Subject:
|
Re: The meaning of Christmas (was Re: Christmas Train update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:07:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
696 times
|
| |
|
|
> > (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!
>
> I don't believe that Atheism acknowledges the possibility of a god. That
> would be Agnosticism. At least my particular brand of Atheism doesn't.
> Any mention of the possibility of the existence of a being more perfect
> than any other by me has been purely as a rhetorical device to further
> an argument, not as a real possibility.
And I thereby prove my point! (Or so I think.....). You sternly state
a disbelief in a god, or a being more perfect than yourself. (Perhaps
less imperfect might be a more useful term here, lest someone thinks this
is an attack on you personally. And perfection is such an individually
interprative term, anyway). Be it due to a lack of empirical evidence,
an affront to your rationality, whatever, by stating you disbelieve in
such a being, you are actually acknowledging the possibility by advocating
the impossibility.........
One might just be arguing the definitions of agnosticism and atheism....
Sadly, I lack your eloquence and vastly more broad knowledge to make my
point clear. (No, I am not being sarcastic, fellow LUGnet readers, a
fact. Larry is an extremely well-read, intelligent individual, against
whom I find myself severely disadvantaged in any debate).
Perhaps a more useful route might be to determine the meaning of what
is a god? It is a religion's defenition to define it's god as a perfect
being.
I disagree with that for a start.....I would prefer to consider a god to
be a being more vastly more superior than myself.....it is upon this premise
that my
arguments are made. Using this, can you then state disbelief
in a being that is more superior to yourself? Should a state of disbelief
continue to persist, at least appreciate why some may revere such a being
as a god? I am not sure where I am going with this........forget about it.
Anyway, when I was trying to disprove Descartes assertions, found myself
actually supporting the existence of *a* being of some sort, be it a god,
or in some way supportive of animism.....
For the record, I am an atheist with regards to that god as presented to
me by the collective Christian/Jewish/Islamic faiths. The doctrine of
those religions seem to contradict the assertions of a benevolent god.
The subservience as demanded by those faiths, yet the notion that slavery
is evil, there are so many more examples..... The supression of
free-thought,
the slaughter commited in the name of that god, the hypocrisy with which
said same slaughter is justified....... These faiths also seem to regard
free-thinking debate regarding the interpretation of any examples,
doctrines,
etc. as heresy. I cannot just sit back and accept their interpretations! I
must be free to draw my own conclusions! (As I write this, I am cut-off, and
unable to go and see my grandfather, riddled with cancer, in phenomenal
pain, probably days to live, being admitted to hospital to probably suffer
his last few days on this earth.....here I sit debating the existence of a
god that should permit such inhumane suffering........I would probably
throttle any individual that would suggest that He would be testing his
faith, as is the Church's usual excuse/explanation).
I am agnostic in that I believe in the *possibility* of a being/s more
superior,
that could be interpreted as a "god." The existence of some form of religion
in every known culture helps support that, using Descartes' own examples as
to why God exists!
>
> I am quite satisified that the impossibility of a god existing has been
> proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. And most(1) theists agree. After
> all, they state that one must put aside logic and take things on faith,
> that their god admits of no logical analysis.
>
> 1 - but not Descartes, of course.
> --
> Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
