Re: Evidence of God

Bob Crowley wrote:
> Mani Deli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Al Evan) wrote:
> >
> > > Therefore, your response to Why, that being an
> > > Atheist requires no faith, is not true, because, if,
> > > as Why claims (and you did not disagree), there is no
> > > proof that god does not exist, then you must believe
> > > it as an act of faith--since you can't prove it.
> > >
> > > Thus, Why is logically correct:  You have Faith.
> >
> > And anyone who believes something, whatever, doesn't
> > exist has faith.
> >
> > I'm ovewhealmed as you say with faith that Santa Claus
> > doesn't exist.
> >
> > "We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something
> > for which there is no evidence.  Where there is
> > evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of
> > faith that two and two are four or that the earth is
> > round.  We only speak of faith when we wish to
> > substitute emotion for evidence.  The substitution of
> > emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since
> > different groups, substitute different emotions." 
> > [Bertrand Russell]
>
> Actually I disagree with Bertrand Russell on this one.
> We speak of 'faith' when we don't know the answer to a
> question....

That's what Russell just said.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch

UDP for WebTV