In article <7mpvjm$4o4$1 at bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Fake" <danfake at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>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
>>
No My statement has nothing to do with prayer. Just things like
calling people idiots, and the tone of absolute righteousness and scorn
for people who don't share your views. I am a passionate believer in
separation of church and state, but I am sure that we would disagree
quite a bit on how that separation should be achieved.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
