From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 2/22/26 9:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 08:06:51 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/16/26 5:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks    
   >>>>   
   >>>> Christian Anfinsen (1916-1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and   
   >>>> winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:   
   >>>> "I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there   
   >>>> exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and   
   >>>> knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism   
   >>> in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind   
   >>> of God.[1]   
   >>> [...]   
   >>> [1] I'm using "atheist" in the   
   >>> generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God   
   >>> and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply   
   >>> haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not   
   >>> ever able to get enough evidence).   
   >>   
   >> What about Bertrand Russell's analogy to believing that there is a   
   >> teapot in the orbit of Saturn?   
   >   
   > Can you point me to anyone who has presented rational arguments for a   
   > teapot in the orbit of Saturn?  Can you even point me to a single   
   > person who believes there is teapot in the orbit of Saturn?   
      
   That's the point. There's no rational reason for believing in a teapot   
   orbiting Saturn, just like (to a rationalist like Russell) there's no   
   rational reason for believing in a god. You can't 100% rule out either   
   the teacup or the god, and Russell didn't. But he didn't believe either   
   existed, either. So is he an atheist in your sense of rejecting the very   
   possibility?   
      
   >> Would you classify Russell as an atheist   
   >> because he cannot rule out a god, but considers the evidence too low to   
   >> be worth mentioning?   
   >>   
   >> And there's another, emotional, rationale for atheism. Someone looks at   
   >> all the evil done in the name of God and reasons that anyone eliminating   
   >> belief in God would be a better person.   
   >   
   > So do you think the ToE should be eliminated because people used it to   
   > justify eugenic? Or that Einstein's ideas should be eliminated because   
   > they were used to kill thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima   
   > and Nagasaki?   
      
   I'm not defending the position. You said you were struggling to   
   understand it. Do you want to understand, or do you want to reflexively   
   lash out at a position that you disagree with? You can't do both.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)