--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:
>
> Clint wrote:
> > Richard Godwin wrote:
> > > Bad analogy, not comparable.  I know people who believe in a
> > > deity "a little bit":  means think so but unsure
> >
> > Sounds like agnosticism lol
>
> And before anyone argues my joke, I realize agnosticism would define
> in this case, think not but unsure.

Actually an agnostic is simply one who does not know, such a person could
actually believe that there is a god even if they don't have any evidence for
their position (wouldn't be rational, but it's still possible).

Though being a bit unsure doesn't necessarily mean agnosticism (making the
definition too wide would make it useless).

I think that Richard should explain in detail, what his meaning is of 'a little
bit of religion'. I agree with presto12's message, we should know first, what 'a
little bit of religion' stands for.

To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
From: no_reply@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:06:33 +0000
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone




























       --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 <Praesto12@...> wrote:

>

> It depends on what one means by religion, no? If by religion one

> simply means a world view then anything thinking person should have

> one.



OF course if you have such an inclusive definition of religion then everything
becomes a religion and the terms becomes useless.


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No. That would be no deity at all believed, not necessarily claiming there is
none.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Clint
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:23 AM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone



   Richard Godwin wrote:
   > Bad analogy, not comparable. I know people who believe in a deity "a little
bit": means think so but unsure

   Sounds like agnosticism lol





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Morality never came from religion, but rather the necessities of community,
relationship of individuals with the group, rules for survival. Religion then
"sanctioned" the moral laws.  See this with Hammurabi in his Codes, long before
Israel.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Clint
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:31 AM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone



   Richard Godwin wrote:
   > Of course we know religion means much more than world-view. It means using
that in thinking and practice. First the brain processes information, like
indoctrination, etc., then uses the information to form a world-view one is
inclined to believe and support, even determine, his/her religious beliefs. Then
one has the attitude of "faith" or "trust" in these beliefs to activate the
reward system of the brain and the motor system for carrying out such beliefs in
practice. It's like stacked dominos. There is the first domino is the world-view
as the presupposition. If it falls, then all the remaining dominos fall. The
result may be agnosticism, or even atheism. Bart Ehrman is a good example of
this, as he changed from being an Evangelical Christian to be an agnostic.

   Religion involves the good ol' 'cause', 'purpose', and 'creation' that
   people like to think the universe actually has. Oh, and morals. Dumdum
   is probably going to try to twist it around once again to where he wants
   atheism to be a religion.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Clint
> >
> >   Sounds like agnosticism lol
>
> In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
>
> No. That would be no deity at all believed, not necessarily claiming
> there is none.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is compatible with both
atheism and theism (whether believing in one without evidence is rational is
another matter).

bestonnet_00 wrote:
> Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is compatible with
both atheism and theism (whether believing in one without evidence is rational
is another matter).

I find it difficult to accept any given definition because they vary
from one dictionary to another. One does imply belief:

ag·nos·ti·cism   1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

although when it leads you to 'agnostic', the term belief isn't used.

But if it's a statement of knowledge, stating that the ultimate cause is
unknowable, I fail to see where the knowledge of never having knowledge
comes into play. Unless I'm just confused as always...

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:
>
> bestonnet_00 wrote:
> > Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is
> > compatible with both atheism and theism (whether believing in one
> > without evidence is rational is another matter).
>
> I find it difficult to accept any given definition because they
> vary from one dictionary to another. One does imply belief:
>
> ag·nos·ti·cism   1.
> the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
>
> although when it leads you to 'agnostic', the term belief isn't
> used.

Well the belief of an agnostic is that they don't have the knowledge as to
whether or not a god exists (i.e. it isn't about belief in god, but belief in
whether we know god exists).

> But if it's a statement of knowledge, stating that the ultimate
> cause is unknowable, I fail to see where the knowledge of never
> having knowledge comes into play. Unless I'm just confused as
> always...

Well some people believe that we do have knowledge as whether or not there is a
god while some find no evidence either way (and then there is the strong form of
agnosticism which holds that we can't know).

William of Ockham's razor teaches, that the most simple explanation should be
preferred over more complicated ones.

