[ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers
stathisp at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 06:02:27 UTC 2010
On 21 July 2010 02:55, F. Crick <dreamaswemay at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. I haven't introduced myself, yet, but eventually will, in a more
> apropos thread. I'm not even sure if I'm using the email list
> correctly, but if I'm not, I'm sure one of you fine people will be so
> kind as to let me know.
You've quoted the entire digest post rather than the part of interest,
other than that your response is fine.
> On topic: it seems to me that agnosticism is a more realistic outlook.
> To deny the existence of something that has, so far, been impossible
> to prove or disprove seems just as foolish as to *assume* the
> existence of a particular *kind* of that something that may or may not
> be there. Assumptions are the mothers of all mistakes, and religion is
> the mother of all assumptions, since it seeks to define conditions
> after death.
> In my opinion, it seems more logical to admit the lack of
> understanding, and seek to rectify that deficit - not to say either
> 'we're right' or 'they're wrong'.
There are some things for which there is no absolute evidence against
but which it is nevertheless foolish to believe in. For example, are
you atheistic or agnostic about the goddess Athena, who sprang in full
armour from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus struck it with his hammer
to relieve a headache? The Greek gods are no more ridiculous than
Yahweh, the Hebrew sky god, yet no-one today would bother making the
point that it cannot be proved that they don't exist.
What all religious people generally say is that *obviously* other
religions are ridiculous if taken as literally true, but they were
lucky enough to be born into the one religion that is special.
More information about the extropy-chat