In Reply to: pardon me posted by Acheick on February 19, 2006 at 16:00:12:
Perhaps it is diabolically clever. I prefer to see it as rational.
If you recall, my comments (or line of reasoning) to which you strongly object were prompted by OT2's post in which he said, "Atheism is an anti-God religion. It claims, thatit is to be considered THE system epistemologically encompassing all reality, are fatuous and silly."
In my personal experience I have not seen atheism (or atheists rather, as atheism is merely the absence of belief in God or gods) claiming that it is to be considered THE system epistemologically encompassing all reality.
Such a statement, in my book, smacks of evangelism, regardless of whether it is theist or atheist.
By believing in something 100%, one completely rules out any and all possibility of being wrong and this is known as fanaticism, and as such calls into suspicion the frame of reference from which one derives his/her belief set.
For example: I believe in eating right and taking care of my body. I also believe in taking nutritional supplements. Everything that I have read and studied along these lines points to the correctness of my thinking. My belief set allows me to promote these actions 100% in my life and they work for me.
But I am also aware of the fact that humanity's knowledge base is continually growing and I leave myself open to the fact that further research may show that certain properties that I have been ingesting do not belong in my body the way I believed them to.
To close myself off to possibilities outside the realm of my own belief set, closes me off to further growth.
The question is: Do I want to be right or do I want to be healthy?
Although the analogy I have used is a physical one, fundamentally, this is the difference between belief and fanaticism.