That means that, as long as there is no substantial evidence that god(s) exist,
we have to assume that god(s) are fictional.
Don't make things more complicated than they are -- LOL

Rolf
********************************************************************************\
******

To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
From: no_reply@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:36:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone




























       --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

>

> bestonnet_00 wrote:

> > Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is

> > compatible with both atheism and theism (whether believing in one

> > without evidence is rational is another matter).

>

> I find it difficult to accept any given definition because they

> vary from one dictionary to another. One does imply belief:

>

> ag·nos·ti·cism   1.

> the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

>

> although when it leads you to 'agnostic', the term belief isn't

> used.



Well the belief of an agnostic is that they don't have the knowledge as to
whether or not a god exists (i.e. it isn't about belief in god, but belief in
whether we know god exists).



> But if it's a statement of knowledge, stating that the ultimate

> cause is unknowable, I fail to see where the knowledge of never

> having knowledge comes into play. Unless I'm just confused as

> always...



Well some people believe that we do have knowledge as whether or not there is a
god while some find no evidence either way (and then there is the strong form of
agnosticism which holds that we can't know).


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thomas Edison, said,
"We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."
Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the
knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine
percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that there
might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
If I were to make an
  absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed
  for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total
knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock,
  in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth
  (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then
my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute
knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature.
Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to
have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the
country, and the statement is then true.
             To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an
absolute statement. For the statement to be true, one must know for
certain that there is no God in the entire universe.

             If you don't believe in God, what you must say
is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that
there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't
know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be
an atheist. You're either agnostic or omniscient.


--- On Sat, 3/24/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2012, 10:40 AM
















 









       >   ----- Original Message -----

>   From: Clint

> >

> >   Sounds like agnosticism lol

>

> In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:

>

> No. That would be no deity at all believed, not necessarily claiming

> there is none.



Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is compatible with both
atheism and theism (whether believing in one without evidence is rational is
another matter).



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins wrote:
>
> Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the
> knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine
> percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that
> there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

That doesn't justify believing in a god so atheism would still make perfect
sense if the 1% of your knowledge didn't contain any evidence of a god.

> If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold
> in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I
> need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that
> there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any
> store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If
> there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and
> I have no basis for it.

Which is why non-existence is assumed when there is no evidence, thus why
atheism is the default unless proven otherwise (seems to me you don't actually
know what the terms mean, the very subject you used even indicates that).

> To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute
> statement.

One doesn't have to say that to not believe in a god.

> If you don't believe in God, what you must say is, "Having the
> limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no
> God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if
> God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an
> atheist.

An atheist in the sense most commonly used is someone who does not believe in a
god, there is no contradiction between atheist (in the most commonly used weak
sense) and agnostic (in fact to be a rational agnostic you must be an atheist).

Though there are some gods about which I am a strong atheist because there is
evidence that those gods don't exist.

Johnny Hawkins wrote:
> Thomas Edison, said,
> "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."
> Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the
> knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine
> percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that there
> might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
> If I were to make an
>   absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed
>   for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total
> knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock,
>   in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth
>   (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then
> my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute
> knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature.
> Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to
> have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the
> country, and the statement is then true.
>              To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an
> absolute statement. For the statement to be true, one must know for
> certain that there is no God in the entire universe.
>
>              If you don't believe in God, what you must say
> is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that
> there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't
> know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be
> an atheist. You're either agnostic or omniscient.

Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

How would you know, since you cannot compare.  To know we know only a millionth
requires that the "all knowledge" is.  So it's nonsensible.  How does getting to
know YOU God give us all that knowledge?  DUH.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Johnny Hawkins
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 10:26 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   Thomas Edison, said,
   "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."
   Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the
   knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine
   percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that there
   might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
   If I were to make an
   absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed
   for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total
   knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock,
   in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth
   (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then
   my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute
   knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature.
   Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to
   have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the
   country, and the statement is then true.
   To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an
   absolute statement. For the statement to be true, one must know for
   certain that there is no God in the entire universe.

   If you don't believe in God, what you must say
   is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that
   there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't
   know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be
   an atheist. You're either agnostic or omniscient.

