The following is a breif comment and responce on an e-mail group to which I belong.
Don't be too harsh, here. I didn't say I thought you were an idiot. From what you say here, you're a lot better off than most religious people that I tend to argue with, you don't register terribly high on the zealot-o-meter, and that's commendable. The main problem I have with your reasoning is the idea that something needs to be disproved in order for one not to believe in it. This is a fallacy; the only way to be sure of anything is to assume it's non-existent until proven otherwise. If we were to simply accept any idea which has not been expressly disproved, we would be working off of all sorts of dangerous flawed concepts, Unicorns and elves would fill our forests, giant sea monsters would clog the less traveled seaways, and planet X would be hurtling toward Earth on a collision course. The simple fact of the matter is that you simply can't get away with believing an idea if there is no credible evidence to back it up. Faith is the only real sin, because it is the conscious decision not to think.
--- EMMA NORMAN <leimomi39@msn.com> wrote:
> First, I do not surrender myself to ideals and laws set down by
>others. I don't believe in relgion, I believe in God. Second, I, too,
>only answer to myself and my husband and my child. I'm sure >you answer to the like. Futhermore, I know since I live the same
>as you, I will not go wrong. I do not fear my God. My point is I'm >fine with you thinking I'm an idiot because I believe in God and
>I'm fine with you not believing in a higher entity. You do not >have to prove to me that such an entity is nonexistant and I will
>not claim to have evidence of my beliefs. I throughly enjoyed >your thoughts.
> http://groups.msn.com/NoEvidenceofGod/_emailsettings.msnw
>
> MSN Groups
Don't be too harsh, here. I didn't say I thought you were an idiot. From what you say here, you're a lot better off than most religious people that I tend to argue with, you don't register terribly high on the zealot-o-meter, and that's commendable. The main problem I have with your reasoning is the idea that something needs to be disproved in order for one not to believe in it. This is a fallacy; the only way to be sure of anything is to assume it's non-existent until proven otherwise. If we were to simply accept any idea which has not been expressly disproved, we would be working off of all sorts of dangerous flawed concepts, Unicorns and elves would fill our forests, giant sea monsters would clog the less traveled seaways, and planet X would be hurtling toward Earth on a collision course. The simple fact of the matter is that you simply can't get away with believing an idea if there is no credible evidence to back it up. Faith is the only real sin, because it is the conscious decision not to think.
--- EMMA NORMAN <leimomi39@msn.com> wrote:
> First, I do not surrender myself to ideals and laws set down by
>others. I don't believe in relgion, I believe in God. Second, I, too,
>only answer to myself and my husband and my child. I'm sure >you answer to the like. Futhermore, I know since I live the same
>as you, I will not go wrong. I do not fear my God. My point is I'm >fine with you thinking I'm an idiot because I believe in God and
>I'm fine with you not believing in a higher entity. You do not >have to prove to me that such an entity is nonexistant and I will
>not claim to have evidence of my beliefs. I throughly enjoyed >your thoughts.
> http://groups.msn.com/NoEvidenceofGod/_emailsettings.msnw
>
> MSN Groups