cicerone imposter wrote:
Are you proposing that atheists don't have any emotion?
You are being silly. Clearly, we atheists merely have an entirely different set of lies we tell ourselves v. those religious fallacies...
It seems to me (i can't speak for him, of course), that in his post, Cyr is talking about "experienced reality" in contrast to variant sources for "explanations of
reality". (Of course, "reality" should probably be put in about three rows of parentheses.) Science represents an intellectual approach to that explanation, and religion an emotional stance. i'm not certain that i quite agree with that position, because I think that both science and religion are made up of equal parts emotion and intellect.
But if science were to stand for intellect, and religion for emotion, anyone who sought an explanation for their perceptions would seem to have to access both sides of the proposed mental coin to attempt to see the matter whole. And thus, the satisfaction of curiosity might seek two different sources, and two explanations.
Now, of course, that is not to say that a person committed to religion might not be intellectually rigorous, nor that a scientist is necessarily emotionally stunted -- merely that some combination between those two hypothetical extremes is not therefore biased one way or the other.
In the meantime, and this is me saying this and not Cyracuz, of course, let's not pretend that atheists do not feed ourselves a whole lot of easy and unreliable half-truths to make our speculations easier to digest. i am not a believer, in any conventional sense, but i know that my own approach to "reality" or "truth" is not terribly more reliable than a religious scientist.
...Okay, it's a little more more reliable -- but it's a difference of degree not of kind, and i want to respect (what i'd like to think of as) my peers. If only because it makes life easier where i live...in the South USA.
Booooo...low education standards...boo...