   --- On Sat, 3/24/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

   From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Date: Saturday, March 24, 2012, 10:40 AM



   > ----- Original Message -----

   > From: Clint

   > >

   > > Sounds like agnosticism lol

   >

   > In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:

   >

   > No. That would be no deity at all believed, not necessarily claiming

   > there is none.

   Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is compatible with
both atheism and theism (whether believing in one without evidence is rational
is another matter).

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:




Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, I see my definitions are one problem in our communication.
I was using agnostic referring to nonbelievers who don't state factually that
God does not exist. You call this atheist, is that right? I have no problem with
that position.
The only thing I'm questioning is those who say His nonexistence is somehow
confirm-able. I expected believers and non-believers alike to agree on the basic
flaw of that logic.
So what terminology would you use to distinguish those who deny from people who
simply don't believe?

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 25, 2012, 2:49 PM
















 









       --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins wrote:

>

> Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the

> knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine

> percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that

> there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?



That doesn't justify believing in a god so atheism would still make perfect
sense if the 1% of your knowledge didn't contain any evidence of a
god.Statements about 99% of something based on knowledge of 1% makes "perfect"
sense? That means your definition of perfect allows for things to surpass
perfection, like statements on 98% based on 2%.

> If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold

> in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I

> need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that

> there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any

> store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If

> there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and

> I have no basis for it.



Which is why non-existence is assumed when there is no evidence, thus why
atheism is the default unless proven otherwise (seems to me you don't actually
know what the terms mean, the very subject you used even indicates that).

I'm in complete agreement with your phrasing, "non-existence is assumed." As far
as it seeming to you that I "don't actually know what the terms mean," that's
just a terminology issue, not a weakness or strength in either of our positions
on the issue. Your use actually, very, and even imply you think quite highly of
the point.


> To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute

> statement.



One doesn't have to say that to not believe in a god.My point exactly! My first
letter was an effort to say, "One doesn't have to deny God to not believe in a
god." And also that such a factual claim would require either omniscience or
assumption.


























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In regards to your "DUH," it was Edison. That's one problem with your insult.
Secondly, he said, "We do not know," not "we know." Why is the insulting and
typing in all caps part of your stance? Again, my issue regards claiming His
nonexistence is factual, as opposed to simply not believing. You chose the topic
about fractions to argue, but no one's in the ring with you.



________________________________
  From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


 
How would you know, since you cannot compare.  To know we know only a millionth
requires that the "all knowledge" is.  So it's nonsensible.  How does getting to
know YOU God give us all that knowledge?  DUH.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnny Hawkins
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 10:26 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

Thomas Edison, said,
"We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."
Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the
knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine
percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that there
might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
If I were to make an
absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed
for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total
knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock,
in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth
(gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then
my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute
knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature.
Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to
have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the
country, and the statement is then true.
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an
absolute statement. For the statement to be true, one must know for
certain that there is no God in the entire universe.

If you don't believe in God, what you must say
is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that
there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't
know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be
an atheist. You're either agnostic or omniscient.

--- On Sat, 3/24/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] A little bit of religion never hurt anyone
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2012, 10:40 AM

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Clint

> >

> > Sounds like agnosticism lol

>

> In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:

>

> No. That would be no deity at all believed, not necessarily claiming

> there is none.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and is compatible with both
atheism and theism (whether believing in one without evidence is rational is
another matter).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins <divineelectric@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, I see my definitions are one problem in our communication.
> I was using agnostic referring to nonbelievers who don't state
> factually that God does not exist. You call this atheist, is that
> right? I have no problem with that position.

Pretty much, that is the weak form of atheism (but still atheism).  Though it is
a common error to believe agnosticism is some kind of third way between theism
and atheism (the term was largely created as a way of allowing atheists not to
claim to be atheists without having to outright lie).

> The only thing I'm questioning is those who say His nonexistence is
> somehow confirm-able. I expected believers and non-believers alike
> to agree on the basic flaw of that logic.

It depends on the god, some gods we can't prove don't exist (the deistic god is
a good example, a god which just creates the world and then leaves it isn't
something we can tell from there being no god) but others we actually can prove
don't exist, either because they are self-contradictory or because their
existence is incompatible with observed facts about this world.

> So what terminology would you use to distinguish those who deny
> from people who simply don't believe?

