Surur's Journal: Hanssprudel makes sense - friend he is.

Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book (Score:2)
by hanssprudel (323035) on Monday November 01, @07:46PM (#10690349)

I am not the one who drew up the semantic separation between belief and reasoned conviction: the religious people are. I have never run into anybody who could honestly claim a reasoned conviction in the existance of a god: rather it always ends up coming down to "Belief" with a capital B, which stands for some kind of conviction that cannot be attained or questioned with reason.

I do not believe in any god in exactly the same manner as I do not believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, a flat earth, or that the moon is made of cheese. I am convinced that I had Kebab for dinner because I remember it and I can still taste the sauce, but neither of those things is proof positive. To claim that it is necessarily dogmatic to be convinced to about something leads to a reality where you have to claim agnostism to every fact, which is hopeless. // oskar
-- There are too many mod points: thirty +5 posts per story is a joke. I only moderate down!