|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If you answer "No" to both (which is your "couldn't care less") , you are an "atheist".
It is demonstrably wrong to assume that "couldn't care less" makes one an atheist. My former cabin mate demonstrated that. Choosing Team A or Team B is choosing between two different positions. That is a false dichotomy, which creationists and fundamentalists misuse all the time -- "either-or", "black or white". There are other positions outside of the two that we are artificially restricted to by the false dichotomy. "Couldn't care less" is one of those other positions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If they don't know, they don't believe. It's not terrbly complicated. That's not a complicated idea, but surely humans are more complicated than your idea gives credit for. A gambler cannot actually know what numbers are going to show up next on a roulette wheel. Yet he can be absolutely convinced (believe) that he is on the cusp of a winning spree. Of course the odds are that his state of belief won't survive the next few spins. But when it comes to God or gods, the resolution of inconsistencies between knowledge and belief may never come. Believers can rationalize away just about any discouraging turn of events. Belief and doubt can coexist in the mind. And 'knowledge' or knowing is something not precisely defined. Do I actually know that fusion occurs in the star Proxima Centauri?. I certainly believe such to be the case. I wold be utterly astonished to find out that such is not the case. On the other hand, perhaps my impression regarding the sun is quite a bit different. I imagine that it is difficult for a gnostic atheist to even entertain the idea that someone else can know something that the ga knows cannot be true. But I'd label that a failure of introspection rather than some absolute truth of the atheist's position.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Correct - the sports analogy is 'do you support the Jets?' The 'I couldn't care less' response is a defacto 'no'. Maybe you can explain to me why the term "Atheism" is the word that you prefer to use? What's wrong with the word "Agnosticism"? And I'm sticking within belief systems and not talking about knowledge. Atheism has been redefined over the years and people have been moving from calling themselves agnostics to calling themselves atheists. I think its for shock and impact. People gasp. Why do you think it is? People these days, like you, say that atheism is simply a lack of a positive belief in god and that it is not necessarily a positive claim of the non-existence of god. I agree that it can work for that usage, but I don't understand why it is preferable? Atheism used to be a positive position that god does not exist. It was not simply a lack of belief in god, that was agnosticism. So you had three camps: Believes that there is a god = theism Believes that there is no god = atheism Doesn't believe either way = agnosticism Now you're coming along and saying that theists believe in god and everyone else is an atheist. And there are no agnostics. Why? Is it just an effort to be more inclusive? If you look up the definition in the dictionary, you find:
quote: Further:
quote: On agnosticism:
quote: Doesn't that traditional term of agnosticism describe what you are calling atheists pretty exactly? "the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence"? And the "rejection of traditional Christian tenets"? Isn't that you? Or do you take the positive position that god does not exist? Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue? What's the reason for changing the definitions of these words? Honestly, I don't get it. I don't have a problem with it, word do change. And dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive. But I don't understand the drive to change these words when they work so well in their traditional sense? Well, expect for atheism being equated with immorality. That's not longer apt. People typically go: Well, that's what the root means. theism = belief in god therefore a-theism is without a belief in god. But that M-W page shows that the greek word is atheos, which is godlessness. So that is a positive position and not just a lack of a positive position. Regarding the topic, I think it is that equating atheism with immorality that lead people to want to deny office to atheists. If someone was self-proclaimly immoral or wicked, I would have a problem having them in office as well. Turns out the term atheism isn't really the right word for that, but alas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This seemed relevant....
quote: Link This is the "'We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further" approach....... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This seemed relevant.... Not to me. It didn't answer a single question I posited. And I know that's what atheists say, I said as much myself. My question is why is that the preferred way of using these words? Further, isn't it realized that the older definitions fit better and today those definitions are being changed so that they can work?
quote: Which is what the traditional definition of agnosticism is... so why not just use that word? Atheism did used to mean the positive position that there is no god. So why change that word and use it instead of just using the word that already worked just fine? And why can't today's atheists answer my question instead of just insisting that their definition of atheism is the correct one? Is that really the only reason, that they think they're right? How can they face the facts that the words were used differently (with the understanding that words are defined by how they are used) and then just claim that everyone else was wrong?
