I think it’s more that some people cannot accept “I don’t know” for an answer.
I mean, look at what happens with the whole creation/evolution thing. I honestly think a great deal of it stems from people not being comfortable with the “not knowing” every single detail. Recently, the “Creationists Strut Your Stuff” thread, a couple of 'em have said things to the effect that they will not accept evolution until every single little detail is nailed down. They cannot live with “not knowing.” But with creationism, everything is “known” – because God did it all. Simple. Easy. No annoying holes.
I just finished reading The Mysteries Within by Sherwin Nuland, about how superstition (magic), religion, and medicine have been intertwined throughout history. One point he makes repeatedly is the way early doctors couldn’t live with not knowing, so they made stuff up. I see it in a lot (though by no means all) of the theists that come here to debate and argue.
Several other people have already pointed out how ridiculous this is, and you have responded that it is “self-evident.” Well, self-evident to you maybe, but I think we’ve all seen enough of your views lately to know that what is evident to you may have little to do with reality.
As has been explained to you, none of us have ever indicated anything of the sort (well, ok, I have in talking about me being a God, but if you can’t separate humor from seriousness, then that’s a separate problem you have).
David - Do you think you would feel comfortable now presenting your position on the statement of fact I made near the beginning of this thread - to wit:
Cooper, I am still unconvinced on the “Pashley is a troll” statement. He exhibits some troll-like behaviors, certainly, but he seems to honestly react (and over-react) to posts in response to his OP. He just seems very poorly prepared to accept disagreeing positions or defend his own position rationally.
Annoying, yes. Insulting, frequently. Troll, still gathering evidence but leaning towards no.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Well, it’s obvious that since atheists don’t believe in God, and don’t see themselves as part of a mystical wholeness of Divine Being, they must perforce believe themselves to be as close to god as is possible to get.
Think of the arrogance inherent in the belief that mankind bootstrapped itself from protohominids to the stars, for example.
For an atheist to say that there is no god is to say that no one needs a god. And if one needs no god, one must then believe oneself to be “too good” for God. Ergo, arrogant.
Of course not! After re-reading my last post I see how it could be construed to be a bit derisive, but I truly just enjoy a good debate. I like to find flaws in arguements and have that reciprocated; it helps one to reevalute one’s ideas (hopefully). I would still like to re-engage pashley, if he feels up to the task. What’s your stance on this issue, Esprix?
Hmmm, sounds like you could be one of them Unitarian Universalists…
Is Atheism a religion? Sure, I think it qualifies; it certainly is a philosophy. Would most Atheists think so? I don’t know, but I suppose it would be up to each individual whether they called it so or not.
See my last post on the nature of knowledge and belief. At the core of each is faith. If one considers a system based on faith a religion, then by these perameters, athiesm is a religion. And I don’t know enough about UU to answer the first, you better Ask The Gay Guy!
What weirdave said. And I’m just accepting of most folks’ belief systems, so I’m just more apt to call it a religion.
Collective? “Resistance is futile!”
You wrote:
Debating, discussing and re-self-evaluating ones ideals is at the core of Unitarian Universalism. If you want some details, check out my “Liberal Religions” thread, wherein I discuss UUism and other liberal religions.
Esprix, who believes most people are closet UU’s and just don’t know it yet…
I would still assert that atheism does not qualify as a religion. Refer to my post dated 03-10-2000 at 4:53PM. I understand that there is a certain amount of faith inherent in science because, epistemologically speaking, arguments of induction are intrinsically flawed (that is the arguement of induction utilizes induction to support itself). Despite the comparison to science in the aforementioned post, I don’t believe that atheism suffers from induction. IMO, atheism is not the active denial of a/any god(s), but a term applied to those who would find the question, “What’s a bimblesquat?” equally as absurd as the question “Is there a god?” The questions are akin to postulating for the sake of postulating – the question are nonsensical.
