that is not to say you shouldnt debate on the harmful impacts of blind faith, religous fervour and miseducation etc.Since these are more pointful debates, something with no basis in fact,which isnt even worth considering (the existance or nonexistance of a divine being) should have NO IMPACT on decisions made in secular socieities;since none can be shown to be correct, no single creed should be forced on anyone, people must be free to choose,and presented with as much opensource data as possible
Its wrong to label agnostics as giving equal credance to both sides. That is not the stance at all, it is merely that since it can not be proven EITHER WAY the time you spend debating back and forth is really just pointless. 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is noone there to hear it, does it make a sound?' <- its similar to the philosophical point raised in this famous question. An hypohtosis which can never be debunked isn't worth considering,a.k.a. 'the exception that proves the rule'
that is not to say you shouldnt debate on the harmful impacts of blind faith, religous fervour and miseducation etc.Since these are more pointful debates, something with no basis in fact,which isnt even worth considering (the existance or nonexistance of a divine being) should have NO IMPACT on decisions made in secular socieities;since none can be shown to be correct, no single creed should be forced on anyone, people must be free to choose,and presented with as much opensource data as possible
IMQuazimodo 1 year ago
Its wrong to label agnostics as giving equal credance to both sides. That is not the stance at all, it is merely that since it can not be proven EITHER WAY the time you spend debating back and forth is really just pointless. 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is noone there to hear it, does it make a sound?' <- its similar to the philosophical point raised in this famous question. An hypohtosis which can never be debunked isn't worth considering,a.k.a. 'the exception that proves the rule'
IMQuazimodo 1 year ago