Move Over, Atheists!

"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
On 15 Dec 2005 01:55:38 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
] wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

BECAUSE ATHEISM IS properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:

"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]

Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief,
...........
Agnosticism is the only LOGICAL possibility, and
this has to be acknowledged by the religious people, too.

The reason is, made simple for Daniel Joseph Min:
One cannot prove the non-existence of something.
But,
You still have to prove that your "God"
and all the correlated **** is real.
Your turn, Daniel.

Definition:
GOD is an all-seeing, all-perceiving all-penetrating
ever-present pedophile sick voyeurism phantasy, Daniel.

Very similar to the AETHER, by the way, a just little
more abstract variety of an all-dominating phantasmorgism.


BTW, Einstein asserted there was no aether. Was his statement "illogical?"
Was it (ir)religious belief?

take care,
Rockett Crawford

In article ,
Rockett Crawford wrote:

"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
On 15 Dec 2005 01:55:38 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
] wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

BECAUSE ATHEISM IS properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:

"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]

Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief,
...........
Agnosticism is the only LOGICAL possibility, and
this has to be acknowledged by the religious people, too.

The reason is, made simple for Daniel Joseph Min:
One cannot prove the non-existence of something.
But,
You still have to prove that your "God"
and all the correlated **** is real.
Your turn, Daniel.

Definition:
GOD is an all-seeing, all-perceiving all-penetrating
ever-present pedophile sick voyeurism phantasy, Daniel.

Very similar to the AETHER, by the way, a just little
more abstract variety of an all-dominating phantasmorgism.

BTW, Einstein asserted there was no aether. Was his statement "illogical?"
Was it (ir)religious belief?

take care,
Rockett Crawford

Basically it's a beliefe, yes. But you're allowed to use a belief
when constructing a new theory, if you're willing to abandon your
belief in case it should be contradicted by that theory, or by some
other evidence.

So Einstein built his theories of relativity on the assumption of the
non-existence of the aether. That assumption was not contradicted.
Of course that doesn't prove the non-existence of the aether, it merely
proves that the aether is not necessary to explain the physical phenomena
we can observe.

It's the same with the "god hypothesis": the existence of god is not
necessary to explain the phenomena we can observe - but that doesn't prove
that god(s) do not exist.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,

BTW, Einstein asserted there was no aether. Was his statement
"illogical?"
Was it (ir)religious belief?

take care,
Rockett Crawford

Basically it's a beliefe, yes. But you're allowed to use a belief
when constructing a new theory, if you're willing to abandon your
belief in case it should be contradicted by that theory, or by some
other evidence.

I agree. Your use of "belief " is different from the unfalsifiable
(religious) belief that was asserted in the earlier post. I don't like the
word "belief" myself for this reason. I prefer assertion or opinion when
talking about non-religious matters, but I would go along with your use of
the word here with the stipulation that the belief is falsifiable.

So Einstein built his theories of relativity on the assumption of the
non-existence of the aether. That assumption was not contradicted.
Of course that doesn't prove the non-existence of the aether, it merely
proves that the aether is not necessary to explain the physical phenomena
we can observe.

Agreed. Call it an assumption, a falsifiable belief, a position, an
assertion, an opinion. It doesn't matter.

It's the same with the "god hypothesis": the existence of god is not
necessary to explain the phenomena we can observe - but that doesn't prove
that god(s) do not exist.

I completely agree. That's my point exactly. Nobody is trying to prove
the non-existence of a god. The Atheist simply does not believe in any gods.
The Atheist is of the opinion that there are no gods, not denying anything,
not unfalsifiably believing in a negative, etc...

take care,
Rockett Crawford