A Conversation Continued: The Atheists and Me Part II
Je comprende un petite. "Isms" are interesting things. Determining which form of ism one may fall under is a difficult task. Well, for those of us on the outside at least. An ism can be a doctrine or a theory. Or an ism can be a characteristic or a state. You my friend, are rather unique in your self-defenition, in protesting your "state" of atheism. Okay.
Albeit, most isms are doctrine and theory. And if religion begins with a doctrine or theory and thus extends from that point, why then question the religion of the ism?
signed, Me
And, so, taking this line of thought to it's logical end, every individual person has their own personal religion.
The religion of attracting other people.
The religion of not wearing white after labor day.
The religion of only buying used cars.
The religion of manners.
The religion of obsessive compulsiveness.
What have we gained by generalizing religion this way? Would you prefer "the dogma of deity worship"? How cumbersome. When the first definition in M-W is:
1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
and when you are discussing ideas within the confines of a site named The Question of God, is it not reasonable to assume the specific origins of the word apply? If we were on Jacques Cousteau's website, and I said sponge, would you argue that any creature that absorbs information around it could be considered a sponge?signed, Ungainly Fool
Silly rabbit, the absorbtion of sponges has nothing to do with our venture onto Mr. Cousteau's website or Sponge Bob's website, with the exception of the mere topic of coincedence. Neither would I say that I am arguing a point or perspective rather than a reality. Does Advocatus argue that their atheism is an argument of perspective or an argument of reality? An argument of reality of course. If not then his/her (not sure) case would be subjective. So what i'm saying is that if this (&$&^$*^%*%)*&) is what defines religion, then why exclude it from the law of metaphysics? It is, what it is. Period. signed, Me
I am no longer certain what you are arguing, Mademoiselle. As far as reality goes, I don't think any of us has access to anything other than his own subjection impression of what is real. So perhaps it is a matter of perspective.
And who's trying to exclude religion from anything? I'm just saying (as UF is) that if you insist on broadening the definition of religion to the point that anything and everything is included, the word becomes meaningless. signed, advocatus
okay. signed, Me
Albeit, most isms are doctrine and theory. And if religion begins with a doctrine or theory and thus extends from that point, why then question the religion of the ism?
signed, Me
And, so, taking this line of thought to it's logical end, every individual person has their own personal religion.
The religion of attracting other people.
The religion of not wearing white after labor day.
The religion of only buying used cars.
The religion of manners.
The religion of obsessive compulsiveness.
What have we gained by generalizing religion this way? Would you prefer "the dogma of deity worship"? How cumbersome. When the first definition in M-W is:
1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
and when you are discussing ideas within the confines of a site named The Question of God, is it not reasonable to assume the specific origins of the word apply? If we were on Jacques Cousteau's website, and I said sponge, would you argue that any creature that absorbs information around it could be considered a sponge?signed, Ungainly Fool
Silly rabbit, the absorbtion of sponges has nothing to do with our venture onto Mr. Cousteau's website or Sponge Bob's website, with the exception of the mere topic of coincedence. Neither would I say that I am arguing a point or perspective rather than a reality. Does Advocatus argue that their atheism is an argument of perspective or an argument of reality? An argument of reality of course. If not then his/her (not sure) case would be subjective. So what i'm saying is that if this (&$&^$*^%*%)*&) is what defines religion, then why exclude it from the law of metaphysics? It is, what it is. Period. signed, Me
I am no longer certain what you are arguing, Mademoiselle. As far as reality goes, I don't think any of us has access to anything other than his own subjection impression of what is real. So perhaps it is a matter of perspective.
And who's trying to exclude religion from anything? I'm just saying (as UF is) that if you insist on broadening the definition of religion to the point that anything and everything is included, the word becomes meaningless. signed, advocatus
okay. signed, Me
posted by Khristi Lauren at
4:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home