The strong form of atheism. 
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm has a good
description.

"Miracle" = an event that is observed which is astounding in terms of what would
be expected.   It need not mean violation of natural laws as we see in the
Bible.  The Bible is not history, not science.  It basically is a collection of
stories.  So please get real.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Johnny Hawkins
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:04 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

   --- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

   Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

   of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"non-believer" = one who simply doesn't believe what YOU believe.  The you could
be anyone.  "agnostic" = lacking a particular belief, not necessarily disbelief.
"exist" = physical reality.  So you need to use a different word for
"supernatural existence" which is an oxymoron.  You could say just "real," since
that could apply to anything believed.  A truly open-minded person would never
say lack of belief in a god is confirmable, or confirmed.  It's not a matter of
logic.  It is a matter of philosophy, and oh by the way also science.  You gave
the proper term: "simply don't believe."  That's it.  Hoila.  But denying is ok
too, meaning since I don't know it, I simply deny it UNTIL I am shown otherwise.




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Johnny Hawkins
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:58 PM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny



   Well, I see my definitions are one problem in our communication.
   I was using agnostic referring to nonbelievers who don't state factually that
God does not exist. You call this atheist, is that right? I have no problem with
that position.
   The only thing I'm questioning is those who say His nonexistence is somehow
confirm-able. I expected believers and non-believers alike to agree on the basic
flaw of that logic.
   So what terminology would you use to distinguish those who deny from people
who simply don't believe?

   --- On Sun, 3/25/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

   From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Date: Sunday, March 25, 2012, 2:49 PM



   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins wrote:

   >

   > Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the

   > knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine

   > percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that

   > there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

   That doesn't justify believing in a god so atheism would still make perfect
sense if the 1% of your knowledge didn't contain any evidence of a
god.Statements about 99% of something based on knowledge of 1% makes "perfect"
sense? That means your definition of perfect allows for things to surpass
perfection, like statements on 98% based on 2%.

   > If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold

   > in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I

   > need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that

   > there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any

   > store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If

   > there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and

   > I have no basis for it.

   Which is why non-existence is assumed when there is no evidence, thus why
atheism is the default unless proven otherwise (seems to me you don't actually
know what the terms mean, the very subject you used even indicates that).

   I'm in complete agreement with your phrasing, "non-existence is assumed." As
far as it seeming to you that I "don't actually know what the terms mean,"
that's just a terminology issue, not a weakness or strength in either of our
positions on the issue. Your use actually, very, and even imply you think quite
highly of the point.

   > To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute

   > statement.

   One doesn't have to say that to not believe in a god.My point exactly! My
first letter was an effort to say, "One doesn't have to deny God to not believe
in a god." And also that such a factual claim would require either omniscience
or assumption.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What do you mean by "get real." Try communicating without vague polemics. You
have nothing substantial here. I have experiential knowledge of Truth.



________________________________
  From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


 
"Miracle" = an event that is observed which is astounding in terms of what would
be expected.   It need not mean violation of natural laws as we see in the
Bible.  The Bible is not history, not science.  It basically is a collection of
stories.  So please get real.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnny Hawkins
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with that.



________________________________
  From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny


 
"non-believer" = one who simply doesn't believe what YOU believe.  The you could
be anyone.  "agnostic" = lacking a particular belief, not necessarily disbelief.
"exist" = physical reality.  So you need to use a different word for
"supernatural existence" which is an oxymoron.  You could say just "real," since
that could apply to anything believed.  A truly open-minded person would never
say lack of belief in a god is confirmable, or confirmed.  It's not a matter of
logic.  It is a matter of philosophy, and oh by the way also science.  You gave
the proper term: "simply don't believe."  That's it.  Hoila.  But denying is ok
too, meaning since I don't know it, I simply deny it UNTIL I am shown otherwise.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnny Hawkins
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:58 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny

Well, I see my definitions are one problem in our communication.
I was using agnostic referring to nonbelievers who don't state factually that
God does not exist. You call this atheist, is that right? I have no problem with
that position.
The only thing I'm questioning is those who say His nonexistence is somehow
confirm-able. I expected believers and non-believers alike to agree on the basic
flaw of that logic.
So what terminology would you use to distinguish those who deny from people who
simply don't believe?

