Democratic Underground - Not a problem.

I don't think that is the case. And I know that I am going to open a can of worms here, but here is what I feel.

We don't talk about anything else like patrice wants us to talk about god. Nobody walks around saying that they "believe" there are no dragons living in the Rocky Mountains. Nobody says, "Since I don't know everything and haven't searched the world over, I believe that there are no dragons in them there mountains, but I could be wrong and my belief that there are no dragons is on the same evidenciary level as those that believe there are."

If we don't talk about that for anything else in the world, why do we reserve that leave just because this is god. I don't get it. God is the only thing that gets this level of treatment.

I'm emphasizing belief here because to say that something does not exist because there is no empirical evidence assumes that everything in the universe(s) has been tested in every configuration of relationships to everything else in the universe(s) resulting in no empirical evidence, ergo there is no god, when in reality, it's really just that there is just no empirical evidence of god.

I guess at some level I don't buy into the strong/weak distinction. But that is a discussion for a different time, maybe.

Anyway, I have no problem with your comments ever. I understand your point.

Reply #79: Not a problem. [View All]