Kropotkin said, long ago, something on the order of: "If there were a God, we should assasinate him." That is what I would call a strong atheist statement. 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. | -----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----- |