RE: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)

["Kurt Buff" <kurtbuff@halcyon.com>]

Kropotkin said, long ago, something on the order of: "If there were a God,
we should assasinate him." That is what I would call a strong atheist
statement.

I (as a militant atheist) merely say that if you can define your God, I can
probably prove he doesn't exist. Unless, of course, your definition is so
broad as to have no meaning in the first place.

| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| Hash: SHA1
|
| On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote:
|
| >Forwarded message:
| >
| >> From: pjm@spe.com
| >> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200
| >> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
| >>
|    [snip]
|
| >No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but
| doesn't". Whether
| >one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant.
| We aren't
| >discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly
| *ALL* atheism
| >states:
| >
| >While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does.
| >
| >Which is identical in meaning to:
| >
| >While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.
| >
| >>      Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the
| weak atheist
| >> position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not
| constitute
| >> a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a
| >> religion.  The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do
| >> not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so
| does constitute
| >> a belief.
| >
| >Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and
| read a book on
| >basic logic.
| >
|     agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_.
|
|     however, an interesting premise I posited to my 14 year old son
|     who had gone through his scientific awareness state and
|     consequently declared himself an "aethist". at the time he was in
|     a boarding school and we were in conversation with the chief
|     counselor who happened to be a member of an LDS bishopric:
|
|       kid:	  yes, an aethist.
|
|       father:	  so... you "deny" God's existence since their is no
|       		  "proof" of His existence. did you
| ever consider that in
|       		  order to "deny" anything, you must
| have defined that
|       		  concept?  in other words, to deny
| God, you must have
|       		  determined that I or someone else has
| defined God in
|       		  order for you to be able to "deny" God?
|       ...
|       counselor:  is there a difference between belief and faith?
|
|       ...
|       father:	  aethism is a concept which is almost impossible to
|       		  define as it is a denial that if it
| could it doesnt.
|       		  it is much easier to defend
| "agnosticism" where you
|       		  admit you do not believe, or have
| faith, because you
|       		  lack sufficient scientific proof.
| aethism is not
|      		  doubting, it is denying, even in the face of proof.
|
|       		  consider this in terms of both belief
| and faith:
|
| 		  suppose you die, and despite your lack of belief or
| 		  faith, you find yourself before the throne of God.
|
| 		  as your awareness returns, you look up and the image
| 		  of God is the image of an orangutan --now what are
| 		  you going to do?
|
|     without missing a heartbeat:
|
|       counselor:  I think you better get down on your knees and pray!
|
|     I seriously thought I would face an LDS disciplinary council for
|     that spontaneous off-the-wall comment. I didn't, but I have rocked
|     more than a few boats. and, it does point out the extent to which
|     belief is based on faith. to the literalists who point to Genesis
|     and "God created man in his own image" I always suggest that God
|     in the process could have refined homo sapiens over the years and
|     the original creation may have been significantly more endowed
|     with hair; secondly, God can appear to man in any form He chooses:
|     the burning bush, the blinding light to Saul, etc.
|
|     however, stating beliefs and disbeliefs is fine; trying
| to convince
|     another whose beliefs or disbeliefs are securely anchored
| in whatever
|     they believe as truth, is futile. I will accept, without trying to
|     change, anyone's "religious" beliefs as their beliefs; I only ask
|     they extend the same tolerance to me.
|
| 	attila out...
|
| >
|     [snip]
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
| Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
| Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be.
| Charset: noconv
|
| iQA/AwUBNgZuCj7vNMDa3ztrEQLR7gCg7cqx1bA29pe+fBCb7DcyPundpGsAn39U
| hhEHvCh4fgriwDbOO/QbTdn3
| =gsVI
| -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|