Letters to the Editor
-
To all the "Agnostics" who replied...
Agnostics are just atheists who are too afraid to admit it to themselves (fear of their own mortality, probably). Why not be an agnostic about unicorns and griffins? We have just as much rational proof of their existence. "Really, I'm on the fence about unicorns - someone wrote about them many years ago, so there's a chance that they exist..." Weak, really weak.
As soon as the current generation of deluded baby-boomers die, we might have a chance of leaving the BS bronze age mythology of Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions behind.
Why is it so easy for most people to acknowledge that Zeus, Appolo and the Mount Olympus gang were made up entities, but not extend the same logic to their own religion? (This is a rhetorical question, I already know the answer...)
-
neurotobot
I do think it rather dangerous to assume that just because atheists have historically been on the sharp end of the stake, that if given greater power and authority, they would behave the same as they did when they were subaltern.
A dishonest presumption on your part, since unbelievers have been shown to be characterized by tolerance, and religiosity by intolerance.
Besides, you're contradicting yourself:
I believe that atheists are compassionate, upright, and astute individuals, and I respect them because of their great faith in the capacity of human beings and their strong commitment to preserving human dignity.
You know what I think?
I don't think you're an agnostic at all. I think you're a 'Christian' dishonestly pretending to be an agnostic for the purpose of giving some credibility to your thinly-veiled cheap shots against unbelief, and that your platitudes to the contrary are just a cover.
We see this tactic with radical right-wingers pretending to be 'liberal moderates' all the time.
-
"What does religion explain? Anything? Anything at all?"
Religion explains creation: Genesis
Religion explains morality: The Ten Comandments
Religion explains the charismatic leader: The Passion of Christ
etc.
-
walter_map
...unbelievers have been shown to be characterized by tolerance, and religiosity by intolerance.
Serious question:
How do you address the violence of unbelievers during the French Revolution, the violence of atheistic communists during the Russian Revolution, Mao, etc.?
Attacks on religion/god-belief because of the murderous actions of historical figures seems to be an ad hominem attack. The same goes for attacks on atheists/non-believers.
Yet it is common (and socially and intellectually acceptable) among atheists to offer the Inquisition as a refutation of god/religion. I've never heard any atheist explain why this type of ad hominem attack can be made against the religious, but not atheists.
Much like neurotobot, I believe that violence is a human quality. Because religious belief systems have dominated politics for most of human history, we see "religious" violence. In the modern era, when people espousing non-beleif for the first time gain power (French, Russian, Chinese revolutions, etc). We see "atheist" violence. I also suspect (without having sought out evidence) that many of the perpetrators of "religious" violence were in fact non-believers who were merely taking advantage of the political vehicle at their disposal.
I'm interested in your answer. (I personally find no evidence for the existence of any god.)
-
Most agnostics...
...are intellectually dishonest. There are a few that sincerely don't understand what to make of evidence, or how evidence and cause/effect work, and that don't come from a dogmatic background, and they maybe hung out with a certain group of people in college, and thus they don't know what to think. A lot of times they're artists, and they just don't think that way. They're agnostic. Fine.
The rest of the agnostics are full of it. Let me ask you a question. Do you think that when you walk outside today there will be a 1000 ft. purple, scaly monster in your front yard, waiting to eat you? Not 'can you prove it?' but 'do you believe it? No? Why not? I mean, one thing this thread has taught us is that no one can totally, completely prove anything, but why might we not believe this monster is going to be waiting for us?
Because it doesn't make any sense. There is not an iota of evidence for it, and there are mountains and mountains of evidence of all different kinds that suggests that it isn't going to happen. That's what an atheist is, people. It's a person who acknowledges that when an outrageous claim offers no evidence, there is no sense in believing it. So yes, there is belief involved. We don't believe this monster is going to eat us today. Why the hell would we?
Now, if we grew up being told, every motherloving moment that there was going to be that monster there waiting for us one of these days, we might believe it, despite the lack of evidence. That is called a delusion. Agnostics, by and large, have somewhat broken free from that delusion, but there is a small part of them that is a still a little afraid this monster will get them if they let their guard down. This response is in direct conflict with every logical tendency they have, and that is intellectually dishonest. They try to build an argument around this fear, but in essence it's same argument a religious person makes. It's an argument they need to design around their belief. It's why atheist and everyone else are always butting heads while rarely getting anywhere. It's two different arguments, one designed around an a priori belief, and the other describing the logical thought process by which they arrived at a conclusion.
Agnostics will claim that there can be no proof, so they are withholding judgment. Atheists never said there can be proof of no god, and most accept that one can't prove a negative. They say, "I don't believe in a god, because there is no evidence, and it doesn't make any sense."
What is so hard to understand?
A whole lot of banter about iron clad proof for anyone's position is just so much relativistic nonsense.
-
Natural1
Agnostics are just atheists who are too afraid to admit it to themselves (fear of their own mortality, probably). Why not be an agnostic about unicorns and griffins? We have just as much rational proof of their existence. "Really, I'm on the fence about unicorns - someone wrote about them many years ago, so there's a chance that they exist..." Weak, really weak.
Ah, I remember when I was in high school. Great times! But get yourself to college, preferably out of state. There's a big old world out there, full of nuance!
Yours truly,
Darby--agnostic about unicorns, griffins, gods, and Natural1