In article <7mpvjm$4o4$1 at bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Dan Fake" <danfake at worldnet.att.net>
did bestow the following nugget of wisdom:
>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.
>You do not take into account the possibility that the truth is unknowable.
--
All spellings are not guaranteed accurate. ICQ: 8869737 Yahoo: Drakmere Aim: drakmere9
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world.
If anyone has an extra organs lieing around, pickle them in a jar and send them to me.
When in-laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.
If you can't say something nice, post it on Usenet.
This .sig in NO LONGER CONSTRUCTION any suggestions are disposed of ;)
