UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 7 to Talk Back 38
In Reference to Talk Back #38

by Rabbi Tom

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

Well, I suppose we can begin by ridiculing the originator of these comments. It would not prove anything, but some of her comments deserve it.

“This site appears to be just for males because there seems to be a war going on."

I would like to know what the first part of this sentence has to do with the second. The two comments appear to be completely unrelated. There are many wars going on. Most of them with a religious basis, at least partially. Some of them fit the traditional definition of a war (e.g. Iraq). None of them are divided along gender lines.

"I place a challenge before agnostics and before atheists to prove that there has never been one human group in existence that did not created 'god.'"

I'll start by challenging you, Margaret, to learn the rules of grammar. As an anthropologist, your schooling should have included some rudimentary classes on grammar. If English is not your first language, I recommend NOT learning it from television. Most of those individuals cannot properly create a sentence.

To address your argument: you must also prove that ALL human groups have created a god-figure. As it stands, there is no practical way to gather all of the data required to prove either assertion. However, we can understand that most forms of Marxism roundly reject the notion of a god-figure. An inherited notion, at that.

"To say that God doesn't exist is TOTALLY overlooking the fact that God does exist."

To say that God doesn't exist is the statement of an atheist. Perhaps a dictionary might be useful in determining the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. Here's a clue: the former rejects god, the latter rejects knowledge of god. A mite bit simplistic, but essentially correct. However, as has been the problem for over 3000 years of philosophical discourse, your latter portion of your statement “...God does exist.” fails to have been proven. If you have any new evidence to back up your claim, bring it forward. I am certain we would all very much like to examine it.

To comment on your argument:

You seem to state that merely mentioning the word God presupposes its existence. Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God relied upon such a concept. It was flawed. Merely mentioning God only reinforces the conception of God. At its root, what is that conception? We can define God in many ways, but there are two fundamental definitions.

1: God is the Supreme Being. Breaking this down to a more basic level, God is simply the best being in existence. Current information supposes that to be humanity. If so, that is not the traditional definition of God, but humanism, which, essentially, denies God.

2: God is in some greater reality. Presupposing no greater metaphysical (read nonsensical) plane is the only manner in which this argument for God holds water. But speaking of the metaphysical is nonsensical. There is no way in which to discuss it. The words, quite simply, have no meaning. Here we have the crux of agnosticism. God may exist, but ,as it is nonsensical to discuss it, he may as well not.