Stumble This | You should also watch “Richard Dawkins on the Darwin awards, Douglas Adams, & more” |
This is a reading of a text by Douglas Adams called "Radical Atheism". It's read by Simon Jones, who played Arthur Dent in the original HHGTG radio and TV series. (It's 9:48, not quite 10, but it's long.)
The true meat of the matter is religion, for religion is what atheists really dislike, not god, for he does not exist. If Atheists just remembered that, they wouldn't have to slander good agnostics with petty jibes about their lack of absolute confidence.
Atheists, nontheists, whatever you want to call them, merely take that to the next logical step...to God, Allah, whatever.
Agnosticism merely acknowledges that we do not know "god" (a loaded term if there ever was one) in any way, and that it may in fact be unknowable, which all evidence supports. Dawkins examples (teapot orbiting the sun, easter bunny atheists etc) are glib, contrived arguments that do not illuminate or inform anyone, and completely ignore the meat of the issue.
Agnosticism is a philosophy that recognises that we do not know God, whatever it is, and we may well never know it. It may exist, or not. We stop short at declaring knowledge of god. We still seek truth, cast a jaundiced eye at proclomations of faith, and rely on the best available evidence. We just don't cast aspersions about like Dawkins or Adams.
Why do some atheists insist on abusing Agnostics, who are NOT the problem? How many died in the last great Agnostic purge? We merely nod and let the Dawkinses and Haggards of the world scream and shout about how they know, without doubt, that their counterparts are wrong. They have been convinced. I still refrain to take that final step, and allow myself the soothing caress of knowing, for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt that I am absolutely correct.
Now if there was some money to be made, I might be convinced to gather some militant agnostics and bust some heads up in the joint at oxford, then the Haj, and maybe later the vatican and some temples in india.
P.S. Please be aware that my disapproval of parts atheist rhetoric is not in any way a denial of scientific fact or approval of any religious thought.
Shit, I almost forgot to bust heads up in Nauvooooooo and Salt Lake shitty.
I didn't follow this sentence... correct in-as-much as you have decided to not yet answered the question, obscenesimian?
The point you're making is valid, but agnosticism is the non-commital religion, so you can't blame either side for trying to pitch their reasons for faith or their commitment solely to logical explanations.
Oh, and Budzos, a person's faith is an awkward thing to judge their intelligence or their personality on. Many people are perfectly content in unconsciously establishing multiple paradigms in their life, one associated with faith in which they believe things that need not be proven and the other in which they critically analyze the world around them. Having faith in something that is unprovable does not mean you can't be a skeptic.
... I'm very unconvinced that there are no good things associated with faith, and I'm not limiting this to social things like singing and holding hands with your neighbors.
"I didn't follow this sentence...correct in-as-much as you have decided to not yet answered the question, obscenesimian?"
I guess I should have left out the "beyond a resonable doubt" part. I am not a big fan of absolutes. I do not have the capacity to make absolute and factual statements on the nature of gods existence due to lack of evidence. Others do. They are certain, but cannot prove anything. This is a problem on both sides, although it is obviously a greater danger on the side of the religious. I think it is more of an academic problem on the side of the Atheists, as they are not likely to kill anyone for a philisophical difference.
"The point you're making is valid, but agnosticism is the non-commital religion, so you can't blame either side "
1. Agnosticism is not a religion.
2. Yes, I can blame either side. Your argument is an appeal to authority, and it is a logical fallacy. Being agnostic does not invalidate my arguments in regard to religion or atheism. As an example of this same fallacy, one only needs to look to those who claim that those who have not served in the armed forces are not qualified to argue against the war in Iraq.
To me, atheism is about not believing in any supernatural gods, where agnosticism is more about reserving the judgment that we can never really prove the existence/nonexistence of anything. Except maybe logically impossible things like squared circles, etc.
In essence, I think people have to remain technically agnostic on the question of a god’s existence. However, the major thrust of being an atheist is based on evidence and probability. Both of which are very small.