At this point I have not had time to commit my views on religion to print.

I would just say that I'm trying to eliminate the word 'belief' from my vocabulary. Something is or it isn't. To me belief means 'lack of proof' and that inevitably leads to untenable argument.

Those who believe in a religion and all that goes with it are 'believers', it is in my opinion wrong to label everyone else as 'non-believers', they are just people. The human race is made up of people and people who believe in the supernatural, that's it.

If a believer cannot prove the existence of his or her God or Gods, what chance does anyone else have to disprove it? And why should they bother?

Bertrand Russell said he was not obliged to announce to the world that he was a disbeliever in the existence of a teapot orbiting Mars by declaring himself to be an ae-teapotist.

Equally it is not necessary for those who do not believe in the existence of a supernatural being or beings to declare themselves to be ae-theist.>

A rapist is a rapist, it's not necessary to label anyone who has not raped as a non-rapist or an ae-rapist.

Is your god a masochist?

PALERMO (Reuters)
Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:39pm EDT

'A Tunisian pilot who paused to pray instead of taking emergency measures before crash-landing his plane, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by an Italian court along with his co-pilot'.

Full story here

Now, was his god too busy doing something else or just watching and enjoying the whole spectacle, or what?

When I have time.....

Philosophy Links Existence | Free Will | Religion

Top of Page | Home | ATelbout | Some LinksSite Map
 Tel +90 (0)532 323 0532 |
Contact Me


Copyright 1947-2018 Cliff Fraser - All Rights Reserved.