from a- + theos god
> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
> no deity
>
> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
> with theology you have "religion".
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
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.
> 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
comfortable that you can cast labels out. i'm not at all religious. i'm
logical. further, there is no religion in the studies of sciences of old
that i don't believe any longer because of the evidences discovered by
modern sciences. i simply don't think about god because there is no reason
to. i understand that religious people can believe in god but go about their
day in the same way - not thinking of god - however, don't confuse their
lack of commitment in their own beliefs with my lack of merit given to the
notion of god(s) without evidence. god simply doesn't interest me. whatever
evidence you have for him, it certainly should be infered that she has the
same interest level in humanity.
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
your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been sleeping
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
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'?
think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
down to the origin of the universe.
[Back to original message]
|