XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 06/30/2014 06:25 PM, Alex W wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   This is another area of unclear definitions.  Some time ago I stopped   
   describing myself as "agnostic" and accepted "atheist" based on pedantic   
   definitions of the words.  I do reserve judgment, and am willing to   
   admit to the possibility of gods, but in absence of evidence for them   
   accept the unlikelihood of their existence.  To be truly agnostic   
   (AIUI), I'd have to take the position that evidence for them is not   
   possible.  While any evidence can, as you say, turn out to be wrong, I   
   accept that evidence is possible.  Essentially, if I were presented with   
   evidence for a particular god, I could then believe in that god.  If   
   that evidence were later shown to be false, then (absent other evidence   
   that remained trustworthy) I would stop believing in that god.   
      
   > 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   
      
   Are you trying to imply that we're a race of Librarians?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I think that's another thing entirely.  There's no need to believe in   
   gods simply to consider useful one or more of the messages from the   
   religion supporting that god.  I reject many of the messages that are   
   attributed to Jesus, but accept others.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   In some cases, that's quite unfortunate.  Anyone who truly believed in,   
   and followed, the supposed teachings of Jesus would be a great neighbor,   
   as well as an easy victim.  In other cases, it's a good thing the   
   "believers" neither believe nor follow.  We don't really want all the   
   slavery, rape, murder, and other atrocities recommended by the Bible, do we?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)