🚀 go-pugleaf

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDC85A26.3DE5C%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/19/04 3:03 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
Protein
> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
> >
> > "Opus-" <jbuchy@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:aa4rp0pjpl5q7ttqs20n7sdebr7c77n0na@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:45:05 GMT, Norman Miller <spamthis@die.invalid>
> >> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>> In article <858bd3a9.0411171050.7c8514d0@posting.google.com>, Michael
> >>> Yardley says...
> >>>
> > <snip>
> >>> Atheists don't address the matter very well at all. An atheistic dogma
is
> >>> still a dogma; an atheistic belief is still a belief.
> >>
> >> Actually, no. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a non-belief.
> >>
> > Actually, it is a belief and it is faith.
>
> Wrong. You do realise that these words have meaning, and that you don't
get
> to rewrite that meaning just to cling to your beliefs?
>
> > Faith is the acceptance of something in the absence of proof.
>
> Such as belief in a god.
>
Or the belief that there isn't one.

> >  An athiest can no more prove that there
> > is no deity than a theist can prove there is one.
>
> No one has to prove the non-existence of anything. You believe in a god,
so
> you provide the evidence. All an atheist has to do is point out your
> complete lack of evidence for any god. That is not a 'belief': the
complete
> lack of evidence for a god is a fact.
>
Hmm.  Another philosopher heard from.  Better go look again at what a 'fact'
is.

> > The only non-believers are those who don't really know one way or the
other.
>
> Please. They are agnostics, and most agnostics admit to believing in some
> higher power, but they do not claim to know what it is. They are still
> believers.
>
Nope.  They are non-committed.

> >
> > In addition, from a logical perspective, it is has much more risk than
an
> > theistic belief.
>
> Risk?
>
> > If a theist is wrong, they don't really lose; that's all
> > there is.  But if they are right, they win.  For an athiest, if they are
> > right they don't really win; again, that is all there is.  But if they
are
> > wrong, they lose.  Consequently, a theist cannot lose, and an atheist
cannot
> > win.
>
> What a load of malarkey. The theist is just as wrong as an atheist from
that
> view, as there is no way to know if you have the right god.
>
Their probability of winning is still better than zero; which is not true of
an atheist.

> >
> > An atheist, nevertheless, holds as firm a belief, in the absence of any
> > proof, that there is no deity, as a theist holds the belief, again in
the
> > absence of proof, that there is.
>
> Bullshit. There is no evidence for any god or gods whatsoever. That is the
> atheist's position, and it has yet to be refuted.
>
It has yet to be listened to.  There is a difference.  The atheist position
is no different from that of a fundamentalist theist.