Comments: Religious Aspects to Risk, Part II


You make a very valid point here, actually stated or implied, I don't remember: It is just as impossible to prove a God DOESN'T exist as it is possible to prove one DOES.

That's why I firmly believe the mixing of science and spiritually/organized religion is wrong and pointless.

However, I think it not only possible but accepted as scientific truth that humans cannot immaculately conceive, or that man can rise from the dead (with the obvious exception of Regis Philbin).

Now, I don't know the excepted definition of atheist as it stands today, although I have a pretty good idea some interpret as follows: It is impossible for God to exist. This, to me, is simply stupid and corrupts any ground one had to stand on in the first place.

Believers and non-believers all have the same amount of proof, which is none. Isn't that the whole issue here? Science as we know it today and how we must assume it to be in the future will never be able to destroy this type of faith, nor is that the goal. Science does not discriminate (well, atleast good science anyway).

If one believes, in his/her heart, that there is no God, it is the same as believing one exists.


Posted by simon from jersey at May 5, 2004 12:27 PM