Re: virus: Saints re:blind atheism
Marie Foster (mfos@ieway.com)
Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:00:52 -0800
JakeHarvey@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-12-03 11:21:24 EST, Kvan writes:
>
> << Blind atheists are much worse than blind theists, precisely because they
> defend their position the way they do (usually with more-or-less vague
> references to scientific proof); yet they hypocritically refuse to employ
> the very tools they claim to base their understanding on when confronted
> with a statement not their liking, resorting instead to the kind of
> rejection they argue against. Such people deserve no respect.>>
>
> As an agnostic/atheist I must say "amen" to that. The most annoying example
> I can think of are atheists that claim that atheism holds some sort of
> privileged "default" position. Hence the shifting the burden of proof
> irrevocably on to all non-atheists. I think there are no necessary default
> positions on these matters. Although I may reject a thousand out of a
> thousand attempts to prove a thousand different deity/religious concepts, I
> still can only characterize my position as a belief rather than actual
> knowlege. To conclude that it is some type "default position" is lazy and
> closed minded.
>
> -Jake
And thank YOU Jake. Sometimes I think that taking on this issue is just
the same as trying to get through those fundamental Paulist types. The
*logical* chain used seems persuasive on the surface. But doubt and
hope are at the heart of it all. I want this to be a search for
reason. Not just a way to turn them to *our side*. There are no
sides. Let us hope that each human being will be able to see whatever
search they are involved in as more worthwhile than arriving.
Marie