Back to Windows...

[Nikolai]

Senectus . wrote:
> No offence intended, but it's my considered belief that if you don't 
> understand Atheism It's because you haven't thought about about it 
> deeply enough.

I have thought about it as deep as I possibly could and I have rejected 
it. Atheism leads to skepticism and skepticism is irrational. I don't 
think I can embrace an irrational world view (once I know it's 
irrational of course).

> For me the concept of me believing in a "God" concept is inconceivable.

Yet, you have no trouble believing in "Saddam Husein" or any other such 
concept.


> I've tried, but I'm quite a logical person and the logic of belief for 
> the sake of belief seems like Lunacy to me.

It is lunacy, yes, you're correct. If, however, you're a logical person 
(whatever that means), maybe you could briefly outline what sort of 
logical problems you're having with what you have called a concept of God?

> It con not be proved, Documentation on the subject can not be properly 
> verified and many _many_ instances of those that profess to be the 
> most serious about it are the ones to commit the greatest atrocities 
> in the name of it.

As far as proof is concerned, it all depends on what kind of proof 
you're after. Usually, if not always, people demand one kind of proof 
from those who defend Christianity all the while accepting different 
kinds of proofs from everybody else. For example, the accounts of 
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rejected as fantasy all the while 
similar accounts, and much less attested for, can be easily accepted in 
a court of law as long as there are no miracles in them. But question 
is, on what basis the miracles are rejected as impossible while the 
possibility of miracles is precisely what is at stake? Can you see a 
problem here?

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "atrocities".

> In my view the hypocrisy of nearly all religions is staggering.

You of course are prepared to substantiate this?


> Your understanding and knowledge of "faith" is not absolute, nothing 
> is absolute.

Is this claim absolute?

> You can't deny FN's opinion as absolutely wrong because you Cannot 
> verify yours as absolutely right, and the same in return :-)

I think I can. FN made a fool of himself by claiming a) there's no truth 
to be known and b) that God is dead. In the former claim, he shows us 
that he is not to be taken seriously and in the latter, he shows how 
little he knew of what he so feebly attempted to critique. This is 
enough to conclude that his was a wrong opinion.

Nikolai