On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: > The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply > because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is > wrong. If an atheist wants to say "There is no scientific evidence of > any god therefore belief in god is *unscientific*". That is a valid > statement that is not based on any faith. Turning unscientific to > delusional changes the meaning significantly though. Unscientific > simply means the belief is not based in science, delusional means > the belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So again, > someone who says "everyone who believes in a god is delusional" > (regardless as to what precedes the statement to qualify it) is making > a declaration of faith.
Since science is the best way we have of understanding and testing reality, then unscientific DOES mean that it has no basis in reality. So the statement "There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is delusional" is NOT a decleration of faith. > But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original > point. I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
