Catty/Morgan, Atheism runs from seven levels as a measure of belief; from one - strong theism; to seven no god at all. I fall into category six in that there simply is not evidence for the existence of gods. That includes be the various festive variations of the god of Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), the Norse, Greek or various asian pantheons. Most people do not believe in other gods, only their own. Now conceivably an atheist could be such a staunch non-believer that they ignore all the evidence however until there is evidence this remains purely speculative.
No, I am not an agnostic. Agnostic, a term coined by Huxley, states that god is unknown or unknowable. That is a cop out. A god, even a subtle one, is subject to the same rules of scientific investigation that any other phenomenon is. Especially a god/gods such as that of the Abraham or the Greeks, who insists of dicking around with the world; through virgin births and miracles (Christianity) or magical flying horses (Islam); or Zeus (Greek) schtupping anything with a pulse.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence or more correctly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It doesnt work that way. Without evidence you could claim anything, from celestial tea pots to the invisible pink unicorn, to the god that moves in subtle, breathtakingly inefficient ways.
Morgan, I did not call Fidhooki on name calling I called him on name calling without knowing what the words he was using meant. If you are going to insult someone, it behooves you out of respect for the art, to be accurate and precise. That is why I use delusional. You could be delusional by thinking that you are Anne of Cleves. You could be delusional in believing in a particular god for which there is no evidence. The only difference is that in the second instance you have reinforcement from people who share your particular delusion. It is lonely delusion, thinking you are Anne of Cleves uncomfortable clothes, bad accent and an unending stream of who wants a little head jokes. The other delusion is more comforting; but it being comforting does not make it true. Belief without evidence is still a delusion.
Kokuten/Bob: Sorry to be late in responding to you on that link I read it as well and had a good chuckle over it. There is a conditioning to give religious belief a pass that you would not let any other belief and opinion get away with it. The Old Testament and New Testament contain much that it horrific, ignorant, intolerant and barbaric. The same can be said for the Koran (pick a spelling) with the prophet taking and enjoying a very young bride.
Why should religious belief be held in this special protection or respect? Especially when it is being used the challenge secular law and science. Why should you feel free to challenge the views of a monetarist on economy, but feel guilt at challenging the views of Mormon on Mormonism?
It is, as the punter might say, bollocks. Challenge religious belief as you would challenge any other assertion.
Shayne
No, I am not an agnostic. Agnostic, a term coined by Huxley, states that god is unknown or unknowable. That is a cop out. A god, even a subtle one, is subject to the same rules of scientific investigation that any other phenomenon is. Especially a god/gods such as that of the Abraham or the Greeks, who insists of dicking around with the world; through virgin births and miracles (Christianity) or magical flying horses (Islam); or Zeus (Greek) schtupping anything with a pulse.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence or more correctly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It doesnt work that way. Without evidence you could claim anything, from celestial tea pots to the invisible pink unicorn, to the god that moves in subtle, breathtakingly inefficient ways.
Morgan, I did not call Fidhooki on name calling I called him on name calling without knowing what the words he was using meant. If you are going to insult someone, it behooves you out of respect for the art, to be accurate and precise. That is why I use delusional. You could be delusional by thinking that you are Anne of Cleves. You could be delusional in believing in a particular god for which there is no evidence. The only difference is that in the second instance you have reinforcement from people who share your particular delusion. It is lonely delusion, thinking you are Anne of Cleves uncomfortable clothes, bad accent and an unending stream of who wants a little head jokes. The other delusion is more comforting; but it being comforting does not make it true. Belief without evidence is still a delusion.
Kokuten/Bob: Sorry to be late in responding to you on that link I read it as well and had a good chuckle over it. There is a conditioning to give religious belief a pass that you would not let any other belief and opinion get away with it. The Old Testament and New Testament contain much that it horrific, ignorant, intolerant and barbaric. The same can be said for the Koran (pick a spelling) with the prophet taking and enjoying a very young bride.
Why should religious belief be held in this special protection or respect? Especially when it is being used the challenge secular law and science. Why should you feel free to challenge the views of a monetarist on economy, but feel guilt at challenging the views of Mormon on Mormonism?
It is, as the punter might say, bollocks. Challenge religious belief as you would challenge any other assertion.
Shayne