On 6/27/2014 3:29 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational
If you read it as "In every possible world g is false and g=Some God", it's
irrational (unless g entails a contradiction). But that isn't atheism. An
atheist
says "g doesn't exist" and that's prefectly rational if g=Yaweh or g=Zeus
or g=Baal
or... Which is why I said it depends on g. If g is "some mystic unifying
principle" then I'm agnostic about g. If g is some vain despotic theist
god, then
I'm an atheist about g.
But then you are willing, in principle at least, to fight everybody with bullshit notion
of god from your point of view.
Why? People who believe in the despotic personal god are willing to fight to spread the
religion because their god commands it. They are also willing to commit atrocious acts to
suppress heresy and unbelief because if one of their children fell away from belief they
would suffer eternal torment. The Holy Inquisition was quite rationally justified give
their beliefs.
So religious war becomes justifiable, in principle.
I'm not sure how "justifiable" goes with "in principle". "Justifiable", to me, implies
balancing competing values. "In principle" implies some absolute extreme.
For me, no such nonsense is justifiable when invoking something not-justifiable. To
pretend such is to fuel these irrational disputes. That's why this confusion between
~[]g and []~g is not fancy semantic splitting hairs.
It doesn't matter whether your god is a teapot or Zeus. Tells me nothing about whether
you're relationship is weakly questioning or you're prepared to impose it upon others.
~{}g at least prevents, makes nonsensical any authoritative/manipulative/political move
to impose it on others. Do you fight/work against Yaweh, Baal and the entire list you
keep posting? Because that's quite a lot of deities to fight, where do you find the
time? ;-) PGC
No, in fact I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" and "agnostic" are not very useful
terms. We don't call someone who thinks fascism is a bad form of society an "afascist".
We don't call people who don't believe in Santa Claus, "aClausists".
Brent
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
