XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:01:23 -0600, BruceS wrote:
> On 06/26/2014 11:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>> despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
>>> atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
>>> existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
>>> reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.
>>
>> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
>> entitled to reject that opinion.
>
> I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
> just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
> complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
> multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
> Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
> believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
> Carter of Mars? There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.
> Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
> religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
> joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
> nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
> the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
> that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
> apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.
It is debatable which is the default position of the
rational individual: agnosticism or atheism. If one is
scientifically- as well as rational-minded, then agnosticism
is possibly a better fit: if anything is absolutely known
about Life, the Universe and Everything it is that perceived
facts and truths have a habit of turning out to be wrong.
Thus, the agnosticism of reserving judgment would arguably
be more appropriate for this as for any other avenuie of
scientific enquiry.
As for belief, we would need to clarify what we are talking
about. If we are discussing the existence of Thor, Zeus,
Spiderman or Harry Potter in terms of distinct physically
and historically existing entities, we do of course have to
insist on hard evidence of their existence; absent such
evidence, it is quite the sensible thing to disbelieve.
There is another possible way of defining such supernatural
personages, though: in terms of personification and
anthropomorphism. Basically, we are Dr McKoy rather than
Commander Spock. Our wetware is primed to go "oook" rather
than "cogito ergo sum". Therefore it makes sense and is
culturally and philosophically legitimate to personify and
anthropomorphise: as a means of transmitting a society's
survival guidelines, creating and maintaining a cultural
identity, or establishing and enforcing moral and ethical
notions and codes, a personified embodiment is highly
effective and efficient. Cast in those terms, the question
of the existence let alone the historicity of a Jesus or
Hermes Trismegistos become irrelevant: they are Man-shaped
myths, conveniently shaped tools where the message is all.
Viewed under these terms, we can sidestep the entire debate
to concentrate on productively and profitably examining the
messages that are being transmitted.
Of course, being creatures who go "oook", such a notion is
resisted fiercely be actual believers who derive a serious
and unbreakable emotional satisfaction from their attachment
to flesh-and-blood entities and all too frequently forget to
consider (let alone live by) the teachings they carry.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
