| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"nagasiva" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2007 12:06:41 AM |
| Object: |
Realistic Agnosticism |
[to: Marc Perkel of the Church of Reality]
[ of www.churchofreality.org ]
[Cc: alt.magick.tyagi+ ]
peace be with you, Marc,
to media outlets (and my ebox) you wrote in part:
# ...I'm a Atheist, you have to show me.
Don and others already explained that they
would show you if you wanted to know about
deities. I was not convinced that they could
do that, so i explained how soft sciences
are examining the peripheries of
intersections with gods (which are internal
to human experience). atheists just keep
saying in my presence "Show me", but you
never actually follow up on the evidence
that is brought out or pointed toward in
response to your demand, and this tells me
that you are wedded to your anti-theism.
# I know that the believing world doesn't want
# to hear this....
belief is very unimportant to experiences of
deities. people associate belief with it in
order to constrain their minds in association
with cults. former theists get caught up in
the doctrinarian tar baby (often challenging
religious to explain what they believe, even
if the religion isn't belief-based). your
anti-theism is as rational and realistic as
is zealous pro-theism (it is not at all).
# this politician isn't a Christian.
as a religious organization you should beware
of this kind of rhetoric, as it will eventually
be used against you. there are 2 types of
religious identification criteria, and you've
just made an appeal to one sort that is by
far the more pliable, but usually the less
durable and interesting (the first below):
1) ideals -- qualification for a (usually)
shifting set of ideals with which the
random evaluator compares the target.
usually this sort never forms an integrity,
and is used for propaganda or personal
vetting.
2) ordeals -- rites of membership are the
norm for sincere and lasting religious
cults. baptism, initiations of other sorts,
including oath-taking and pacts, form the
basis of social and institutional ecclesia.
# It tells me that they are willing you use God's
# name to deceive people.
the term 'God' is not a name, even to Christians.
it is a noun, and the name typically used is
Jesus/Christ, or Jehovah/Yahweh. your focus on
deception is helpful and good, and unmasking
it is a benefit to all of us. let that same
spirit of unmasking deception display to you
the options available for study of gods and
god-related experiences in human consciousness,
including your own.
# If you do that then how can you say that you
# believe in God?
their integrity is indeed important to evaluate.
doing so using ambiguous atheistic criteria is
far from exemplary, however. what with all the
evidence about that gods exist, to proclaim
yourself a Realist seems quite deceptive. that
you want to restrict *how* they might exist and
pretend that this is equivalent to ontological
categories strikes me as disingenuous or very
misguided. get realistic before it is too late!
# I think even fictional deities deserve more
# respect than that.
so do i. my impression is that they deserve the
respect of being treated as potentially real
until you can provide evidence of their complete
fictitiousness. the Church of Reality should
be agnostic if it cannot provide this kind of
evaporative data to its membership. what proof
did you give to yourself or to others that the
gods you disbelieve in are fictional? was it
as convincing to you as standing in a ring
at the top of the stairs and successively
squeezing hands proves that we exist?
# As a Realist I'm looking for someone who is
# going to tell the truth no matter what
# religion they are.
you found several here in Forestville. perhaps
"Realist" means something different than the
conventional term. I thought you were going to
try to trademark it and control it (lol! that
would be keen!), but i hope you'll live up to
the IDEAL criteria that term conveys to the
average English-speaker. I like it a lot.
# I'm not offended by the deity, I'm offended
# by the lie. Don't lie to me.
it is one thing to be an atheist, quite another
to be a realist, by my measure. once you have
fully explored the world of religions and gods,
explaining to yourself how it is fake and how
gods don't really exist in any sense, then and
only then will i believe you're a realist in
more than some ordeal-oriented sense (by virtue
of owning a church with the name). is the CoR
an organization with a chip on its shoulder,
or does it have an open mind?
namaste, my friend.
nagasiva yronwode
yronwode.com@nagasiva
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Realistic Agnosticism |
17 Oct 2007 12:07:40 PM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2007 05:06:41 GMT, nagasiva <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
Don and others already explained that they would show you if you wanted to know about
deities. I was not convinced that they could do that, so i explained how soft sciences
are examining the peripheries of intersections with gods (which are internal
to human experience). atheists just keep saying in my presence "Show me", but you
never actually follow up on the evidence that is brought out
Objective evidence of the objective existence of gods? No one's
posted any TO "follow up on".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is
no sin but ignorance."
- Christopher Marlowe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Realistic Agnosticism |
17 Oct 2007 03:12:43 AM |
|
|
What a load of tripe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Realistic Agnosticism |
17 Oct 2007 12:08:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:42:43 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
What a load of tripe.
Tripe has uses.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to
be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Realistic Agnosticism |
17 Oct 2007 07:09:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:08:00 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:42:43 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
What a load of tripe.
Tripe has uses.
It stinks like the OPs spewed illogic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
