Subject:
|
Re: The meaning of Christmas (was Re: Christmas Train update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:32:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
670 times
|
| |
|
|
Try Hindus or Buddists,
> at least they believe in something :-)
Buddhists are atheists, actually.
Assuming a single, omnipotent being.....
All religion has one root, from which stems
numerous flavours. Too many similarities exist
amongst all beliefs (and lack of, as appropriate!)
to argue any being more true, or superior, than
another. Whether a religion be atheist, monotheist,
polytheist, or animist, all have a belief structure,
creation/Armageddon theories/myths, etc. It can
be derived that such a being, will have presented
him/it/her/them self/ves to which ever culture in
whichever fashion capable of comprehension by said
culture. Advance of said culture, both philosophically,
morally, technologically, etc. has a correspondent
advance in religious advancement.
Though this theory does fall apart a bit, when religions
consolidated their structures by the year 1000, with the
exception of the circa 1500 religious rebellions that
started in Europe.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that should there be
a supreme being, one that does truly rule over all, would
it not be correct to assume that should such a being be
benevolent, that such a being would make its presence
known in a fashion such as to be comprehensible to the
culture to which it introduces itself? Be it as a god,
many gods, spirits, shower of gold, whatever? Would that
then make any religious bickering pointless, as an
individual or culture, worships, acknowledges said same
being in their own way? (1)
(1)Using this theory.....atheism itself can be considered
to be a god in itself. Atheism suggests an acknowledgement
of the possibility of a god, but the practitioner should
choose to not believe in the existence of. Therefor the
god manifests itself in the form of disbelief!
This was a quick rehash of an argument had in a High School
philosophy class, whereby I had attempted to disprove the
method by which Rene Descartes "proved" the existence of God.
My argument, regrettably had the opposite effect, by reaffirming
it. However, being agnostic, and empiricist........
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
