tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24043269.post3844832122299043930..comments2021-12-09T06:06:53.284+02:00Comments on Botswana Skeptic: Don-Martin Takudzwa Whande's response - MmegiRichard Harrimanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14675644434561760118noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24043269.post-8459364873962409772010-02-20T01:38:57.364+02:002010-02-20T01:38:57.364+02:00Don-Martin, discussions with Atheists could not le...Don-Martin, discussions with Atheists could not lead to a "holy war"; Atheists have no gods; they have no-one and no cause to wage war for. That is the prerogative of the faithful.<br />Some atheists say "there is no God", but not all. Some say "there is no evidence that god(s) exists". A subtle, but important difference. Others say "the god that you believe in is impossible" - e.g. he cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. You may know this already, your article is however limited to considering only the first statement.<br />You cannot simply assert that an absence of a belief in a god "automatically means that life has no meaning". Does life have to have some external purpose in order to have meaning? If it only has meaning because a god has a purpose for us, what then is the purpose of God? Does another higher god have a purpose for him, or is he just meaningless? There's nothing automatic at all. If you want to make this claim, you need to back it up.<br />You also cannot assert that an absence of a belief in a god means that "everything is permissible because there are no laws and therefore no one is accountable to anyone". Humans are quite capable of making laws and agreeing on morality without divine intervention; politicians all over the world do so daily. It will not do to claim that a god or your god is behind that since some or most of those politicians either believe in other gods or no gods at all. Yes there are laws because there are law givers - and the law-givers are politicians. Human politicians. No gods required.<br />C.S. Lewis was an "atheist" in his adolescence. No surprise there, most kids are. He wasn't one-of-them that became one-of-us whilst an adult as you seem to be hinting. It’s irrelevant other than a mere "appeal to authority". By the way, he died in 1963; read about him on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cs_lewis. <br /><br />Your argument regarding the trap that atheists "fall into" by not having something to compare to, makes no sense at all. We have many examples of what we consider to be just and unjust behavior right here on Earth. Are you saying the religious have privileged access to an alternate universe that allows them to compare and evaluate this one?<br />Atheists are not "afraid of coming out". Even if they are not "coming out" in sufficient numbers to suit you, does not mean that they are unsure of their views. You presume too much. Some of us, as I have myself at times, simply learned that it is a largely tedious exercise to engage with religious folk who want to share their views but definitely don't want you to share yours.<br />They also cannot "profess their faith" since they have none. I know some would like to say that atheism is a faith since they don't have absolute knowledge (no-one does). But that is just twisting words like claiming that a person who does not play sports is somehow a sportsman. <br />You seem to have some issue with homosexuals (no surprises there), and its a cheap shot to try and tar atheism with the same brush.<br /><br />As soon as someone uses the phrase "with all due respect", one should expect a statement to follow which is nothing but lacking in respect. You did not fail in that expectation. To claim that only the religious can understand and interpret the Bible is arrogant. It is because atheists can understand and interpret the Bible that they can reject it and not believe in it. There is no contradiction between understanding the Bible and not believing it. People read and understand fairy tales and fiction but don't believe in them. <br />Just because you are "utterly convinced" does not mean that others who do not share your conviction are lacking in understanding and are just pretending. <br />Your Setswana example is woefully inadequate. A proper analogy is; on hearing Setswana and being able to interpret it, does it necessarily follow that what the Tswana is saying is the truth?Peter Brandnoreply@blogger.com