7/29/2019 What Constitutes "God"?
1/2
Topic of discussion from a friends blog: There are two kinds of
atheists: strong
atheists and weak atheists. The strong atheist makes the
absolute claim There are no
gods. Since this statement cannot be proven, it is similar to a
religious belief.
Poolie: This comment is as good a farm-fed line of bullshit as
you will ever hear. "The
strong atheist makes the absolute claim There are no gods. Since
this statement cannotbe proven, it is similar to a religious
belief." The strong atheist is able to make that truestatement
simply for the reason that there IS NO proof of gods. I could make
a similar
statement above about non-believers of the Easter Bunny. Does
this mean some folk
actually give the existence of the Easter bunny a certain amount
of credence?
RevRichie: I find it very interesting how people of God or so
called believers can preach
their beliefs but when opposing views are presented, they feel
pressured to change. Could
it be that their beliefs are that fragile? Seems to me that if
they were strong believer and
had the truth, they would not feel threaten when opposing views
are presented.
Bob: What constitutes "proof"?
RevRichie: In my opinion, the only proof or evidences is
SELF-EVIDENCE. There is not
physical evidences that would stand up in a court of law.
Poolie: Something physical. Something to see, feel, hear, or
smell.
You know the kind of thing...
"hey gang, there's a hippo in the front garden!"
"Yeah right"
"True. It just trashed your Honda!"
"Oh shit!"
Bob: The next question would logically be "What constitutes
'God'?" ... Is it - he - or she -
or some nebulous immaterial nothing ... or is "IT" an embodiment
of physical
proportions? Is "It" (God) to be construed in the Classical
Orthodox Christian perception
- a Supreme Being existing in other spheres or dimensions - the
big guy in the sky with
his tally sheet counting my fuck ups, OR is "It" something
completely miss-construed by
religion, even to being evidenced to in the fact that we do
think and reason? ... But we
construe these rational processes as purely the by product of
evolution ... and that is not
discounting evolution or raising us as the "crown of creation"
(which may or may not be
true), but in fact establishes our existence in an intimacy with
ALL that is real - animal,
vegetable or mineral, ad infinitum. But religion ...fucks the
whole thing up .... What is
"God"? How can anyone argue the existence of anything that IS
NOT clearly defined ...
What is "God"? .... And as that is defined .... What makes that
definition absolute? ....
Even an atheist declaring "God does not exist" ... has to have a
conception of what does
not exist ... And I'm sure as is defined by most religion - I
would be considered an atheist
- by their definition of "God" ... But that does not mean I am
closed to concepts of
spirituality that are gaining recognition through non-religious
scientific investigations.
What makes any of us so sure that the limits of our own
experience, and teaching,
thinking and logic, are the limits of human and dare I say
*innate" divine potential? And