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 25, 2012, 2:49 PM

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins wrote:

>

> Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the

> knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine

> percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that

> there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

That doesn't justify believing in a god so atheism would still make perfect
sense if the 1% of your knowledge didn't contain any evidence of a
god.Statements about 99% of something based on knowledge of 1% makes "perfect"
sense? That means your definition of perfect allows for things to surpass
perfection, like statements on 98% based on 2%.

> If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold

> in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I

> need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that

> there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any

> store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If

> there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and

> I have no basis for it.

Which is why non-existence is assumed when there is no evidence, thus why
atheism is the default unless proven otherwise (seems to me you don't actually
know what the terms mean, the very subject you used even indicates that).

I'm in complete agreement with your phrasing, "non-existence is assumed." As far
as it seeming to you that I "don't actually know what the terms mean," that's
just a terminology issue, not a weakness or strength in either of our positions
on the issue. Your use actually, very, and even imply you think quite highly of
the point.

> To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute

> statement.

One doesn't have to say that to not believe in a god.My point exactly! My first
letter was an effort to say, "One doesn't have to deny God to not believe in a
god." And also that such a factual claim would require either omniscience or
assumption.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Why religious schools and ranches need at least some government oversight:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/ungodly-discipline-no-state-oversight-at-r\
eligious-school/?hpt=ac_bn5&hpt=hp_mid

Snooki's due date is 12/21/12. Could the Mayans be on to something?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "John Ryzek" <john_ryzek@...> wrote:
>
> The End Is Nigh!   This comes from the Holy Pope.   Reason being; Gay
Marriages.   These words of Wisdom from a Guy who's "In Drag" at all
> His public appearences.
>

Johnny Hawkins wrote:
> I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

All I did was ask you a couple of questions. I didn't say what my
beliefs were. All of these things you supposedly experience, you believe
it is one specific thing without proof and conclude that it cannot be
something else, am I correct? So, I turn to the same two previous
questions...

Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

If we only know a millionth of a millionth of the knowledge out there as
this originally started, how are you so convinced there is a god?



> Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
>
> of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

"the rest of the universe" believes in a god, i.e. the vast majority.  Ordinary
people are not concerned with proof or philosophical conviction.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Clint
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:32 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   Johnny Hawkins wrote:
   > I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

   All I did was ask you a couple of questions. I didn't say what my
   beliefs were. All of these things you supposedly experience, you believe
   it is one specific thing without proof and conclude that it cannot be
   something else, am I correct? So, I turn to the same two previous
   questions...

   Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
   of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

   If we only know a millionth of a millionth of the knowledge out there as
   this originally started, how are you so convinced there is a god?

   > Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
   >
   > of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Belief" is something one claims is true without any proof. Scientists "don't
believe something is true or not true. They demand proof that something is or is
not true. True Atheists don't believe because "believe, and belief" require
delusions, hallucinations, dreams, and all areas of self hypnosis in which even
the consideration of proof is denied as important.

Babies are born ATheists. Its only the implantation of belief, delusions, and
the like whereby children begin to "believe" not based on proof, evidence,
facts, or the physical world...but through brainwashing, hypnosis, and constant
repetition....reinforced through threats, extortion and blackmail that if they
do not "believe" in god/Jesus...they will go to hell.


A True Atheist concludes there is no god...because after 13.5 billion years of
cosmological history, and 10,000 years of religious history...there is no proof
of a god.

What is a god? A god is something that can interrupt the laws of physics, change
the consequences of actions...which is another word for "magic."

A god performs magic...and magic has never, ever been proven to exist or be
possible, not once in 13.5 billion years.

Therefore, its very EASY to CONCLUDE there is no god ...being a NONBELIEVER is a
very natural state of of mind.


j



________________________________
  From: Johnny Hawkins <divineelectric@...>
To: "deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com" <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 23:12
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny


 
I agree with that.

