Subject: Re: atheism
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Fri Jan 21 2000 - 18:20:49 EST
In a message dated 1/21/00 5:51:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
<< When discussing a literal existence, literal observation doesn't seem
too much to ask. If anything literally exists outside of my realm of
perception, it is irrelevent to my existence. If we went back through
this entire thread and replaced the word "God" with the word "Goblin" it
would have no effect whatsoever on the validity of any claim made.
When something, by it's very nature, cannot be demonstrated to exist,
for all intents and purposes, it does not. For all intents and
purposes, the supernatural does not exist.>>
You're just repeating your position rather than standing outside it and
defending it on other grounds. We can't proceed past this point.
<<<< Now, to reference the above quoted paragraphs, I'm afraid I have to
repeat myself again. If we human beings do religion and do it
consistently, and do it to death, it's a "naturally" occuring phenomena
because it is occuring in nature. See, you're still thinking in a
"supernaturalist" framework here, as if what proceeds from the human
mind comes from a source outside nature. We've inherited that from the
Greeks and still have not escaped it.
So you either need to abandon the accusation that religion is "man-made"
in the sense that it is "unnatural," or you need to admit that the human
mind exists outside, or above, or independently of nature -- which is a
supernaturalist premise. >>
If religion is a naturally occuring phenomena, then so is art and so are
goblins; they are all constructs of human consciousness, after all,
which is natural. The problem here is in the word "natural" and not
inconsistencies in my logic.
When our definition of "naturally occuring phenomena" is anything that
occurs in nature, then the Oklahoma City bombing was a naturally
occuring phenomena. 'Cause hell, it happened, and Timothy McVeigh came
from nature. And for that matter, the construction of the Oklahoma City
Federal Building was also a naturally occuring phenomena.
This is quickly becoming a game of semantics and philisophical
silliness. But I'm pretty sure I've said all this before.
-robbie
>>
Right, but you need to look at how you're using the word "natural" and what
it meant in your criticisms of theism. And you also have to take into
account that some "natural" occurences are more common than other.
A mass killing is fairly uncommon compared to belief in theism. If you want
to restrict yourself to natural events, you can look at how often an event
occurs in nature. Perhaps one person in a million has ever killed more than
one person at a time? While perhaps 90 people in a hundred, or more, believe
in some form of theism. Which is more significant as a naturally occuring
phenomena?
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:04 EST