On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Matthew Schneider wrote:
> atheism is not possible,
Whoa, it certainly is, I myself know a few atheists,
though I'm not one myself. By your logic one could
equally say that belief is not possible either. Is
this what you had in mind? Explanation follows:
> it is the belief of not
> allknowing presence. God is defined by all knowing
> and certain in what he says. Atheist say without
> a doubt there is no God, therefor by definition
> they have to be God to say that kind of abosolute,
IMHO you're jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly.
Atheism is a belief, agreed. But why does one 'have to be God'
to say there *is* no God?? By this logic, every believer would
have to be God as well, to claim without doubt that there IS one.
God, if exists, may be omniscient. No human being is. This is
why faith is BELIEF, not knowledge. No believer and no
atheist, I think, claims omniscience for him- or herself.
In fact, belief is only possible AS LONG AS there is no possibility
of knowing. If we could KNOW whether there is a God, we would no
longer have to BELIEVE; indeed -- belief would be no longer an option.
> therefor contradicting themselves.
False conclusion arising out of a false premise.
If atheism is a faith, of sorts -- which it must be as long
as knowledge is unattainable -- it does not presuppose
knowledge. And even as it may be based on (scientific)
speculation, it makes no claims to omniscience. Do you?
Marek.
-- The Fifth Commandment of the Pentabarf: A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What He Reads.