Re: REALLY OT: News Flash
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 17:20 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Sorry. He made a number of unsubstianted claims, including that
> athiests are somehow superior because they are all enlightened. He
> claims that religious people are stupid and basically use ancient texts
> are a crutch. Nevermind that the Chrisitan nation of the USA (it was
> founded as a Christian nation by Christians) has developed far more
> scientific advancement than the oh-so-enlightened athiest USSR ever
> could have hoped. Even if you restrict the comparison to the years
> during which the USSR was in existence, I am willing to bet that
> scientific advance in the US oustripped the USSR by an order of
> magnitude.
>
> I was just asking that he substantiate his claim. I am not trying to
> start a religious argument. If he has valid evidence, then I will
> concede the point. Though, I doubt any such evidence exists.
No, Roberto, I never said "atheists are somehow superior" to anyone. I
made an observation about a characteristic much more common to theists
than to atheists: certainty. You claimed, by insinuation, that
atheists somehow feel they are in control of the world. I think that's
invalid. Atheists, by definition, don't believe in any mechanisms of
control beyond the observable, testable laws of nature. Anything else
is theory or speculation, and any such theory or speculation may or may
not be demonstrably true via experimentation and more observation, now
or in the future. That's not a recipe for "control" -- it's a recipe
for inquiry.
Theists, OTOH, are given to believe in a supernatural force that does
control the world. As you wrote, "The Bible explicitly states on
numerous occasions that God is ultimately in control. Of everything.
[...] My faith in the Word of God tells me that it is true. When the
Bible says something, I believe it." You assert that your religion
establishes, in no uncertain terms, the mechanism of control (namely,
God). Since no amount of experimentation can prove or disprove the
existence or effectiveness of that mechanism, you are asserting by fiat
that you know what is true. No need for inquiry.
I don't mean to imply that that is an inferior position, but I do mean
to imply that it means theists are far more likely than atheists to feel
they are in control, by proxy. They "know" exactly what is true and by
implication, what is false. When you know how something works, you feel
in control of it. It's human nature, because it's how most of us
experience things on a day-to-day basis. Look at debian-user: those
who understand the underlying mechanisms of how Debian works are in far
greater control of their hardware than those who don't. They (and,
quite often, you!) are the ones with the answers. The people who don't
understand are the ones with the questions.
It's certainly true that there are atheists who forget that they don't
have all the answers, but it's also true that there are plenty more
theists who forget that they aren't the ones in control, simply because
they believe they know what is in control. Consequently, they seek to
control others, because they know what's true and false, what's right
and wrong. Or so they believe. That's why it's the theists, and not
the atheists, who assert things like dinosaurs and humans co-existed, or
that humans and apes could not have had common ancestors because, in
their view, the Bible or Koran or Torah claims otherwise. And that's
why the majority of atrocities humans have visited upon other humans
have been committed in the name of someone or another's god. That says
nothing about all the great things that have been accomplished in the
name of anyone's god, nor whatever awful things have been perpetrated
without any overt religious motivations.
--
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions
of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to
dream." --S. Jackson
Reply to: