From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: > > > The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply > > because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is > > wrong. If an atheist wants to say "There is no scientific evidence of > > any god therefore belief in god is *unscientific*". That is a valid > > statement that is not based on any faith. Turning unscientific to > > delusional changes the meaning significantly though. Unscientific > > simply means the belief is not based in science, delusional means > > the belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So again, > > someone who says "everyone who believes in a god is delusional" > > (regardless as to what precedes the statement to qualify it) is making > > a declaration of faith. > > Since science is the best way we have of understanding and testing > reality, then unscientific DOES mean that it has no basis in reality. So > the statement "There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore > belief in god is delusional" is NOT a decleration of faith. You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote. Your own words say it: "...science is the *best* way we have of understanding and testing reality..." (emphasis added) Is it our only way though? No it is not: We have philosophy; We have *speculation* based on available evidence when scientific evidence is not yet available (which ::gasp:: is the first part of the scientific method); We even have a legal system in effect that *does not* use scientific method or strictly scientific evidence to find guilt or innocence. Therefore unscientific belief does not equate to delusional belief. > > But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original > > point. > > I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot > be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. > No, this is very much getting away from my original point... You know, the one that you snipped at the end that was about atheism, not religion. That being the reason for the subject line. I'll post it again in this post in case you accidentally missed it. I wrote: ------------------------------------------ But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. Basically the line between logic based and faith based athiesm is between one who says "I don't believe any god exists." and one who says "No god exists". The first being a statement of opinion based on that person's judgement, and the other being a statement of deffinity, declaring an unprovable belief to be certainty. ------------------------------------------ How is this not in accordance with my original post? Moreover, how is the direction you have steered the discussion in any way in accordance with the point of my original post? In case you have forgoten, here is the original post.: ------------------------------------------ JDG said that atheism requires faith. I both agree and disagree with that statement. For an atheist to say "I don't believe that any sort of god exists, because I have seen no evidence of the existence of any god." Requires no faith at all. They are only stating that they don't believe something because they have seen no evidence of it. That doesn't require faith. For an atheist to say "There is no god, and people who believe in any god or gods are just deluding themselves". Requires faith. This statement, while possibly true, cannot be proven, and anyone who makes such a definitive statement on something that cannot be proven does so out of faith in what they believe. So really, it depends on what kind of atheist you are as to whether or not your beliefs are based in faith. ------------------------------------------ You are turning this discussion into a justification of religion and avoiding its original intent. How about I turn it back around on you then. Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Based on *your* standard of proof, the only non-delusional person is the person who says "I don't know if any god exists". Anyone who believes in any god or believes in no god, by your standards, is delusional. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
