On 1/19/2014 5:20 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>
>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>
> I actually find it pretty easy:
>
>
> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
> sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
> be, it may be wrong.
>

> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
> to anyone else.
>

> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
> to be.
>

> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by

>

> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits

>
>
> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.
>

The problem, of course, is that the ones believing in supreme beings 
then tend to use that as justification for believing other vastly 
stupider things, and then imposing those things on other people. It this 
was avoidable, that would be one thing, but.. try being a woman, in a 
**huge**, and growing number, of US hospitals, who is in need to 
emergency services, to save her life, which the Catholic church doesn't 
like (i.e., anything that might threaten the life of an unborn child, 
even, stupidly, a non-viable one). If she is lucky, they ship her off to 
some place that will help, presuming there still is one, which the 
church hasn't bought out, and assuming she doesn't bleed to death, die 
of sepsis, or otherwise fail to make it to the other hospital in time.

There are consequences to other people's ideas, and, more to the point, 
if they are wrong about them. Sometimes, those consequences are not just 
that you have to listen to some fools talk about whether or not heaven 
has good Mexican food, from a nearby table. My "ethics", at least, imply 
that other people matter, and that magical thinking both a) doesn't tend 
to help people, b) often causes direct or indirect harm, c) its victim 
may be someone I know, and d), the inability to come to rational 
conclusions is rarely, if ever, exclusive to one single category of 
absurdities. Hence, the fact that a discussion about the 
existence/non-existence of a god **will not stop** before it gets into 
whether or not said god thinks its better to, say, infect millions of 
people with AIDS, rather than prevent a few pregnancies.

That it could be something as mild as whether or not, in complete 
contradiction to history, and reality, god "wants" baby boys to wear 
blue, and girls to wear pink. But.. if believing gets you to jump to a 
nonsense conclusion about the "truth" of that idea, what much worse 
things can they talk themselves into thinking are true, based on a game 
of, "What if this real god wants...."?

This is also why atheism devoid of critical thinking is, a bit of a 
problem itself. If you don't reach a logical conclusion via logic, there 
isn't going to be much to stop you from changing your mind, and reaching 
the dead opposite conclusion for just as illogical, poorly thought out, 
and invalid, reasons.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message