Re: Atheist State Lawmaker Quotes Carl Sagan Instead of Doing Prayer Before House Ses
In the end? Not a whole lot. It's semantics at the smallest level. Me: "there is no evidence there is a god, therefore I need not entertain the possibility that a gods exists -- and therefore for all practical purposes no god exists." You: "there is no evidence there is a god, therefore no god exists." The only measurable difference is that I won't be forced into a position of having to prove a negative.
Making the statement that, unconditionally, no invisible gorilla exists.
I suppose the difference then lies in notions of absolute truth. We don't know any 100% absolute truths. That is part of science and really an unalterable (though just shy of 100%
) truth. Functionally, there is no difference between our two positions. I'm just using slightly stronger language and not adding the "for all practical purposes" clause, because I think it is redundant to add that to all assertions of fact. I am typing on a computer right now. I am not for all practical purposes typing on a computer right now. I get what you're saying, but it is very much a semantic difference and unworthy of putting us into divergent camps.
If the conversation is between atheists, negligible at best. If it's between atheists and religious people then I think the difference is more significant.
True, but some atheists really do approach proselytizing levels of atheism which is at least as annoying and unhelpful as what fundamentalist Christians practice. But despite a view of active vs. passive atheism that doesn't mean that I sit like a quiet little wallflower when the discussion comes up.
I am glad to hear that you are not a wallflower. When it comes to the notion of proselytizing, I take exception to the idea that atheists do that. The proposition that god does or does not exist is a factual assertion, the same as an assertion that the moon does or does not exist. Asserting a factual position is not proselytizing. It ought to be subject to scrutiny and rejected if there is no evidence, but that's what we're talking about above. Proselytizing is more about lifestyle. It's saying "you should live the way I do", but again, it only really applies to religions. Anti-drug campaigns aren't proselytizing, are they? They're asserting that we should live drug-less lives. But even they have a few facts to back that up. Speed really can kill you, heroin is very addictive, and a smoking habit can be very expensive in the long run. Proselytizing, to me, seems like a call to "join our religion because it is better, and it is better merely because we say it is." I don't think that any equivalent activity is proselytizing without the religious aspect or the arbitrariness of the assertion.
However, given the importance of the social issues involved, like civil rights, violence, education, science, and war, can you really blame people for taking a stand about their position? Let's take Dawkins as an example. There's at least one thread around right now about hating on Dawkins. His big deal is about education for kids. He gets really mad about kids being taught to fear hell so that they'll submit to religious teachings, and about kids being told demonstrable falsehoods as science. We've all seen this notorious creationist test, haven't we?
Teaching kids that, and then teaching them that they'll be burned forever if they ever question it, is a pretty cruel thing to do to a kid. Shouldn't a passionate science teacher, as Dawkins is, devote his passion and energy to stopping that? And doesn't the fact that he has evidence and truth on his side make him more righteous than his opponents?
When it comes to this sort of discussion and the assertion that atheists should be more "respectful" of theists' beliefs, I always come back to the flat-earthers. Should the rest of us respect their belief, or tell them to buy a globe and stop being dumb? Or explain to them how the appearance of the tops of objects over the horizon as you approach would not happen if the world were flat? Should anyone ever be faulted for telling people the verifiable truth?
