From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 06:25:27 MST
metahuman
> Sent: 20 November 2003 0851
<snip>
> [RIGHT/CANDIDATE1]
> ATHEISM:(vl) Godlessness. Atheists accept that there is insufficient
> evidence for the existence or non-existence of gods and/or that the
> incoherent concept of gods causes their actuality to be logically
> impossible.
</snip>
[Blunderov]
I don't believe this definition can inspire complete confidence in its
usefulness. It contains the clause 'evidence for the...non-existence
of...'
Statements pertaining to existence must surely be couched in a way so as
to permit a falsification or be dismissed as meaningless? It is not
possible to produce definitive evidence that there are NO fairies at the
bottom of my garden unless we are prepared to defer the decision until
the end of time. It IS possible to produce evidence that there ARE
fairies at the bottom of the garden by the simple expedient of being
there at the same time as any one fairy.
To my mind, if we restrict ourselves to the statement that 'There is
insufficient evidence for the existence of gods' then there is
insufficient reason to bother oneself any further on the subject until
somebody actually sights one. (I don't seriously entertain the
possibility of there really being fairies at the bottom of my garden.)
So is it really true, as is sometimes suggested, that the most rational
position is one of agnosticism?
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 06:26:10 MST