Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janey
not sure if i follow you, but yes, God has no requirement to be validated through proof. That's neither here nor there for God. It's people who either want proof, and therefore lacking it remain agnostic, or do not want proof, and accept God, or No God on the basis of faith. My point is that to be an Atheist, you must act from the same basis as one who is a Theist.
|
But my point is exactly the opposite: A great number of theists and atheists depend on proof of the existence of God. That is what dragged me into this discussion in the first place, the mischaracterization of this point of view. I'll reiterate: There are four (or five) groups: Those who accept proof and believe, those who accept proof and thus do not believe, those who don't accept proof and believe, and those who don't accept proof and don't believe. You're putting all atheists under the last group, when in fact I've never met anyone who felt that way. So basically you're grossly miscategorizing and dismissing not only every Atheist in the world, but the entire religious intellectual position going back to Saint Augustine, and the basis for the Catholic Church; quite an arrogant act!
In fact, it's quite possible to be a rational Atheist or a rational Theist. That's not the position of fundamentalist churches, but it doesn't change the validity of the position.
Bingle