> fra: "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > John Forbes wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:09:00 -0000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> But what then if you don't believe in a god, but also accepts that > >> you may be wrong. And you end up ingoring the matter because it > >> doesn't affect you life any way? > >> > >> DagT the agnostic .-) > > > > > > None of us can know for certain whether there is a god or not. If we > > are rational, we must conclude that there is very little hard > > evidence to support the view that a god exists, or existed, and > > therefore we are likely to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, > > that there isn't a god, and never was. > > > > However, that still leaves us with no answer to the question of how > > the universe began. Those who believe in a god can sidestep that > > question, which is very convenient for them. > > > No. > Those who believe in a God can *answer* the question, not sidestep it. > Throughout human history, more rational people have believed in God, or > gods, than haven't. In all cultures. > I am not suggesting that the minority of humans in modern times who > conclude (for whatever) that there is no god are all irrational. I > object to your implying that those of us who conclude (for whatever > reason) that God (or gods) exist are not rational. That suggestion is > both arrogant and ridiculous.
Why is it wrong to be irrational? Most of us to irrational things most of the time (such as choosing a partner), and as the "scientific method" can't give us any answer there is nothing wrong in using other ways do decide it (except for those who use it hurting other people). Nobody has ever made a truly rational proof of any such existence. Regarding your nonbelieving minority: According to the news today about 25% of all Norwegians believes in God... DagT
