On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:33:47 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:
Strabo wrote:
"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.
You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).
I'm almost embarrassed to waste even a minute on this; but...
The idea that an atheist (or anybody else) needs to "prove" some
kind of non-existence is one of the most ridiculous and destructive
non-ideas that's ever polluted human minds.
Proof is affirmative. It only works on things that actually do
exist. To attempt to twist it around and prove a negative - ANY
negative, is to admit that you don't have a clue about what proof is,
about how logic works, or about which end of you is your head and which
is your ass.
Here's a simple test: Can you prove that there's not a 16 foot
tall, purple, fire breathing dragon standing right behind you, right
this minute, about to bite your ass off? No, you can't. Looking behind
you doen't work. The dragon might have moved as you turned your head.
Or it might be an invisible dragon. Reaching out to feel around for it
won't work, either. Dragons are very quick and clever. (Prove that
they're not!) Did you look all over the room, under the desk, and
behind the file cabinet? That's not proof of anything. It only means
that you didn't find the dragon. It doesn't prove anything about
whether the dragon actually exists.
You say you're still alive, so there must not be any real danger?
Not yet. But what about thirty seconds from now? Nobody else you know
has ever seen a dragon? That only means you're hanging around with
reallly unobservant people.
Try all you like, twist yourself into knots. You can't PROVE that
the dragon isn't there. Not in the true sense of a proof. All you can
do is hope that there's no dragon, for the moment.
Here's a better example. I accuse you of committing a horible
crime. Can you prove that you didn't? No, don't ask what crime I'm
talking about. I think you know. Can you prove that you don't? No,
I'm not going to tell you when the crime was committed, or who the
victim was. I'm sure you already know all that, and you can't prove the
non-existence of such knowledge. And, if you want non-existence to be
proveable, then the burden of proof is on you, since you CLAIM you don't
know what I'm talking about, and that you didn't do anything wrong.
Want to know how important it is to understand the true meaning of
proof, and the reason WHY non-existence should NEVER be required to
prove itself? It's because if we thought any other way, you'd be guilty
until proven innocent - every single time anybody accused you of anything.
Like most brain-lazy people, you accept the vitally important,
life-saving protections earned for you by people who actually USE their
minds; but you don't bother to care how or why they protect you, or what
would happen to you if they didn't.
If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of gods, then be
prepared for someone, someday, to ask you to prove your innnocence in a
crime you've never heard of. You'll deserve that, and all that follows.
You asked for it.
Rational people understand that emotions, beliefs, and even
superstitions, are a part of human life. We live with them. But when
you start pretending that you know the rules about what we can or can't
believe, or start imagining that your own beliefs are somehow special or
priviledged, and that you have scientific or logical justification for
your self-deception, then you deserve to have your ass bitten off by
dragons.
You can believe whatever myths and stories you like; but don't
pretend that you're doing anything else, unless you're prepared to learn
what "proof" really is, and how it works, and then to use it to prove
the existence of superghosts in the sky.
KG
Some might "argue" ....
--
Cliff
|