________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny


 
"non-believer" = one who simply doesn't believe what YOU believe.  The you could
be anyone.  "agnostic" = lacking a particular belief, not necessarily disbelief.
"exist" = physical reality.  So you need to use a different word for
"supernatural existence" which is an oxymoron.  You could say just "real," since
that could apply to anything believed.  A truly open-minded person would never
say lack of belief in a god is confirmable, or confirmed.  It's not a matter of
logic.  It is a matter of philosophy, and oh by the way also science.  You gave
the proper term: "simply don't believe."  That's it.  Hoila.  But denying is ok
too, meaning since I don't know it, I simply deny it UNTIL I am shown otherwise.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnny Hawkins
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:58 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny

Well, I see my definitions are one problem in our communication.
I was using agnostic referring to nonbelievers who don't state factually that
God does not exist. You call this atheist, is that right? I have no problem with
that position.
The only thing I'm questioning is those who say His nonexistence is somehow
confirm-able. I expected believers and non-believers alike to agree on the basic
flaw of that logic.
So what terminology would you use to distinguish those who deny from people who
simply don't believe?

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 25, 2012, 2:49 PM

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins wrote:

>

> Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the

> knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine

> percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that

> there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

That doesn't justify believing in a god so atheism would still make perfect
sense if the 1% of your knowledge didn't contain any evidence of a
god.Statements about 99% of something based on knowledge of 1% makes "perfect"
sense? That means your definition of perfect allows for things to surpass
perfection, like statements on 98% based on 2%.

> If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold

> in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I

> need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that

> there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any

> store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If

> there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and

> I have no basis for it.

Which is why non-existence is assumed when there is no evidence, thus why
atheism is the default unless proven otherwise (seems to me you don't actually
know what the terms mean, the very subject you used even indicates that).

I'm in complete agreement with your phrasing, "non-existence is assumed." As far
as it seeming to you that I "don't actually know what the terms mean," that's
just a terminology issue, not a weakness or strength in either of our positions
on the issue. Your use actually, very, and even imply you think quite highly of
the point.

> To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute

> statement.

One doesn't have to say that to not believe in a god.My point exactly! My first
letter was an effort to say, "One doesn't have to deny God to not believe in a
god." And also that such a factual claim would require either omniscience or
assumption.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A miracle....observed by whom? Reported by whom?


And what is a miracle?

Something that is a natural occurrence, that may or may not be out of the
ordinary that can be explained if one researches the cause and effect....or a
miracle in which someone claims that "god did it?" And such a miracle is like a
magician pulling a rabbit magically out of a hat. If you believe magicians can
really do magic, then you are very  naive.


I work in a hospital...I constantly hear two themes from the religious.

a) its a miracle....Well, not its not. Their child/parent/spouse lived because
of 1000s of hours of research, dedication of physcians, scientists, nurses,
inventors, and creators....and so on.


and b)...they Thank god. Again, how utterly ridiculous and ungrateful. Their
child/spouse/parent lived not because of god, but again because of the
physicians, scientists, nurses, inventors, creators, etc....who spent millions
of hours doing the hard work that it takes to cure someone.

I have gotten the reputation of "correcting" people who say "Thank god, Jesus,
etc."...and state....No, if god has its way, your child/spouse/parent would be
dead. In the bible, god/jesus didn't even know about germs, or boiling water, or
anti biotics...or the steam engine, or any of the medical practices we use
today.


In fact, in jesus' time, people barely lived 40 years. Thank your doctor or the
scientist....

j



________________________________
  From: Johnny Hawkins <divineelectric@...>
To: "deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com" <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 23:10
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


 
What do you mean by "get real." Try communicating without vague polemics. You
have nothing substantial here. I have experiential knowledge of Truth.

________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


 
"Miracle" = an event that is observed which is astounding in terms of what would
be expected.   It need not mean violation of natural laws as we see in the
Bible.  The Bible is not history, not science.  It basically is a collection of
stories.  So please get real.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnny Hawkins
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, a miracle is defined as something that occurs as a violation of the laws of
physics and cause and effect. j



________________________________
  From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 21:30
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


 
"Miracle" = an event that is observed which is astounding in terms of what would
be expected.   It need not mean violation of natural laws as we see in the
Bible.  The Bible is not history, not science.  It basically is a collection of
stories.  So please get real.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnny Hawkins
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

--- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here are the questions and answers lined up for you:

1. 