This is the "'We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further" approach....... Which is easily countered with the "Blind men and an elephant" concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dwise1 writes: How do you know what he actually believes? I do not know what he believes. If you read what I say, that is what I say.
I went with the actual evidence, his own testimony that he believes that what he was taught as a child is true and that settles that. Then he either believes or he doesn't. If he doesn't know if he believes or not, then obviously he doesn't believe. If he couldn't care less, then he doesn't believe. I'm failing to see the problem with this line of logic.
You are pushing your own idea in spite of the actual evidence. I'm not pushing any ideas nor is there any evidence, it's purely an logic/linguistic/definitional argument. Not that I'm particularly fond of those - but in this case I really can't see the difficulty.
Like the Two Model Approach which is the principal tool of "creation science", you are creating a false dichotomy by artificially insisting that there are two and only two mutually exclusive positions, thus excluding the other positions that do exist. Such as abstaining. Such as not caring. Your pet model is of no interest to me - you have it wrong, it's a one choice model - belief or not. Do you support the Jets or not? It is not a choice between the Jets and the Saints. Or whatever.
Not knowing is not a reliable predictor for atheism. Nor is abstaining from deciding. Nor is not having any interest. Now you're getting to the point. Not knowing has been a method of avoiding a difficult societal position. I am an atheist but I also do not know whether there is a god or not. I believe that there is not. My argument is that everybody is agnostic - or should be - because they do not have objective knowledge of god. But there are those that move beyond knowledge and claim a belief. They either believe in god - theist - or they do not - atheist. Those that can not move beyond knowledge are not stuck in a limbo, they do not believe by definition. If you ask a so called agnostic if they believe in god, they MUST say no. If they do not believe, they are not agnostic, they are atheist.
And agnostics do indeed exist! Sure they do. I'm one. We all are.
Also, you are thinking like a "true Christian". You pose the question as "Do you believe in God?", which only asks about YHWH. To a "true Christian", not believing in YHWH would make one an atheist, but that would include those who believe in a different god. Remember, the gods are many. But if one believes in any of the other gods, then he would in fact not be an atheist regardless of how much others misunderstand atheism. I care not what god you believe or don't believe in. The question about belief in god does not identify which god. Try this. You're wife asks "do you love me?" Can you be agnostic? If you answer "I don't know" does she accept this as a perfectly reasonable position or does she think "he can't say he loves me, so he doesn't love me." Belief is a positive statement. If you can not say that you belive in a god, then you do not. By the simple meaning of words.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes:
That's not a complicated idea, but surely humans are more complicated than your idea gives credit for. They sure are. This is because belief is an emotion, not a logical position.
A gambler cannot actually know what numbers are going to show up next on a roulette wheel. Yet he can be absolutely convinced (believe) that he is on the cusp of a winning spree. So at that point, he is a theist - regardless of his logical error.
Of course the odds are that his state of belief won't survive the next few spins. But when it comes to God or gods, the resolution of inconsistencies between knowledge and belief may never come. Believers can rationalize away just about any discouraging turn of events. They can rationalise in every direction and they do. But I still say that a state of 'don't know' is a lack of belief and don't see how it could be otherwise.
Belief and doubt can coexist in the mind. And 'knowledge' or knowing is something not precisely defined. Do I actually know that fusion occurs in the star Proxima Centauri?. I certainly believe such to be the case. I wold be utterly astonished to find out that such is not the case. On the other hand, perhaps my impression regarding the sun is quite a bit different. I don't think belief and doubt do coexist - but I do think that they can switch from one to the other. As for Centauri - that is a matter of fact and knowledge, not belief which is an emotional state.
I imagine that it is difficult for a gnostic atheist to even entertain the idea that someone else can know something that the ga knows cannot be true. Not at all - assuming that i know what a ga is. A lot of atheists started out as believers so they fully understand the state of that delusion. The expression 'the king has no clothes' is a precise description of the lifing of the belief veil.
