peppermill at my-deja.com wrote in message <7mp8lf$5e3$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>> [skipped - see original for details]
>>>Seems to me that atheists are as passionate in their belief (or
>unbelief) and as intolerant as any Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.
>I'm sure part of the comfort you all get is that wonderful sense
>of superiority.
Are Atheists intolerant? Certainly, you're not using the example
of keeping forced prayer out of public schools as an example
of Atheist intolerance, are you? You are for separation of church
and state, aren't you?
As for passion . . .
You may be on to something there, peppermill. It seems Atheists,
as a group, are quite a passionate group of people in expressing
reasons and explanations for disbelief.
Most religious people are doubters who go along for social reasons
with their religious myths and, therefore, aren't that passionate about
them. The passionate Theists on newsgroups are, I would think, a
small minority group in that Theism is a really tough concept to
defend; that would help to explain the passion that comes from the
Theists who actually attempt to defend their beliefs.
Agnostics, nature-loving nonreligionists, and contemplative meditation
types are, for the most part, the least passionate and least likely to
get passionate about their views as that runs counter to their efforts,
for the most part, to get along with everyone.
Of course, that's all well and good, but which group is closest to the
truth? 1) It all depends on your point of view, 2) Who cares, whatever,
what will be will be, 3) Atheists, 4) Theists (pick your favorite belief
or figure out a way to accept multiple groups), 5) Deists (a rather
difficult concept as Deism involves a lack of proof), or 6) Agnostics,
nature-loving nonreligionists, and contemplative meditation types.
I'd say 3 as 1 is equivocating and "point of view" does not = truth,
it's merely perception. 2 does not involve truth, it's merely not getting
involved. 4 is rather difficult from a truth standpoint as truth is based
on blind faith, 5 as stated is difficult because the concept involves a
lack of proof, and 6 is absence of a position in most cases so that
is a position of equivocation which, by definition, yields the truth
that "those folks don't know what is true" but leaves us with the
questions . . .
Is there a god or gods? Why are it/they silent and invisible? Why
is there so much suffering in the world? Why must blind faith/belief
be the cornerstone of merit by which an eternal fate is decided? If
works are the cornerstone, i.e. living a good life and helping people
will score points for you in the afterlife, why the silence and why
must one believe based on blind faith? So, as for 6, while it's easy
to take that position and defend it, it gets us no closer to the truth
than does 2.
-Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
