Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: PvM <>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 11:47:34 EDT

This kind of logic leads to a simple conclusion: The Spaghetti
Monster, the flying teacup and fairies exist, after all, those
a-fairyists have a faith which "is the least rational of all choices
because that assumes that you know enough to assume the possibility of
fairies" and surely reject a perfectly good idea...

Collins' argument seems illogical to say the least, especially when
applied to any other 'entity', such as Thor, Zeus, the flying
spaghetti monster etc.

As Dawkins so aptly observes

<quote>A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
about both, to the same small extent. Russell's teapot, of course,
stands for an infinite number of
things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved.</quote>

You think atheists are a nuisance? Just imagine those a-fairyists....


On 5/1/07, Janice Matchett <> wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 5/1/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
> Whenever anyone -- even an atheist -- says anything, he is presupposing a
> universe in which a thing called "truth" may be encoded and passed from mind
> to mind through a medium called language. These are huge presuppositions,
> and only serve to re-emphasize the crudity of the atheist mind. Unless an
> atheist is an abject nihilist, then he doesn't have the courage of his
> absence of convictions. ~ Janice
> Not to defend atheists, but is this really a fair characterization? I'm not
> so sure. Many atheists are pragmatists. They don't presume that they
> necessarily have access to universal truth or that their atheism is true in
> an "absolute" sense. They simply argue that, given what the human mind is
> capable of knowing, and given the limits of human language, atheism is the
> only epistemically justifiable alternative..."
> @ Francis Collins: "I would argue that atheism is the least rational of all
> choices because that assumes that you know enough to assume the possibility
> of God [in the first place]"
> ~ Janice ... More:

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 1 11:48:38 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 11:48:38 EDT