|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Question of the Day! | by kickstart | 2006-11-19 12:26:49 |
|
Neither | by Spisefisken | 2003-07-11 02:15:15 |
|
Yup ... | by graeme | 2003-07-11 05:04:03 |
|
Faith isn't what makes a religion | by Control | 2003-07-11 05:12:14 |
|
True ... | by graeme | 2003-07-11 05:27:03 |
|
Such as? | by Control | 2003-07-11 05:37:14 |
|
e.g. ... hmm ... | by graeme | 2003-07-11 06:04:52 |
|
Those are questions, not hypotheses. | by Beorn | 2003-07-11 07:05:10 |
|
True enough, but ... | by graeme | 2003-07-11 07:21:00 |
| Wrong. |
by Beorn |
2003-07-11 08:23:05 |
I'm sure there are atheists who believe that there are no gods without any rational reasons, and who will continue to believe so no matter how much evidence you show them. That is just as irrational as any religion. Then there are people like me. I'm not sure if I fit in the definition of an atheist, but I have a rational reason not to believe in gods: There are no scientific indications of their existence. If any proof is found I will believe it.
Why is it that a christian is allowed to explain anything with "God did it" without showing how God works, how he can exist or even that he does exist, while someone who doesn't believe in God has to show how everything works and why everything exists? When I don't know something, I don't feel a need to decide that it is one way or the other. I accept that I don't know. I might make up a hypothesis of how I think it probably is, but I won't believe in it all that much unless it's well proven. This is not irrational. On the contrary, I consider it the only rational thing to do.
And what do you mean with "the only currently explanation"? There are many religions, you know, and they have quite different answers to your questions. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
