1998-09-23 - RE:

Header Data

From: “Kurt Buff” <kurtbuff@halcyon.com>
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: bede8d785b11ee63a4db411beff3ed3d89a846800bc08542e46fc8f9d522fb38
Message ID: <000f01bde75a$e2c9a2a0$1b01010a@boar.minuteman.org>
Reply To: <199809230415.GAA08863@replay.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-23 12:43:38 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:43:38 +0800

Raw message

From: "Kurt Buff" <kurtbuff@halcyon.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:43:38 +0800
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE:
In-Reply-To: <199809230415.GAA08863@replay.com>
Message-ID: <000f01bde75a$e2c9a2a0$1b01010a@boar.minuteman.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Well, yes, there *is* a problem in defining your stance by opposition to
others, but the term is useful, nonetheless.

Simply saying "unchurched" or "realist" or "non-religous" sometimes simply
doesn't say enough, or mean enough to others to convey all of the meaning
necessary.

| At 09:00 PM 9/21/98 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
|
| >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.
|
| As a thinker I find the term atheism dignifies the
| concept of theism, so I find it offensive.  Theists
| are primitives and one needn't stoop.
|
| In my religion, saying unprovable things in public
| is a stonable offense.
|
| Joe Momma





Thread