-----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-----