Re: Jack Harkness - Time To Go
- From: Zarbiface2009 <alansailsbury@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:54:28 +0100
The Doctor wrote:
In article <yoOdnQpsQO6wNsbXnZ2dnUVZ8n2dnZ2d@xxxxxx>,
Zarbiface2009 <alansailsbury@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
stargazer wrote:On 13 July, 21:54, "pbow...@xxxxxxx" <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote:That's a very wishy-washy attitude though isn't it? I have no proof there isn't a giant featherweight invisible dragon sitting on my roof, but it'd be silly for me to assume I could be wrong on that. To an Atheist, "god" is equally as ridiculous. Then when you take into account the flaws in the bible it becomes clear it's pure fiction. And not even great fiction either.On 13 July, 20:59, stargazer <lisburnti...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:You cannot prove there is no god, and to believe something which you
On 13 July, 18:57, Andrew <thecr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:"Anti-religion" is reactionism - as, by definition, is 'anti-'On 2009-07-13 16:35:49 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"I'm a born-again agnostic. I can't understand atheism - it surely
Don't ask at me - I'm Presbyterian
requires as much faith as religion; one could argue that anti-religion
IS a religion.
anything. As an atheist, I probably have more of a problem with vocal
'anti-religionists' like Dawkins (and, in the little self-contained
world that is RADW, Zarbs) than many Christians do - as you say, it
causes the rest of us to lose credibility.
As for faith - no. Atheism is nothing more than the belief that
there's no god, as opposed to not committing to a belief in the
existence or non-existence of God either way (agnosticism). That
requires belief, but belief is not synonymous with faith, which can
more accurately be defined as belief without evidence.
I don't believe in the existence of phlogiston. I'm not agnostic about
it; I don't defer from an opinion on the existence or otherwise of
phlogiston. That's the only difference between atheism and
agnosticism. Moreover, that non-belief in phlogiston has a sound
empirical grounding - tellingly, I (and everyone else in the modern
world) don't believe in phlogiston because the phenomena it was
invoked to explain can be explained more satisfactorily without it. My
non-belief in God is grounded in exactly the same observation. As far
as I'm concerned, it's just a consequence of empirical scientific
enquiry, and being militant about it makes as little sense as being
"anti-phlogiston" - it's just not there, end of story. Getting worked
up about it suggests either insecurity or some personal grudge against
religion (or phlogiston).
cannot prove requires faith. To prove or disprove the existence of god
would require universal knowledge, something attributed to "god"; so,
the only being capable of proving one way or another the existence of
"god" is god itself. I am an agnostic because I see no evidence for
the existence of god; the faith of believers is not proof. Likewise, I
see no evidence that there is no god; to me, the conviction of many
atheists is, again, not evidence or proof of their that belief, or
"non-belief" is well-founded. Because science demands demonstrable
evidence, I think Dawkins had more credibility as an agnostic, even if
he was leaning towards atheism. I think agnosticism is the valid
Hopefully eventually the Christian God and the gods of other faiths will pass into legend just as Odin and Zeus did.
Ignore trolling from Zarbiface.
How is that trolling? Just because you don't agree with it?
- Prev by Date: Re: Doctor Who Apologist
- Next by Date: Re: Jack Harkness - Time To Go
- Previous by thread: Re: Jack Harkness - Time To Go
- Next by thread: Re: Jack Harkness - Time To Go