RE: My Fellow Atheist
March 3, 2010 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2010 at 7:39 pm by TimeDivider.)
No matter how you slice it, you will never be able to prove that the bible was influenced by god. It was written by several people thousands of years ago. It has been revised, expanded, and changed over the centuries. Without the bible, there would be no knowledge of your god. I'm sorry, but your faith is not in god, your faith is in the bible. I am not trying to use science to disprove religion, that would be completely illogical. They exist in two completely different universes as far as I'm concerned. I love science, but I am an atheist because no human being has ever found 'god' without being told about it by another person or by a religious text that was, you guessed it!, written by man.
To Adrian:
ADDENDUM 3:38 PM: When I speak of agnosticism, I am referring to it as it is understood and practiced today by the general agnostic population. It may have a deeper philisophical meaning that is more complex, but I am not going to get into the history of word meaning and semantics.
I will definately check out that essay. The only reason I paint agnostics with that brush is that unlike you, those are the only agnostics I have ever met. What do you mean by enlightenment? Are you speaking of it in the buddhist sense? I find it interesting that you state your 'beleif' in science, I never thought science required belief to begin with. I just want to make it clear on a semantic level that lack of belief does not equal belief. Me not 'believing' in god requires no faith. I didn't add anything or replace god with another concept. I am not part of some new age fad 'thought school' that throws around metaphysical/string theory terminology and calls it enlightenment. (Not saying that you do either, kind of just went off on a tangent.)
To Adrian:
ADDENDUM 3:38 PM: When I speak of agnosticism, I am referring to it as it is understood and practiced today by the general agnostic population. It may have a deeper philisophical meaning that is more complex, but I am not going to get into the history of word meaning and semantics.
I will definately check out that essay. The only reason I paint agnostics with that brush is that unlike you, those are the only agnostics I have ever met. What do you mean by enlightenment? Are you speaking of it in the buddhist sense? I find it interesting that you state your 'beleif' in science, I never thought science required belief to begin with. I just want to make it clear on a semantic level that lack of belief does not equal belief. Me not 'believing' in god requires no faith. I didn't add anything or replace god with another concept. I am not part of some new age fad 'thought school' that throws around metaphysical/string theory terminology and calls it enlightenment. (Not saying that you do either, kind of just went off on a tangent.)
"The absence of fact is not evidence of fiction." -Mark Twain
