Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ierrellus · 07-31-2002, 06:57 AM

David,
Please read Nicholas Humphrey's Oxford Address to Amnesty International. I believe it is entitled, "What do we tell the children?". It is in the Amnesty archives on the web.

Ierrellus
PAX

snatchbalance · 07-31-2002, 08:42 AM

Ierrellus,

I hope you don't mind a little help with the link:

<a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html" target="_blank">humphery</a>

sb

tergiversant · 07-31-2002, 11:07 AM

I think atheism should be distinguished from agnosticism. Those that disbelieve should be called "atheists," those who merely lack belief "agnostics." Most any dictionary of our language supports this dichotomy.

Jamie_L · 07-31-2002, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tergiversant:
Those that disbelieve should be called "atheists," those who merely lack belief "agnostics." Most any dictionary of our language supports this dichotomy.

I think there is confusion about strong vs. weak atheism.

Some put forward:
Strong atheism: "I do not believe gods exist."
Weak atheism: "I lack a belief in the existence of gods."

I think this is not the original intent of the terms. As I understand it, the distinction should be:
Strong atheism: "I believe God X does not and cannot possibly exist."
Weak atheism: "I do not believe gods exist."

The weak atheist acknowledges, however, the limitations of reason and admits that gods may be possible, but that given the evidence, it is not rational to believe in them.

The agnostic on the other hand believes that it is not rational to come to any conclusion on the issue because we can't know enough to make an informed conclusion.

Jamie

Keith Russell · 07-31-2002, 11:53 AM

Greetings:

Being rational doesn't mean that one is right, or that one has unlimited--or even heightened--perception.

It only means that one rejects all arbitrary claims (claims which have no evidence to support them) and that one bases one's beliefs ONLY on a rational evaluation of all of the available evidence.

Atheists don't have to be rational any more than theists do. And, like some theists, some atheists often base their beliefs on something besides evidence.

I am an athiest because I have evauated the evidence I've witnesses, and atheism is the only rational explanation I have found.

But I see no reason why simply being an atheist is sufficient evidence that a person is also rational.

Keith.

Ierrellus · 08-01-2002, 02:35 AM

snatchbalance,

Thanks for providing the Humprey link for me. He is a very articulate evolutionist. I'd say he gives "rational" arguments.

Ierrellus
PAX

scumble · 08-01-2002, 07:09 AM

To what extent do some of you think evolution is important to yur outlook on the world?

Jayhawker Soule · 08-01-2002, 09:04 AM

Science works.

Koyaanisqatsi · 08-01-2002, 10:54 AM

Well, since the question "what is your worldview?" is usually only asked (and immediately answered) by cult members like David as a strawman so that they think they have something to argue, I've never given it much importance.

That's the beauty of being a free thinker; our minds are completely free to explore any theory and review any new information without prejudice.

David's mind, unfortunately, appears to have been closed some two thousand years ago.

Keith Russell · 08-01-2002, 12:10 PM

Greetings:

Anyone can be accused (validly) of being 'closed-minded' by anyone with which they disagree.

My mind opens only as wide as the evidence is able to open it, and not a bit wider.

If that is 'closed-mindedness' (and it's been called that before, and doubtless will be again), then so be it.

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 06:57 AM	#31
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	David, Please read Nicholas Humphrey's Oxford Address to Amnesty International. I believe it is entitled, "What do we tell the children?". It is in the Amnesty archives on the web. Ierrellus PAX

07-31-2002, 08:42 AM	#32
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Ierrellus, I hope you don't mind a little help with the link: <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html" target="_blank">humphery</a> sb

07-31-2002, 11:07 AM	#33
tergiversant Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: OKC, OK Posts: 100	I think atheism should be distinguished from agnosticism. Those that disbelieve should be called "atheists," those who merely lack belief "agnostics." Most any dictionary of our language supports this dichotomy.

07-31-2002, 11:53 AM	#35
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Being rational doesn't mean that one is right, or that one has unlimited--or even heightened--perception. It only means that one rejects all arbitrary claims (claims which have no evidence to support them) and that one bases one's beliefs ONLY on a rational evaluation of all of the available evidence. Atheists don't have to be rational any more than theists do. And, like some theists, some atheists often base their beliefs on something besides evidence. I am an athiest because I have evauated the evidence I've witnesses, and atheism is the only rational explanation I have found. But I see no reason why simply being an atheist is sufficient evidence that a person is also rational. Keith.

08-01-2002, 02:35 AM	#36
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	snatchbalance, Thanks for providing the Humprey link for me. He is a very articulate evolutionist. I'd say he gives "rational" arguments. Ierrellus PAX

08-01-2002, 07:09 AM	#37
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	To what extent do some of you think evolution is important to yur outlook on the world?

08-01-2002, 09:04 AM	#38
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Science works.

08-01-2002, 10:54 AM	#39
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Well, since the question "what is your worldview?" is usually only asked (and immediately answered) by cult members like David as a strawman so that they think they have something to argue, I've never given it much importance. That's the beauty of being a free thinker; our minds are completely free to explore any theory and review any new information without prejudice. David's mind, unfortunately, appears to have been closed some two thousand years ago.

08-01-2002, 12:10 PM	#40
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Anyone can be accused (validly) of being 'closed-minded' by anyone with which they disagree. My mind opens only as wide as the evidence is able to open it, and not a bit wider. If that is 'closed-mindedness' (and it's been called that before, and doubtless will be again), then so be it. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.