I think he’s agnostic, and I don’t know of any atheists who dislike him for what he says on the subject… but I thought I’d throw out Bill Maher, who often brings up atheist topics in his act and on his HBO show (things like the utter uselessnes of prayer and a call for an end of the tax-exempt status of churches).
O’Hair is really the only person I can think of who really qualifies, though… and sure, she was harsh, but she wasn’t trying to stop people from having religion (as far as I know), only to stop them from foisting it on others. It takes a belief in Hell and a vengeful God for the kind of hate Falwell spews…
Not necessarily. Take a look through some of the old atheist vs. theist threads on this board. Often, some athiest will come in and start talking about exactly what kind of mental or moral defective it takes to believe in a higher power. (Usually, said poster is either a recent convert or a college student, both of which lend themselves to a superioristic fanatacism.)
Now, to some extent, you’re right; belief in religion and God allows one to draw consequences and paralells that athiesm, with its scientific and rationalist bent, would not. Falwell can talk about an angry and vengeful God punishing the US for 9/11, as in his mindset God would do that sort of stuff. But an obnoxious athiest can’t blame things on non-scientific reason, because he doesn’t believe in those non-scientific reasons; he might state that the U.S. got what it deserved on 9/11, but that doesn’t relate directly to his specific non-God beliefs. But, that doesn’t prevent said atheist from being a blowhard, factually incorrect, and still insitent on being loud and obnoxious towards everyone who sees differently. (This being GD and not the Pit, I will refrain from giving you a list of posters who fall into this category. But you can always play the home game! Write up a list of posters who refuse to listen to facts, jump to conclusions, and loudly and obnoxiously insult everyone around them, making you enraged to have to deal with them, or embarassed to be on their side! Then do nothing with this list except gloat to yourself that you have it.)
It’s not that theists deserve total respect for their unsubstantiated beliefs. It’s just that constantly being in people’s faces about anything is annoying. I consider myself an agnostic, which gives me fairly good perspective from which to view the two extremes. Tract thumping atheists who sneer “Yeah, and the invisible pink unicorn” whenever someone mentions Christmas, or when they’re at a religious funeral, are every bit as bad as fundie zealots who rant and rave that anything you do of a secular or pleasurable nature is the first step to hell. There are uncanny parallels between the two extremes.
Now this does not mean that I don’t think theists and atheists should ever debate the issue with one another. And if someone gets in your face about their beliefs, I think you’re entitled to do the same. But when someone is merely practicing their faith, or their atheism, then they should be free to do that without interference as long as they’re not bothering anybody.
I think that was the point – that people minding their own business should not be subjected to shrill, obnoxious diatribes from either side, and that nobody should be forced into the closet, so to speak.
I had alterego’s post quoted in a reply box twice, but nothing I could come up with was funny enough to play on the mistype. I am glad I waited, that is funny.
We can’t prove it but we can at least find evidence for it.
Peano’s fifth axiom is the basis of proof by induction. So it’s falsifiable – all I would have to do is to prove some statement by induction, and then find a counter example to this statement. The fact that I can attempt to do this over and over and never succeed is strong evidence that the axiom is correct.
This is basically the situation in all of science. You can’t prove anything, but you can state a falsifiable claim and then fail in all attempts to prove it false, and this is considered evidence that the claim is true.
Religious claims, in contrast, are not falsifiable.
