|
Posted by Shelly on 09/18/07 18:53
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.
A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious dogma
and practices makes a religion.
>
>> 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.
Scientifically speaking, there is no experimental evidence for the existence
of a god. It is a pure faith statement to assert the existence of god. You
can hold your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it scientifically
without foundation. (Reminder: I, personally, believe in the existence of
God as a matter of faith)
>
> 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.
>
>> '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.
So? It still isn't a religion.
Shelly
[Back to original message]
|