by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends
I wish you would just have answered a straight question Terry. It was simple enough and the distinction is pretty significant.
Do you deny the possibility of existence of what you call "distortions" of "God"
Or do you say such "distortions" may possibly exist - however improbable you think it - but they are unproven.
Which?
Nobody can know God.
Not to get all nitpicky, but this is not something you can say as fact. You cannot KNOW this statement at all. However, no one can know your version of God, to be certain.
But that doesn't make your version right.
Tammy
Interesting how this debate has turned into a conversation about whether or not gods exist, rather than about a definition of atheism.
Essan, you strike me as a person who takes pride in stirring the pot. That's a lot of negative energy you have to distribute.
I don't mean that to be overly personal, but I have read and reread your posts, and what I find my self wondering right now is, why would you take the positions you have in this discussion if you weren't defending "god" or theism?
I suppose it doesn't matter. Perhaps there is much wisdom from your point of view in being the provacateur, the muse that asks all the questions, but seems unwilliing to work towards the answers.
I find that to be entirely unwise and unhelpful. But hey, what do I know. I happen to believe that atheists have no organized belief system. I must be nuts.
LOL Jeff, your avatar makes me smile every time you post and certainly lightens serious debate with you.
Yeah OK, My resistance to posting my position is mainly because this can be used by JW's as an excuse to ignore you and dismiss any evidence you put forward and this is a JW related website. I don't think our personal positions are relevant when we are discussing facts. But a JW can illegitimately make it relevant as an excuse to distract from a debate.
As can atheists :)
Although, I'm not suggesting that was what you were intentionally doing. But that is the effect. I think you just assumed that anyone challenging atheism must be a Theist. I'm not part of that dualistic paradigm of antagonistic opposites. But even if I was, it's actually irrelevant.
I'm a pretty hardcore agnostic. Meaning, I don't just apply agnosticism in relation to God.
Fair enough Essan, and my apologies for being so forceful. May I make a comment, an opinion offered in the utmost of sincerity, that when one argues for or against something, context is important. If you will allow me, context has been lacking in your statements.
Otherwise, your points are duly noted. :) I still have no idea what your point is, other then I am sure that deep down, they are there.
and, btw, I think that most JW's, and even those first leaving, are a poor reason not to state a position. Most JW's are taught how to twist anything. They are all about winning arguments, not being right, or being honest. So it doesn't matter their perception until they are ready to be honest with themselves.
When an honest person calls you on something, that is something to be worried about. If a JW wants to call you a bullshitter, I would take that as a great compliment. :)
Jeff said: "Essan, you strike me as a person who takes pride in stirring the pot. That's a lot of negative energy you have to distribute."
I'm still your focus? Really? I think it's seen as "negative energy" by you because I'm challenging your position. I don't see that as negative.
I don't mean that to be overly personal, but I have read and reread your posts, and what I find my self wondering right now is, why would you take the positions you have in this discussion if you weren't defending "god" or theism?
Because I think the stance taken regarding the definition of atheism is inaccurate and rather hypocritical. I also don't really think atheism is a sound philosophy.
I suppose it doesn't matter. Perhaps there is much wisdom from your point of view in being the provacateur, the muse that asks all the questions, but seems unwilliing to work towards the answers. I find that to be entirely unwise and unhelpful. But hey, what do I know. I happen to believe that atheists have no organized belief system. I must be nuts.
It's not a case of "unwilling" but of facing reality. We can't know, as yet, and can't prove it either way, therefore the realistic, truthful response is to withhold judgement. In any case, I was attempting to play my part in working toward answering the thread topic, which is not about whether or not God exists.
OK Jeff. :)
Apologies I think our responses are all out of sync.
Essan, you have been more concise in your context, and I thank you for that. I would say to you and quillsky that a discussion of what atheism means is impossible to have without the overarching drama behind why two sides of the coin exist (atheism v theism), that is to say, does god exist, and is he worthy of the worship his adherents insist on?
Anyway, a stimulating (if not overly enlightening) discussion.
