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

[Petro <petro@playboy.com>]

At 6:48 PM -0500 9/21/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:18:28 +0000 (GMT)
>> From: attila <attila@hun.org>
>> Subject: Re: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
>
>>       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?
>
>So, what has the issue of defining something got to do with its existance?
>Is this bozo really claiming that God can only exist unless somebody thinks
>him up? Sounds like religous hubris to me...
>God was shinning on this asshole that he never had to argue face to face
>with me at that age...

	Basically he is saying you can't deny the existence of something if
you don't know what it is.

	God is a label on a definition. Change the definition, and you
could conceivably change wheter "God" falls into the "Exists", "Doesn't
Exist", or
"I donno" state.

>>       counselor:  is there a difference between belief and faith?
>The spelling.

>>       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.
>Agnosticism has *nothing* to do with scientific proof. It existed eons
>before anyone even thought of the scientific method. Skepticism is a part of
>human nature, not philosophy, beliefs, or science.
>Atheism is saying that while God could exist he doesn't. In other words it
>is the belief that God doesn't exist and can't be proven contrary. There is
>a fundamental belief that all proofs are flawed.

	There are some atheists who would argue that in this universe, God
(capital G, the Creator, Omni*, all good, Long white beard & sandals, god
of ...) could NOT exist.

>Agnosticism is the inability to believe one way or the other. It could be

	Or simply indecesion.

>> 		  suppose you die, and despite your lack of belief or
>> 		  faith, you find yourself before the throne of God.
>My own personal suspicion is he's going to ask you whether you lived your
>beliefs even in the face of overwhelming opposition. As long as you say
>"Yes" he's going to be a happy camper.
>To borrow a Christian icon, he's going to want to know if you worshiped
>false idols.

	He? Talk about hubris...

	Personally, I'm not an atheist any more, I'm a apathist. I don't
care whether God exists, or even what his characteristics are. I care how
whether each and every individual that affects my life acts responsibly and
fairly. Other than that, I could give a shit.

--
Five seconds later, I'm getting the upside of 15Kv across the nipples.
(These ambulance guys sure know how to party).
The Ideal we strive for: http://www.iinet.net.au/~bofh/bofh/bofh11.html
No, I don't speak for playboy, They wouldn't like that. They really wouldn't.