thomas p. wrote:
>
> "tension_on_the_wire" <tension_at_home@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
>
news:a7a16442-0771-4071-9e13-ee53d2ad6f5c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 3, 6:22 am, J666 <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 1:57:00 -0500, tension_on_the_wire wrote
>> (in message
>> <01a44659-1eb2-4194-a099-f63bcbce1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>
>> > But, again, I question your statement that there does not need to be
a
>> > God. This has not been demonstrated.
>>
>> Has it been demonstrated that there needs to be a God?
>>
>> > In fact I think I demonstrated
>> > quite well that humanity clearly does have a deep and abiding
>> > psychological and emotional need of a God, and in addition not a few
>> > humans exist with an intellectual need of a God.
>>
>> A psychological and emotional need of a God, no matter how great and
>> common,
>> does not show that a God does actually exists.
>
> We are not discussing whether God actually exists and please don't
> mistake my post as an attempt to prove that. I'm simply addressing
> your claim that there is no need for a God. Even if there is no God,
> it can be demonstrated that humans do feel the need for one. I have
> done so already in an earlier post. You are attempting to read
> something into my posts which I am not saying. I do not claim that
> because there is a need for God, therefore there must be a God. My
> only argument for God lies in the very nature of the science that we
> do understand and the humble recognition that there is a lot more that
> we don't understand than our scientific hubris is currently willing to
> admit, as I mentioned previously.
>
> thomas:
> It is odd that people talk about scientific hubris, when it is religion
> that claims to have"The Truth"; while science would no longer exist if
it
> claimed
> anything like that. You are talking about a strawman.
That's because you don't know what God is.
You think you know what God is,
when what you are talking about is nothing but an idol.
God is something way beyond our comprehension.
Religion has a built-in deterrent aginst human hubris.
The Truth talked about in religion is not
something that can be used or should be used
against the scientific discoveries.
It's just about how to live our lives well.
Do you think atheism is anything new?
It has been there all along.
That's why Greeks talked about hubris.
The modern form of atheism is the worst,
as clearly manifested in the atrocities of Communism.
It does not think life is sacred.
Do you respect human lives?
Do you wanna know how to live well?
Do you wanna be safe from the clueless hubris?
Then, you need to use the concept 'God'
as a clear boundary at least.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to
prove
the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.
|