But I'd label that a failure of introspection rather than some absolute truth of the atheist's position. Then you would be incorrect and also a tad patronising.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes:
Maybe you can explain to me why the term "Atheism" is the word that you prefer to use? First off, thanks for moving the discussion on beyond the trite. I use the word atheist because it's the only one we have to describe a lack of belief in god. But I'd prefer it if there was no such word. You know, the idea that there is no word for a lack of belief in fairies and leprechauns. To me the idea of a god - at least the theistic kind - is simply bizarre
What's wrong with the word "Agnosticism"? To describe what? It doesn't work when describing belief. It only works when describing what it is intended for - knowledge. The first is an emotional state, the second is factual information.
And I'm sticking within belief systems and not talking about knowledge. Then you are attempting to change the meaning of words.
Atheism has been redefined over the years and people have been moving from calling themselves agnostics to calling themselves atheists. Has it? it's not a hard concept to grasp is it? It's hard to define it another way. I suspect those that called themselves agnostics were actually atheists all along but the social stigma of saying it has declined. It was always a false position.
I think its for shock and impact. People gasp. Why do you think it is? I think you may have hit on why eveyone here is struggling so hard with a very simple concept. There is absolutely no shock value of declaring yourself to be an atheist in the UK. To the extent that it never happens. I might as well declare myslelf male. Atheists are not a shocking thing. From what I can gather, that is not the situation in the USA.
People these days, like you, say that atheism is simply a lack of a positive belief in god and that it is not necessarily a positive claim of the non-existence of god. I agree that it can work for that usage, but I don't understand why it is preferable? Preferrable to what? i am not agnsotic, I do not believe in god.
Atheism used to be a positive position that god does not exist. It was not simply a lack of belief in god, that was agnosticism. Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. The definition was forced by the existence of believers. The term, in most atheist's eyes is redundant. In my case it is a positive statement, but in the case of those that say they don't know, it's purely definitional - they are default atheists.
Believes that there is a god = theism Believes that there is no god = atheism Doesn't believe either way = agnosticism Sure, except 'doesn't believe either way' normally resolved to 'don't know'. Which, in my opinion, was a polite excuse for an embarassing lack of belief.
Now you're coming along and saying that theists believe in god and everyone else is an atheist. How post-modern of me.
And there are no agnostics. Why? Is it just an effort to be more inclusive? No, it's just the meaning of words.
Isn't that you? Or do you take the positive position that god does not exist? No it's not me. My position is that knowledge of god is impossible - or at least it has been so far - so we are all agnostic. But I go further and say that I also believe that god does not exist. All we 'know', is whether we believe or not.
Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue? No, it simplifies things. Two positions instead of three.
What's the reason for changing the definitions of these words? Honestly, I don't get it. I have not changed any definitions. The words have been misapplied, misunderstood and misused.
Well, expect for atheism being equated with immorality. That's not longer apt. It seems to be in some parts of the world. But that can't change the meaning of words only their perception. When Huxley spoke about being agnostic, he was actually declaring his atheism in couched, intellectual terms.
People typically go: Well, that's what the root means. theism = belief in god therefore a-theism is without a belief in god. But that M-W page shows that the greek word is atheos, which is godlessness. So that is a positive position and not just a lack of a positive position. Dunno. Don't care much. We know what we mean in English
Regarding the topic, I think it is that equating atheism with immorality that lead people to want to deny office to atheists. Agreed. It time we stood up and changed that ignorant viewpoint. It's not clear to me why an agnostic should be seen as any more moral though - an agnostic does not believe in god.
If someone was self-proclaimly immoral or wicked, I would have a problem having them in office as well. Turns out the term atheism isn't really the right word for that, but alas. :-)Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are there any gods that you would describe yourself as an atheist with regard to?
