Ah, my angry blogger strikes again.
Sep. 30th, 2010 11:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sciolistIt's all good stuff about certainty, or the obvious lack thereof, in atheism and other theisms. We don't need absolute certainty to operate and it's useful to underline that to avoid hyperbolic stuff.
The thing that made me smile and re-post was this:
"(The flip side of this fallacy is the theists' claim that they cannot supply atheists' demands for absolute certainty about claims of a god's existence or properties. We do not demand absolute certainty. We'd like to see a case made beyond a reasonable doubt, but at this point I'd settle for probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.)"
Which I thought was cute. After that the tone of the post gets slightly ruder, but the content's still nice (in its meaning as accurate). Which is why I read it.
"The problem is that every day I read this or that atrocity against human well-being and happiness — atrocities that shock my conscience to the core — being not just perpetrated but proudly perpetrated by people in name of their god. It's not just the "newsworthy" atrocities — acid in a young girl's face, the murder of an abortion doctor, the rape of a child — it's the systematic and persistent efforts of so many religious people to marginalize, oppress and exploit some large segment of the population: heretics, foreigners, homosexuals, and of course women.
All of this would be irrelevant if it were true that a god actually existed. The truth is the truth; nuclear physics is still true even if it means we can incinerate tens of thousands in a heartbeat; it's still true even if we annihilate the entire terrestrial biosphere in a nuclear holocaust.
But it's not true. There is no god. We're on our own, a microscopic speck of life in an indifferent universe that cares nothing for our happiness or our survival. "
http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2010/09/atheism-conviction-and-certainty.html
PS - Someone please tell me how to use cut tags here - I bet they don't use lj-cut as a syntax.
The thing that made me smile and re-post was this:
"(The flip side of this fallacy is the theists' claim that they cannot supply atheists' demands for absolute certainty about claims of a god's existence or properties. We do not demand absolute certainty. We'd like to see a case made beyond a reasonable doubt, but at this point I'd settle for probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.)"
Which I thought was cute. After that the tone of the post gets slightly ruder, but the content's still nice (in its meaning as accurate). Which is why I read it.
"The problem is that every day I read this or that atrocity against human well-being and happiness — atrocities that shock my conscience to the core — being not just perpetrated but proudly perpetrated by people in name of their god. It's not just the "newsworthy" atrocities — acid in a young girl's face, the murder of an abortion doctor, the rape of a child — it's the systematic and persistent efforts of so many religious people to marginalize, oppress and exploit some large segment of the population: heretics, foreigners, homosexuals, and of course women.
All of this would be irrelevant if it were true that a god actually existed. The truth is the truth; nuclear physics is still true even if it means we can incinerate tens of thousands in a heartbeat; it's still true even if we annihilate the entire terrestrial biosphere in a nuclear holocaust.
But it's not true. There is no god. We're on our own, a microscopic speck of life in an indifferent universe that cares nothing for our happiness or our survival. "
http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2010/09/atheism-conviction-and-certainty.html
PS - Someone please tell me how to use cut tags here - I bet they don't use lj-cut as a syntax.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 09:20 am (UTC)WOPR?
Date: 2010-10-02 10:29 am (UTC)Re: WOPR?
Date: 2010-10-02 11:08 am (UTC)On the other hand, it's friends and acquaintances that I'm dealing with; we all overlook small things like philosophical differences (well, except at the pub) because doing so greases the social wheels. I don't tell people "I think you're an idiot for thinking that" because - actually, because I don't think those people are idiots: I've lots of evidence to the contrary, and anyway, their holding of an irrational belief costs me bugger-all.
Telling Ratzinger where to stick his rhetorical invention of "atheist extremism" might be a different matter, but I don't tend to bump into the pope over coffee at lunchtime very often.
* obviously you're smart enough to read this as a subjective value judgement of my hobbies as opposed to an objective assertion.
Re: WOPR?
Date: 2010-10-02 01:20 pm (UTC)