Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[MMI]

I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.

[Thorne]

I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

[leo9]

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

Can you prove that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are wrong? I think not!

Bertrand Russell was confronted with the argument that since he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, he must accept that he does. Russell said "I assert that orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter is a small purple teapot. Since you can't prove that teapot doesn't exist, you must by your logic accept that it does."

My own response is, "Which God?" I'll accept that I can't disprove the existence of your god, if you accept that you can't disprove the existence of mine. And there are more of mine

[Thorne]

Can you prove that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are wrong? I think not!

Precisely! Believers in TFSM have just as much right to their beliefs as anyone else, regardless of how silly they may seem to us. But wouldn't we be surprised if it popped up tomorrow?

That being said, respecting someone's beliefs does not, in and of itself, imply a respect of the practice of those beliefs. Especially when those beliefs are used to justify harming other people. Nearly all religions have, at one point or another, used that religion to justify the torture and murder of non-believers (Christianity being probably the most notorious.)

So believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fine, just don't go around sprinkling everyone you meet with spaghetti sauce!

Bertrand Russell was confronted with the argument that since he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, he must accept that he does. Russell said "I assert that orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter is a small purple teapot. Since you can't prove that teapot doesn't exist, you must by your logic accept that it does."

I agree with him. That was faulty logic. The absence of 'A' does not prove the presence of 'B'. And the absence of 'A' does not prove the non-existence of 'A', either. Or the non-existence of 'B'.

[leo9]

Nearly all religions have, at one point or another, used that religion to justify the torture and murder of non-believers

Arthur Clarke used to tell anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war. Then the Buddhists of Sri Lanka started massacring their Hindu neighbours. I sometimes wonder if that was what killed him.

But given the record of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and China, one certainly can't claim that atheists have never been guilty of religious war. And given the pogroms against the early Xians in Rome, we Pagans aren't guiltess either...

(I suddenly remember Pratchett's "all-purpose warcry", "Remember the atrocities committed against us last time which will justify the atrocities we're about to commit!")

[Thorne]

But given the record of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and China, one certainly can't claim that atheists have never been guilty of religious war. And given the pogroms against the early Xians in Rome, we Pagans aren't guiltess either...

It was never my intention to imply that. The unfaithful are just as cruel and depraved as the faithful. They just don't use religion to justify it.

[leo9]

It was never my intention to imply that. The unfaithful are just as cruel and depraved as the faithful. They just don't use religion to justify it.

Though on second thought, it's a moot point whether communists can be called non-believers.

To paraphrase Clarke, any sufficiently fanatical ideology is indistinguishable from religion.