What gods would you describe yourself as agnostic towards? What god(s) are you theistic towards? I think some examples might aid understanding here. But the point I was making previously was simply that what Tangle is saying is hardly new or some crazy revolutionary left field idea. The infamous quote about all children being born atheists was made in the 18th century for heavens sake. You may disagree. I may disagree. But you can't say that it is some new fangled idea. As for the elephant.... show me (or place my hands upon) god's metaphorical "trunk"/"leg"/"tail"/whatever. Without such it is a pointless analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
The infamous quote about all children being born atheists was made in the 18th century for heavens sake. I'm not, at the moment, up to composing my grand unified theism/atheism/gnostic/agnostic message. But I will say that I thinks that "agnostic" has significantly different meanings in different contexts, and we are working those different contexts. dwise1 presented the following definitions:
atheist -- one who denies the existence of God agnostic -- of or relating to the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable. Problems I find there include "what does denies mean"? Is that a gnostic or agnostic denial? Also, concerning what does "know" (as part of "unknown") mean? Is that a gnostic or agnostic "know"? And there's that fuzzy term "God". That said, what I really was about to do was post something "children born atheist". I certainly think they are born agnostic, and are not born theist. My God!!! Not theist??? That makes them born atheist (not theist is the most fundamental definition of atheist). Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Proofread wrong part of preview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. I wholeheartedly disagree. You don't get to decide the meanings of the words that other people are using. People have used that word to mean other things. And that's all it is to mean something and have a definition.
I have not changed any definitions. The words have been misapplied, misunderstood and misused. Well hooty-fucking-hoo! People get to misuse words. Fuck you, word-cop
But that can't change the meaning of words only their perception. The perception IS the meaning. That's how words are used. That's what language is. When people used the word atheism to mean 'immorality', you don't get to say that that's not what they really meant. Heh, and you know, I sorta predicted this behavior in my previous post:
And why can't today's atheists answer my question instead of just insisting that their definition of atheism is the correct one? Is that really the only reason, that they think they're right? How can they face the facts that the words were used differently (with the understanding that words are defined by how they are used) and then just claim that everyone else was wrong?
The definition was forced by the existence of believers. Indeed and for sure.
When Huxley spoke about being agnostic, he was actually declaring his atheism in couched, intellectual terms. Well, he was smarter than you. What he was doing was allowing his audience to understand what he meant. Back in the day, before instant global communication, you may run into a person who didn't know just what the fuck you were talking about. The believers, as you call them... well, let's just use Christians, they might be all: "Do you believe in God, and have you accepted Jesus as your savior?" And the others would go: "What the fuck are you talking about?" The believers response was not: "OMG, an atheist!" They would figure that the person was ignorant of God, and go on proselytizing. The other might admit that they believed in a god, and that it just wasn't like the Christian God. Or the other might go: "Fuck god, that's a bunch of stupid bullshit" A person who said something like that, would probably also reject the supposed immorality of behaviors the Christians deemed so, say stuff that'd we'd both agree was harmless like 'impure thoughts' or 'touching yourself'. So it isn't a stretch to see why those people would equate atheists with immorality. They were wrong, but I understand. Anyways, on to what I think is the answer to my question of why you prefer the term 'atheism':
It time we stood up and changed that ignorant viewpoint. :-/ I'm surprised that you people actually care about the misuse of words. BFD. But, honestly, I don't think what you're doing is helpful. (although perhaps you strive for divisiveness)
Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue? No, it simplifies things. Two positions instead of three. Well no, its four now instead of three. There's the theism-atheism dichotomy perpendicular to the gnostic-agnostic one. And you've agreed that everyone should be an agnostic, and insinuated, agreeably, that people who claim they know are crazy. So its an unnecessary complication... what should I call that besides 'confusion'?
I use the word atheist because it's the only one we have to describe a lack of belief in god. So that's not really true. The other may believe in a god, it just might not be what you refer to as God. Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' specifically for that purpose:
quote: I think that's an excellent term for this situation. And I hope that you can agree that the believers who are going around calling people atheists are Christians. Don't you reject traditional Christian tenets? Don't you avoid an outright denial of all gods (doctrinaire atheism) and stand by "the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence"? *Okay, so I just saw the below and realized that you do reject all gods. I don't have a problem with describing that as atheism. But you're still wrong that that's the only thing that atheism means.
As used, doesn't that term adequately describe If your intention is to have your audience understand what you mean (and that's how you figured they used it), then wouldn't that be the more helpful term to use?1
I think you may have hit on why everyone here is struggling so hard with a very simple concept. There is absolutely no shock value of declaring yourself to be an atheist in the UK. That's where I saw to move the discussion on beyond the trite. I can appreciate cultural differences in the word usage. I wouldn't challenge your usage of a word. I was questioning your motivation. And you've explained yourself, thanks. I'll omit the hilarious one-line joke of a summary I just thought of.
