🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.  Faith is the acceptance of
something in the absence of proof.  An athiest can no more prove that there
is no deity than a theist can prove there is one.  The only non-believers
are those who don't really know one way or the other.

In addition, from a logical perspective, it is has much more risk than an
theistic belief.  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.

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.