[FoRK] Terms - Practicing Science: Secular vs. Religious Ideology

[Jeff Bone]

On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Sat N wrote:

>> Atheists are guilty of ignoring the same pachyderm in the living  
>> room.

Hogwash.

> If they are a confirmed "atheist", they are predisposed to a way of
> thinking that prevents them from thinking critically with no
> exceptions.
>
> They "made up their mind" about god, religion, religious people and
> beliefs, and thats a problem.

Hah!

Okay, let me just shut that bullshit down right now!  This is too  
easy, Sat.  You should know better than to run that line, it's old  
and tired.  We've played this round before.  Why the fuck would you  
go and try a Spassky?  Let me just call checkmate and go on the record:

   If god popped into my office right now, I for one would quite  
happily apologize to everyone involved, and convert post haste.

There's a difference in insisting that there's something there  
without any evidence, and insisting that something is not there for  
lack of it.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I  
never said it was.  My issue is with the insistence that something  
IS, when there is no evidence.  I am not asserting with certainty  
that something IS NOT just because I see no evidence.  My mind is  
open to being changed --- by EVIDENCE, not by psychological  
manipulation, social pressure, "evangelism," etc.

OTOH, it's easy and valid to reason probabilistically about these  
things.  Your "indictment" of atheists is equally applicable to  
everyone that does not believe that an ice cream sundae is about to  
magically appear before them right now....  (In fact, arguably, such  
a belief might be LESS probabilistically preposterous than  a belief  
in any given deity.)


jb