From: attila <attila@hun.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:31:20 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199809202202.RAA14798@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980921142713.397R-100000@hun.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----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-----