[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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...
I never said it was wrong to be irrational, but I objected to the
implication that rational people don't believe in God.