It's not clear to me why an agnostic should be seen as any more moral though - an agnostic does not believe in god. First off, they might believe in a god. And any morality that should be seen should be judge on behavior rather than belief. Atheism was equated with immorality because people who didn't fall for their god bullshit didn't fall for those harmless behaviors being immoral either. So if you ran into an atheist you could figure that they had naughty thoughts and jacked off at times. Big deal, right?
But I'd prefer it if there was no such word. You know, the idea that there is no word for a lack of belief in fairies and leprechauns. To me the idea of a god - at least the theistic kind - is simply bizarre *Oh shit. As I said, that is atheism. No problem. But there's still that third spot that makes a better fit than your useless forth one. So there's that. To go further: You know there's other atheists out there, yeah? The more shock-artist type. The stuff you see on /r/atheism. Most likely 20-ish Americans. How do you feel about bringing those folks into the fold? They're kinda dicks, dontcha think? Or at least, they're trying to be. I can expound on this. Anyways, they don't seem much like you UK atheists other than the trite semantic arguments So can you agree that the term "agnostic", as used and despite what it really means, does have a place in this discussion? Can't it be better than a term that describes everyone but the crazy? . 1. So then, when people are arguing with you about how they define words, isn't is better to just admit that people use them differently rather than insist that your usage is the correct one? Isn't that what you're calling "trite"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That said, what I really was about to do was post something "children born atheist". I certainly think they are born agnostic, and are not born theist. My God!!! Not theist??? That makes them born atheist (not theist is the most fundamental definition of atheist). I consider children to be null. How about "in a circle".
atheist -- one who denies the existence of God agnostic -- of or relating to the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable. Problems I find there include "what does denies mean"? Is that a gnostic or agnostic denial? Also, concerning what does "know" (as part of "unknown") mean? Is that a gnostic or agnostic "know"? And there's that fuzzy term "God". So me, you, and Straggler start off in a circle (drawn on the floor). Then we're commanded: "Move to either the theist triangle or the atheist square (drawn on the floor outside of the circle). I go to the theist triangle. Straggler goes to the atheist square. And you're left standing there wondering what the shapes mean. I don't include you in either of our shapes. Others insists that there's really only the triangle or not. And of course, children are not-triangle. But I see them as still being in the circle rather than in the square.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hey Straggler, 9,998 posts, go for it chuck!
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes:
Tangle says: Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. Cat Sci: says I wholeheartedly disagree. How many dictionary quotes do you need? Do you need a Gallop poll? What's you're problem? If we can't even agree that an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god, the rest is hopeless.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes: You know there's other atheists out there, yeah? There's no 'types' of atheists. We're not a group of people with a common cause. We don't have churches and dogmas. Our only point in common is a lack of belief in God(s).
The more shock-artist type. The stuff you see on /r/atheism. Most likely 20-ish Americans. I'm sure there are arseholes that are also atheists.
How do you feel about bringing those folks into the fold? They're kinda dicks, dontcha think? Or at least, they're trying to be. I can expound on this. There is no 'fold'. I'm just as likely to find them dicks as you are.
So can you agree that the term "agnostic", as used and despite what it really means, does have a place in this discussion? Can't it be better than a term that describes everyone but the crazy? Agnosticism is a 19th century invention which was designed to carve out an intellectual position about a lack of belief - a position that was very contentious at the time. It actually has no real meaning. It's used by those who find that they don't have an actual belief. If they did have a belief they would be, wait for it, believers. This is what Huxley actually thought
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took. What he's saying is that he can not believe in God. He is therefore an atheist who invented what he thinks is a clever way of not accepting it. He's confusing knowledge about god - for which the only rational position is agnosticism - with belief, which is an emotional, not an intellectual, logical state. Do you love your wife? Do you support the Jets? Do you believe in God? If these questions can't be answered in the positive, then they are negative. There's no meally-mouthed middle way is there? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024