> I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
> time, and I would like to hear a response.
>
> I have heard it all too often that atheism is a rational alternative
> to believing in the authority of an organized religion. we do not seem
> to come into contact with supernatural or divine powers in our day-to-
> day lives (so far as it seems, from measured experience and empirical
> observations). Fundamentalist religion also contradicts science when
> not seen from the perspective of moral teachings in the form of
> metaphors or analogous allusions. You've heard this before, and again.
>
> though atheism would seem to be a practical answer, is it not also
> rooted in a form of ignorance (albeit a less degree of ignorance
> because it is based on experience)? from the supreme limitedness of
> our experiences, is it possible or practical to universally prove or
> disprove something so fundamental (and definitively ambiguous) as the
> concept of God? for that matter, is it really necessary to know or
> believe in whether or not God exists to live a fruitful life? I can ...

>I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
> time, and I would like to hear a response.
>
> I have heard it all too often that atheism is a rational alternative
> to believing in the authority of an organized religion. we do not seem
> to come into contact with supernatural or divine powers in our day-to-
> day lives (so far as it seems, from measured experience and empirical
> observations). Fundamentalist religion also contradicts science when
> not seen from the perspective of moral teachings in the form of
> metaphors or analogous allusions. You've heard this before, and again.
>
> though atheism would seem to be a practical answer, is it not also
> rooted in a form of ignorance (albeit a less degree of ignorance
> because it is based on experience)? from the supreme limitedness of
> our experiences, is it possible or practical to universally prove or
> disprove something so fundamental (and definitively ambiguous) as the
> concept of God? for that matter, is it really necessary to know or ...

>I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
> time, and I would like to hear a response.
>
> I have heard it all too often that atheism is a rational alternative
> to believing in the authority of an organized religion. we do not seem
> to come into contact with supernatural or divine powers in our day-to-
> day lives (so far as it seems, from measured experience and empirical
> observations). Fundamentalist religion also contradicts science when
> not seen from the perspective of moral teachings in the form of
> metaphors or analogous allusions. You've heard this before, and again.
>
> though atheism would seem to be a practical answer, is it not also
> rooted in a form of ignorance (albeit a less degree of ignorance
> because it is based on experience)? from the supreme limitedness of
> our experiences, is it possible or practical to universally prove or
> disprove something so fundamental (and definitively ambiguous) as the
> concept of God? for that matter, is it really necessary to know or ...

> I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
> time, and I would like to hear a response.
>
> I have heard it all too often that atheism is a rational alternative
> to believing in the authority of an organized religion. we do not seem
> to come into contact with supernatural or divine powers in our day-to-
> day lives (so far as it seems, from measured experience and empirical
> observations). Fundamentalist religion also contradicts science when
> not seen from the perspective of moral teachings in the form of
> metaphors or analogous allusions. You've heard this before, and again.
>
> though atheism would seem to be a practical answer, is it not also
> rooted in a form of ignorance (albeit a less degree of ignorance
> because it is based on experience)? from the supreme limitedness of
> our experiences, is it possible or practical to universally prove or
> disprove something so fundamental (and definitively ambiguous) as the
> concept of God? for that matter, is it really necessary to know or
> believe in whether or not God exists to live a fruitful life? I can ...

>Sounds like you're pretty well-versed to me...As you said:
>
>there's no way to absolutely prove or disprove God, so why bother
>anyway?
>
>works for me...
>
>K e v

> gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188786130.149044.302570@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>>I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
>> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
>> time, and I would like to hear a response.

>

>> I have heard it all too often that atheism is a rational alternative
>> to believing in the authority of an organized religion. we do not seem
>> to come into contact with supernatural or divine powers in our day-to-
>> day lives (so far as it seems, from measured experience and empirical
>> observations). Fundamentalist religion also contradicts science when
>> not seen from the perspective of moral teachings in the form of
>> metaphors or analogous allusions. You've heard this before, and again.

>

>> though atheism would seem to be a practical answer, is it not also ...

> I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
> time, and I would like to hear a response.

> gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188786130.149044.302570@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>>I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
>> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
>> time, and I would like to hear a response.

>

>> I have heard it all too often that atheism is a rational alternative
>> to believing in the authority of an organized religion. we do not seem
>> to come into contact with supernatural or divine powers in our day-to-
>> day lives (so far as it seems, from measured experience and empirical
>> observations). Fundamentalist religion also contradicts science when
>> not seen from the perspective of moral teachings in the form of
>> metaphors or analogous allusions. You've heard this before, and again.

>

>> though atheism would seem to be a practical answer, is it not also ...

> On Sep 3, 11:22 am, KedarG...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>> I am not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't argue well in logic or
>> semantics. This is a common argument; it has bothered me for some
>> time, and I would like to hear a response.

>
> Impaled with a fence pale rammed right up your arse on the coward's
> fence of evasion, for no other reason than 2 or 3 billion mystics
> might be right, FFS get a life.
>
> The agnostic does NOT take any position, it avoids one, too fucking
> scared.
>
> At least the mystics have got the balls to state their position, as
> irrational and as silly as it is, the position of the mystics is a
> great deal more tenable than that of the dopey cowardly agnostic
> mystic in waiting, eh kevirwin?
>
> Michael Gordge ...