Q: Why would you even think there is a god?
A: I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies and
provision on a regular basis. It's odd
to hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it.

2 .

Q: Do you have some other percent of knowledge that the rest of the universe is
lacking?
A: You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one of
millions.

3.
Q: If we only know a millionth of a millionth of the knowledge out there as this
originally started, how are you so convinced there is a god?

A: That is incorrect. The quote was, "We do not know a millionth of one percent
about anything." Refer to my answer on the first question regarding my
certainty.

You asked, I answered, you re-asked, I re-answered. But clearly this is going
nowhere.



________________________________
  From: Clint <cy2600@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


 
Johnny Hawkins wrote:
> I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

All I did was ask you a couple of questions. I didn't say what my
beliefs were. All of these things you supposedly experience, you believe
it is one specific thing without proof and conclude that it cannot be
something else, am I correct? So, I turn to the same two previous
questions...

Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

If we only know a millionth of a millionth of the knowledge out there as
this originally started, how are you so convinced there is a god?

> Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent
>
> of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Two uses:  1. "this is a miracle", meaning absolutely astounding and not to be
expected.  2. violation of the ways nature operates, natural laws.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Gillespie William
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:02 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   A miracle....observed by whom? Reported by whom?

   And what is a miracle?

   Something that is a natural occurrence, that may or may not be out of the
ordinary that can be explained if one researches the cause and effect....or a
miracle in which someone claims that "god did it?" And such a miracle is like a
magician pulling a rabbit magically out of a hat. If you believe magicians can
really do magic, then you are very  naive.

   I work in a hospital...I constantly hear two themes from the religious.

   a) its a miracle....Well, not its not. Their child/parent/spouse lived because
of 1000s of hours of research, dedication of physcians, scientists, nurses,
inventors, and creators....and so on.

   and b)...they Thank god. Again, how utterly ridiculous and ungrateful. Their
child/spouse/parent lived not because of god, but again because of the
physicians, scientists, nurses, inventors, creators, etc....who spent millions
of hours doing the hard work that it takes to cure someone.

   I have gotten the reputation of "correcting" people who say "Thank god, Jesus,
etc."...and state....No, if god has its way, your child/spouse/parent would be
dead. In the bible, god/jesus didn't even know about germs, or boiling water, or
anti biotics...or the steam engine, or any of the medical practices we use
today.

   In fact, in jesus' time, people barely lived 40 years. Thank your doctor or
the scientist....

   j

   ________________________________
   From: Johnny Hawkins <divineelectric@...>
   To: "deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com" <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 23:10
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   What do you mean by "get real." Try communicating without vague polemics. You
have nothing substantial here. I have experiential knowledge of Truth.

   ________________________________
   From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:30 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism


   "Miracle" = an event that is observed which is astounding in terms of what
would be expected. It need not mean violation of natural laws as we see in the
Bible. The Bible is not history, not science. It basically is a collection of
stories. So please get real.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Johnny Hawkins
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:04 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

   I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

   --- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

   Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

   of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That not only would be a complete difference in the way nature operates, but
would require complete revision of those ways, a brand new science, the paradigm
shift above all possible shifts.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Gillespie William
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:03 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   Yes, a miracle is defined as something that occurs as a violation of the laws
of physics and cause and effect. j

   ________________________________
   From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 21:30
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism



   "Miracle" = an event that is observed which is astounding in terms of what
would be expected. It need not mean violation of natural laws as we see in the
Bible. The Bible is not history, not science. It basically is a collection of
stories. So please get real.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Johnny Hawkins
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:04 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

   I understand how passionate your disbelief is. Asking me if I have something
"the rest of the universe lacks" sounds like you've dismissed any answers before
you hear them. You know perfectly well I'm not alone. You're conversing with one
of millions, but I can't give you something you can put under a microscope or
aim a telescope at. I'm privileged to experience miraculous healings, prophecies
and provision on a regular basis. It's not so much frustrating as it is odd to
hear my own reality denied by those who don't share it. My only point was that
doubting what you can't disprove (which so many others know as fact) makes more
sense than denying it.

   --- On Sun, 3/25/12, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:

   Why would you even think there is a god? Do you have some other percent

   of knowledge that the rest of the universe is lacking?

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]