But until someone tells us the objective test to distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary and the non-existent, we have no concept of what 'immaterial' might mean.
Which is really nobody's problem but yours. Most of us have a mind that is comfortable with unmeasurable concepts, and things we may not be able to demonstrate with objective tests. There is no objective test for emotional states, as an example, but the ability to recognize and deal with subtle differences in emotional states is critical to our survival as humans. Indeed critical to the survival of most higher animals.
Shall we not consider the emotional state of our neighbors just because Blü can't measure them? I don't know about you Kemo sabe but Palin appears to me to hate atheists. Perhaps we better do something even though we have no objective test to distinguish this hate from the imaginary or non-existent."
2 comments:
I believe that there is not so much hate for individual atheists as there is fear for a potential loss of the imagined connection to God. There is an innate understanding by the average theist that some of the elements of faith might be irrational and are likely sharing a place of near equality with some very old superstitions; there is also the requirement that faith be somehow "rationalized" in order to incorporate it in one's life. When one in this tenuous balance confronts someone who demands rational explanations for beliefs, they are scared that their rationalizations for their faith will "not hold up" and will wither.
Unfortunately, hate is an important tenet of Christian™ denominations. Unfortunately for us, hating blacks and homosexuals is no longer politically acceptable, and about the only thing left to hate is the godless commie atheists. If you think the McCarthy era was tough on atheists, just wait until Rove gets his third term. All it will take is one more Supreme Court Justice and religious freedom, at least freedom from religion, will be a fond memory.
Post a Comment