(or, of course, gods)... is that something akin to the notion that objectivity is key to the issue. The most common argument I've seen put forth by agnostics and atheists, for example, is that there exists no empirical evidence of such a being.
Abrahamic theists - in particular Christians - on the other hand cite personal examples of such a being touching their lives. Such claims are sometimes attributed to lunacy by some in the first group. Even the labeling of something as "lunacy," though, necessarily imposes cultural norms on the classification - something that would presumably be looked down upon by objectivists.
My question is this: For those that reject the existence of a personal God on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence, why is your approach to this issue superior?
2007-09-23
04:31:23
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Religion & Spirituality