On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:13 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 10/19/2014 8:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> I don't recall Bruno ever csaying if you don't believe in something then
>> you believe in it.
>>
>> What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same
>> idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic
>> religions use.
>>
>> Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by
>> God,
>>
>
> Yeah, they tend to be rational like that.
>

It's not raining so it never rains. There are no such things as
sophisticated French subtleties like humidity, cloudy with chance of
showers, the isolated drops before a possible light shower and such modal
nonsense, and their definitely, positively, ABSOLUTELY is no such thing as
fog or romantic notions like mist. Rain or Sunshine. Clarity, ok?

Weather unclear or unpredictable, please... I knew that before I was
twelve.


>
>  and invariably they choose some variant of an omniscient omnipotent
>> creator who answers prayers and judges us, rather than any of the myriad of
>> other conceptions of god.
>>
>
> Maybe it's because they speak the same language and that's what "theism"
> means.
>

Yes! Or maybe not. More precision and maybe not.


>
>  In this way, atheists pretend there is only one acceptable definition and
>> will usually fight to say that it is only definition, or the one everyone
>> means,  or believe the one all believers believe in.
>>
>> That's a perfect case of defending the idea of what God is or can be,
>> even if it is only to then attack the idea. Honest theistic reasoning would
>> use logic to say,  "okay perhaps God cannot be this, but we have not ruled
>> out these other possibilities which are as far as we know not
>> inconsistent",
>>
>
> Other possibilities for *what*?  What is the thing?  What are its
> essential properties?


Pure awesomeness. The collection of all awesomeness, everywhere at all
times/histories + its side effects, but ask your doctor, shaman, lawyer,
and accountant for possible bogosity.


> What is its definition?


Let "it" be a "thing".

Done.

Q.E.D.


>   They start with a word, a few attributes, and an emotional attitude and
> they seek a definition they can attach them to.  Which would be OK, except
> they insist that the word "God", which already has millenia of baggage,
> must apply.  That's my complaint with Bruno.  He explicitly renounces all
> that baggage, but he still wants to use the word "God".
>

Because it could be "that thing" in the lost baggage. I hate losing my
luggage, so I can relate to Bruno, because I don't care about Samsonite but
about the awesomeness I had prepared in it. Buying clothes is a drag.


>
>  rather than "we have ruled out this definition of god, and it is the only
>> definition, therefore there is no god"
>>
>
> Yes, that's exactly the approach taken by theologians.  First they take a
> word "God" and then they see if they can give it some meaning that makes
> them feel good.  But notice that they capitalize it already, implying it is
> a person.


No, it's the fresh "thing". We don't know what it is, but we know it
sometimes when we see it. And when we think we know that, we become dumb.


>   "Honest theistic reasoning" is like "faith based evidence".
>
> Brent
> The political discourse matters, and explains a good deal. But
> there's something beneath it, something we don't want to look in
> the face: namely, that in India, as elsewhere in our darkening
> world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion
> intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating
> around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable
> language of "respect". What is there to respect in any of this,
> or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around
> the world in religion's dreaded name? How well, with what fatal
> results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill
> for them! And when we've done it often enough, the deadening of
> affect that results makes it easier to do it again. So India's
> problem turns out to be the world's problem. What happened in
> India has happened in God's name. The problem's name is God.
>       --- Salman Rushdie 2002


Well, uhmm that's just like your... religion opinion... man. PGC

-- 
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.

Reply via email to