So, for all you semantic experts here, what would you call someone who must admit (as any scientist must) that it is impossible by definition to disprove the existance of an omnipotent entity and thus can not have any certainty in atheism per-se but considers Christianity in its modern state (or indeed any religion based upon any version of the bible I am aware of) to be completely morally reprehensible?
Plenty of minorities have forced their beliefs on others. The Bolsheviks, South African whites, the Taliban, lots of minorities.
No, scrump, raw numbers define majority vs. minority.
I feel like I'm in third grade.
It can do truth no service to blind the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected the Christian faith.
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [" Agnosticism," 1889]
Of course, this is Mefi. Anything post remotely related to religion stands a good chance of becoming tributary to the ongoing meta-discussion: Does God Exist.
« Older Underground Bases | a comedy about unintended consequences Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments