NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/culture/jewish/23737

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.3 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!zeus.franklin.edu!scruggs
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: Why I became an Athiest (was: frustrations with christianity)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:35:44 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Miller) writes:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:00:48 GMT, [e-mail] (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) said:
>A> Nntp-Posting-Host: rac2.wam.umd.edu
>
>A> I, as an atheist, have to disagree with this.
>
>A> Atheist do not believe that there is a god. But, there is no way to "face
>A> incontrivertable proof" that there is a god. So, there is no way you can say
>A> what an atheist would do in an impossible situation.
>
>    I did not offer proof; I pointed out that an atheist believes
>that there is *no* G-d, regardless of argument to the contrary.  An
>*agnostic* has no opinion.
>
>A> I would agree that atheist have no way to prove that there is no god in
>A> the same way that religious people cannot prove that there is one.
>A> However, atheism is not a faith as much as any other.
>A> Faith is when you believe that there is something you have to believe in.
>A> Atheism is not a faith.
>A> This is the same as:
>A> A says that he believes that you can become a table.
>A> B says that he does not believe that you can become a table.
>A> So, there is no way to generate a proof for that and B will never be face
>A> with a proof for him to reject.
>
>    Can B prove to A that you *cannot* become a table?  No, B
>cannot.
>
>    Therefore B believes that you cannot become a table.
>
>    This is called faith.
>
>A> B's not believing is not a different faith, but A's is a faith
>
>    Wrong.
>
>    I won't cite the whole entry, but my dictionary has, as it's
>primary definition of FAITH: "Unquestioning belief that does not require
>proof or evidence."  Personally, I quibble with the use of
>"unquestioning" in this definition; let's amend it to read: "belief that
>does not require proof or evidence."
>
>    Theists believe in a non-proveable positive; an existance.
>*A*theists believe in a non-provable negative; a non-existance.  (prefix
>a-, meaning not; anti; against) Both these positions are faiths; they
>are beliefs without proof.
    There is also another postion you are choosing to ignore. That is
conditional non-belief in that which cannot be proven (gods). This is
!(believe) as opposed to (believe!). You're essentially saying that me not
believing in gods due to lack of evidence is faith. It's no more faith than me
not believing in the tooth-fairy...

As defined in the Alt.atheist.FAQ this is weak atheism as opposed to strong
atheism which positively asserts the negative.
>    Agnostics hold that, as the issue is *irresolvable*, there is
>no knowledge upon which to base an opinion, thus no opinion is held.
>
>    If you're agnostic, call yourself one.
>
>-- Cerebus <[e-mail]>
>"Call a spade a spade."
>


--

    |||                ...Your future hasn't been written yet.
       / | \                   No one's has. Your future is what
    =Mysh+Krysa=               you make it...