Big Bang?

[Joel Katz]

>From: "Tully Rector" <tully_rector at hotmail.com>

Theists make a claim: "the concept of God is exemplified in the real world"; 
Atheists make a claim: "the concept of God is not exemplified in the real 
world"



this is poo.  you're attempting to intellectualize what is by your own 
admission an irrational decision.  you're like a technical consumer who, 
after great deliberation, buys the thing that doesn't work.  osama is far 
preferable to this -- at least i can tell where he's coming from when he 
speaks of notions like 'transcendence' and demands sacrifice.  why don't you 
explain to me what it means to you?  that fuzzy feeling you get when you're 
waiting on line at the cinnabuns?

like most atheists, i don't believe in a deity because (then, as a child, 
and now)  i never felt or thought its autonomous existence -- only the 
immense, often menacing and hysterical social and institutional pressure to 
say i did.  how the fuck is that a claim?  the only claims ever being made 
(like yours) were the ones that made implicit the 'believers' views of their 
own moral superiority as 'initiates.'  obviously, god contacted you, rectal, 
and not me -- you must be really special.  you and osama and torquemada.

i'm also sick of these puerile definitions of faith vis a vis 'evidentiary 
proof.'  as if the power and gelt of the holy roman empire did not suggest 
'evidentiary proof' to your common illiterate shit-piler.  religion did not 
choose to go, pace kierkegaard's bourgeois affirmation (of private anxiety), 
but retreated beyond faith in modernity.  in a sense it simply returned to 
its ideological roots in magic.  only now the word is not equal to the 
sacred, but is uttered in place of it, as all that's left.  or, as pascal 
said -- get down on your knees, and you will believe.




>To truly "make no claim" is impossible. Only someone who has never heard of 
>the concept of God is capable of that (& they would not be aware of it). 
>Theists make a claim: "the concept of God is exemplified in the real 
>world"; Atheists make a claim: "the concept of God is not exemplified in 
>the real world"; Agnostics make a claim about themselves w/r/t God: "I dont 
>know if the concept of God is exemplified in the real world or not". And 
>faith is not employed by theists (or at least not by those theists who are 
>worth listening to)---it is the only way in which their decision to believe 
>can have meaning. God would not be God, and belief would not save us, if we 
>could access God thru belief on the basis of evidentiary proof (ie, 
>rational compulsion). Reunion w/ God demands self-transcendence through 
>faith alone. Read Kierkegaard & Simone Weil on this point.
>
>Atheism is not prior to theism. Persons who come too early for the idea of 
>God cannot, obviously, say that the idea is not exemplified in the world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Otto <ottosell at yahoo.de>
>CC: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Big Bang?
>Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:13:25 +0200
> >Cyrus never said that "atheism is the One True Belief" -- how can
> >you assert he did?
> >
> >Otto
> >
> >jbor at bigpond.com wrote:
> >
> >>I respect your faith -- your belief that there are no gods. And
> >>basically that's all I've been saying all along, that people's
> >>beliefs should be respected.
> >>
> >>Your argument that atheism is the One True Belief because "God" is
> >>an existential claim which cannot be disproven was purely a
> >>semantic one. One can as easily label "God" a hypothesis or point
> >>out that the Big Bang theory is unfalsifiable. As such, it is
> >>exactly the same sort of logical proposition as Divine
>Creation.
> >>
> >>Your argument that "atheism is the absence of theism" is also
> >>purely semantic, and of course it can legitimately be turned
> >>around.
> >>
> >>There seems to be a general conviction that theism is a more
> >>"primitive" belief system than atheism. Well, yes it is, if it's an
> >>atheism which responds to the advent of religious faith in human
> >>civilisations. And if it's that sort of atheism we're talking about
> >>then it most certainly is a belief which has been constructed in
> >>opposition to another, pre-existing system(s) of belief.
> >>
> >>The only way you might logically contend that atheism is not a
> >>belief or faith is if you are asserting that your particular cult
> >>of atheism is a reversion to the earlier, prehistoric atheism.
>
> >>Historically-speaking, atheism is a more primitive or primal human
> >>state of mind or being than is theism. The latter superseded the
> >>former -- put the spokes into the wheel, you could say.
> >>
> >>best
> >>
> >>On 01/10/2005, at 7:42 PM, Cyrus wrote:
> >>
> >>>Maybe it's semantics to you. I understand that. But atheists take
> >>>this very seriously, because it is one of the ways theists keep
> >>>mirepresenting their position. Atheists make no claim. It is
> >>>theists who make the claim that a god exists. Therefore, the
> >>>burden of proof lies on the theists' side. Since there can be no
> >>>proof, they employ faith.
> >>>
> >>>And do you really believe the simple inversion of what the other
> >>>person says constitutes
>an argument?
> >>>
> >>>Cyrus
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___________________________________________________________ Gesendet
> >von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden:
> >http://mail.yahoo.de
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/