From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 18:08:33 MST
is there an empirically detectable assertion in the below response? Or must
I assert an "atheistic" regard to such as well, along epistemological
grounds.
Kirk Steele
-----Original Message-----
From: namacdon [mailto:namacdon@ole.augie.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:32 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Fw: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
-----Original Message-----
From: Sehkenenra <Sehkenenra@netzero.net>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
>>In other words, if you believe and you are wrong, then you have
>>wasted all the effort - effectivly you have sold part of your single,
brief
>life
>>to fantasy. I can imagine no worse personal crime than to dedicate ones
>effort
>>to satisfy delusion.
>
>Dedicating one's efforts to delusion comes in many forms, including art and
>gaming as well- but I'd certainly not go as far as to state that it makes
>such activity completely worthless. Exoteric religion is 95%
entertainment-
>it's that other 5% that is dangerous.
>
>>So, to me, to accept Pascals wager for agnostics is to admit, unknowingly
>>perhaps, that you would prefer to accept the notion of a god than to live
>with
>>the evidence against. Agnosticism is to admit a fear of the science we
>uncover.
>>To prove this, simply switch out "god" with "Zues". Is the agnostic still
>going
>>to say that Zues might exist? Or any other god for that matter.
>
>The existence of highly evolved "superbeings" that are implied by the
>limited conception of myth can be seen in many different ways- such a
>limited "god" is no more than a highly evolved sentient- an alien with
>technology far beyond our own, for instance. I, for one, do not think that
>such an entity has contacted Earth- but it's not an impossible scenario.
>
>The main problem with theology these days and the atheism/theism argument
is
>the lack of a coherent definition of "God". The concept of a deity who
>personally answers prayers and a literal heaven or hell are notions easily
>thrown aside- but what of other conceptions of God, such as those of
>Spinoza, Tillich, or Einstein? God as "the infinite" or spirit concieved
as
>an "infinite plurality of universes" seems quite plausible to me, as a
>rationalist, but has little to nothing to do with God as conceived by
>mainstream or fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, or Judaism- in fact, such
>conceptions of God are often seen as atheistic from the position of a
>typical believer.
>
>>So like you said in your second paragraph - "nobody asks if the premise is
>>plausible". The athiest does ask, and the premise is not plausible, so the
>>athiest knows the question is rigged.
>
>Again, the problem is all in the semantics.
>
>-Nicq MacDonald
>
>"For centuries our race has built on false assumptions. If you build a
>fantasy based on a false assumption and continue to build on such a
fantasy,
>your whole existence becomes a lie which you implant in others who are too
>lazy or too busy to question it's truth." - Renark von Bek, The Sundered
>Worlds (Michael Moorcock)
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT