As I’ve mentioned in this blog, when people associate with a point of view, they begin to lose objectivity. For example, if you were President of the Unicorn Association of America, and spent your days explaining how wonderful unicorns are, you would become married to that viewpoint. If 400 peer-reviewed scientific articles suddenly appeared indicating that all unicorns are pedophiles, you would be unable to accept that evidence. That’s how normal human brains work, i.e., crappily.
Check out an angry atheist’s response to my two posts on Pascal’s Wager. I don’t think he appreciates the philosotainment benefit of watching the Dilbert cartoonist whip people like him into a frenzy.
For your amusement, I will now stir this fellow into an even frothier foam of cognitive dissonance. I’m certain someone will point him to this post and we can observe the results of the experiment.
First, I will make an argument on such a simple level no rational person could disagree. Then we will watch him disagree.
1. It is common for humans to be 100% certain of a particular fact, and later find out it is wrong.
2. Therefore, it is irrational for you, a human, to be 100% certain on any particular topic.
3. Agnostics believe humans are not equipped to be certain about truth. That is rational, and backed by all the peer reviewed science.
4. Atheists come in two flavors.
5. One type of atheist is 100% sure there is no God. That is not rational because humans can sometimes be mistaken, and things can exist for which no evidence has yet been found.
6. The other type of atheist, the so-called weak form, believes that the lack of good evidence for God provides no reason for belief. That is rational. Agnostics who understand science believe the same thing.
7. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference between an agnostic who understands science and a weak atheist who understands science. Neither believes the case for God has been made, and both accept the peer reviewed science showing the fragility of the human mind for knowing “truth.”
The phrase “weak atheist” is apparently nothing but a weasel self-label for agnostics who have picked a side and don’t want to be seen as giving any opening to religion. It is politics disguised as philosophy.
Now let’s sit back and see how long it takes my atheist friend to figure out what philosotainment is.
[Update: The Angry Atheist jumped on this post like a hobo on a ham sandwich. See his response at the end of the link I provided above, and his comments to the comments in his own site. If you have been following The Dilbert Blog, and know the evil that is me, the following three words will make you laugh: "Dance, monkey, dance!"]