>I'll amend my earlier statement: Agnosticism is the only *logical*
>response: Since the non-existence of something cannot be proven, the
>Existence of Diety can not logically be ruled impossible.
Not true. If something is defined such that it is logically impossible
or physically impossible (such as, e.g. an integer between 1 and 2,
or Santa Claus, respectively) then their non-existence is essentially
proven. Of course this depends entirely on the definition. I'm assuming
that part of the definition of Santa Claus is that he has to visit
all the households in the world in a single night which means he has
to travel so fast he would burn up in the atmosphere. Maybe you have
a definition of god that is logically and physically possible?
>It does not, however, justify the CoV for taking an overt-attack on the
>concept of faith when the CoV seems more dedicated to undercover
>thought-modification. I contend that the statement about the role of faith
>made on the web-site is damaging to the CoV on this basis, which, of
>course, has yet to be addressed.
It is an attack on irrationality, which I think is pretty clear in my
statement: "To hold an idea as true despite all evidence to the contrary
is an abdication of reason." Still, all tenets of this church are provisional,
so I'm perfectly willing to change it given sufficient reason.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/