That’s what certain religious people do. Not atheists. [More]I'd argue that fanatical certainty that there is no God based on our limited dataset and capacity as observers simply cannot be definitive. I'd think an honest doubter who perceives inconsistencies within religious claims and between them with testable reality would call himself an agnostic.
There's a huge difference.
I do agree with one point though -- F' 'em if they can't take a Papist smear. As long as Northam has the power to stack the deck and Virginia taxpayers are willing to forget their state motto and be fleeced to promulgate rabble-rousing subversives like the Council of Women, she did nothing that should not be First Amendment-protected. I say the more radically offensive, the more unintended consequences we'll have to exploit.
[Via Mack H]
3 comments:
Think about this: If there is no God, there's is no Natural Law. There are no God-Given rights from our Creator.
That clears the deck for Man-made law to become the exclusive law for serfs.
That's by design.
“…agnosticism is not an independent position or a middle way between theism and atheism, because it classifies according to different criteria. Theism and atheism separate those who believe in a god from those who do not. Agnosticism separates those who believe that reason cannot penetrate the supernatural realm from those who defend the capability of reason to affirm or deny the truth of theistic belief…
"Agnosticism is commonly used as a refuge for those who wish to escape the stigma of atheism, and its vagueness has earned it the status of an intellectually respectable form of dissent from religion. In many cases, however, the term “agnostic” is misapplied.
"Agnosticism … is not a third alternative or a halfway house between theism and atheism. Instead, it is a variation of either theism or atheism. The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god—and, in so doing, he commits himself to theism or he commits himself to atheism. But he does commit himself. Agnosticism is not the escape clause that it is commonly thought to be.”
— George H. Smith – ATHEISM: The Case Against God
As for the argument that if there is no god, there is no “natural law,” arguing either in a courtroom will get you just abour as far, which is to say, nowhere.
One is an admission that one does not know. The other is an assertion with certitude, oftentimes made obnoxiously.
The assertion "The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god..." is wrong. Why must he? Because George H. Smith says so? Why can't he just say "I don't know"?
Post a Comment