|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 13:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Sorry for dragging this thread so off-topic just for another semantic pissing contest. I love those. For now, I'm going with "weak" and "strong" (evidently the de facto usenet standard) until someone comes up with a preferable alternative.
Anyhow, I'm going to steer away from that now whlie showing how these tangential matters are in fact somewhat related to the idea of Hell.
Most atheist organizations nowadays have moved towards weak atheism as the more appropriate definition of atheism as a whole, as indicated in the very lengthy post I reproduced from Kirby (the alt.atheism UseNet demigod). American Atheists and Secular Web, two heavy hitters in atheist activism, agree on this matter, characterizing anyone without theistic belief as “atheist.” I'm okay with this; I think it is a rhetorically and politically clever move, really. Now babies are born atheist. Cool.
However, this shift in thinking has, IMHO, resulting in a minor backlash against strong atheists like myself, who want not only to show that the theistic case is evidentially lacking, but that it is downright contradictory and incoherent, and thus cannot possibly be true. My very favorite tool to this end is the argument from hell, presented in ultra-simplified form earlier in this thread. My contention here is that for nearly any traditional Judeo-Christian theology, a contradiction may be derived between the theological claims that God is loving and just and that he damns people to eternal torment. Of course, for the argument to proceed, we must be very careful to define God and Hell in accordance with some particular faith tradition, to avoid burning down straw men effigies with do not really reflect any serious theists position.
So, is anyone out there who cares to argue that God is not unloving and unjust in sending folk to Hell? That God is not, in fact, an inherently contradictory concept in general? That weak atheism is somehow preferable to strong?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 14:04:49 [Permalink]
|
I'm just a lowly agnostic. I leave you atheists to it
Good luck!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
bjones
Skeptic Friend
Australia
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 18:10:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sorry for dragging this thread so off-topic just for another semantic pissing contest. I love those. For now, I'm going with "weak" and "strong" (evidently the de facto usenet standard) until someone comes up with a preferable alternative.
Anyhow, I'm going to steer away from that now whlie showing how these tangential matters are in fact somewhat related to the idea of Hell.
Most atheist organizations nowadays have moved towards weak atheism as the more appropriate definition of atheism as a whole, as indicated in the very lengthy post I reproduced from Kirby (the alt.atheism UseNet demigod). American Atheists and Secular Web, two heavy hitters in atheist activism, agree on this matter, characterizing anyone without theistic belief as “atheist.” I'm okay with this; I think it is a rhetorically and politically clever move, really. Now babies are born atheist. Cool.
However, this shift in thinking has, IMHO, resulting in a minor backlash against strong atheists like myself, who want not only to show that the theistic case is evidentially lacking, but that it is downright contradictory and incoherent, and thus cannot possibly be true. My very favorite tool to this end is the argument from hell, presented in ultra-simplified form earlier in this thread. My contention here is that for nearly any traditional Judeo-Christian theology, a contradiction may be derived between the theological claims that God is loving and just and that he damns people to eternal torment. Of course, for the argument to proceed, we must be very careful to define God and Hell in accordance with some particular faith tradition, to avoid burning down straw men effigies with do not really reflect any serious theists position.
So, is anyone out there who cares to argue that God is not unloving and unjust in sending folk to Hell? That God is not, in fact, an inherently contradictory concept in general? That weak atheism is somehow preferable to strong?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Catholic used to consider eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin and if you died with the stain of mortal sin on you soul you went straight to Hell. Then after Vatican 2 they repealed that law. Who is the Catholic Church who claim to know the mind of this God they speak of and what is supposed to happen to all those so called dammed souls in Hell who decided to just feast on a nice juicy stake prior to Vatican 2. In the issue of this "all loving and all merciful God" this reminds me of how Saddam Hussein is presented to the Iraqi People who does not hesitate to execute anybody who speak out against. Christians are only deluding when they state "the all loving and merciful" and "the all powerful and almighty” in the same breath. This God they speak of I feel is more modeled on old Roman Emperors which were the norm back in the days of the early church and were remarkably like our contemporary rulers of Afghanistan and Iran. As such and if I were a Christian I dread the thought on going to Heaven as much as Hell.
Bob
Remember: when you die your philosophy dies with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|