[ExI] Fw: Re: atheists declare religions as scams.

[Darren Greer]

>people who go to great pains to point out that they are a agnostic not a
atheist seem a little silly to me because, judging from the equal respect
they give to both believers and atheists<

Who said an agnostic has to afford anything approaching respect to an
atheist or a believer based on their belief or lack of it? An agnostic could
just as well despise both camps for presuming to know or not know the
existence of something for which they have no solid evidence either for or
against. This is the point, anyway, where the labels themselves become more
important than their denotative meanings, always a breaking down point. I
joined the atheist nexus and started blocking the e-mails because so much
time was spent discussing what an atheist is and what he believes that I was
convinced we were soon to start breaking off into denominations. Lately I
just think of myself of someone who simply doesn't believe in the
supernatural. That includes gods, witches, archangels and Richard Gere's
mythical hamster. And if it you're going to argue any of those things *are*
natural, you better be able to prove it, or at least show me tangible,
verifiable proof of it that is repeatable by experiment.  Or at the very
least offer a theory that you can back up with something besides "I am" or
"I believe" or "I know."

As for the romantic in me, I like Carl Sagan's fictional scenario: if we're
going to look for a universal creator, let's start by digging around in
irrational numbers.

Darren


2011/1/29 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>

> On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
>
> An agnostic says it's not possible to know certain things, either in
> principle or in practice.
>
>
> But they do have faith that it's not possible to know certain things either
> in principle or in practice.
>
> Technically I'm an agnostic too in that I can't prove the nonexistence of
> God, but people who go to great pains to point out that they are a agnostic
> not a atheist seem a little silly to me because, judging from the equal
> respect they give to both believers and atheists, they incorrectly think
> both viewpoints are equally rational. I am certainly not that sort of
> agnostic, not even technically.
>
> This is what Isaac Asimov had to say on the subject in his autobiography:
>
> "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been
> an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually
> unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that
> one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an
> agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of
> reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that
> God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to
> waste my time."
>
> if there really was a Supreme Being, and it was everything it's cracked up
> to be by the god-squad people, I'd feel morally obliged to oppose it.
>
>
> I agree and so does Asimov:
>
> "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
> conceived."
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
*"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would do it. The
'hard' is what makes it great."*
*
*
*--A League of Their Own
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110129/434094e4/attachment.html>