Sagan Killed God? (was Re: Oh no! Not again!)
- spiritual_truth07 wrote:
>The question I posed solicits a very personal answer. That is a kind
> 2. Na si Sagan "did not kill God".
> * Atheist o theist o agnostic man si Sagan ay hindi po ang main
> concern ko sa kanya. Gusto ko lang ng lohikal na kaliwanagan kung
> si Sagan nga ay "God's killer". Is there any justification for it?
of "in your opinion/case... who helped you bury your 'god'?" It's in
reply to the original post about "Hubble (telescope) Killed God".
Notice the phrase 'your god'. The word "god" is a very personal
concept. My concept of what was supposed to be "god" if we are to go
to the details will be shown very different from your "god", so the
question is admitted to be very subjective as well. It does not kill
your "god". The kind of answer that I was seeking was the kind that
is barely debatable since it would be personal, in the same sense
that your "god" if you say is a personal "god" is hardly debatable.
Your personal "god" exists in your mind - but not in mine.
> If time and opportunities allows me, I'm inviting Badboylamok for anFine.
> enriching and civil debate sa inyong online forum between us. For
> the respect of your policies here, I decided not to pursue ang
> issue po na ito dito. So, ung thread namin ni Badboylamok et al, it
> is cut.
Let me re-interpret the point made by Randy about no "god-talk".
The "no god talk" rule is set because we expect the forum to grow
again - in number of members and in the number of posts - and limit
the "freedom" of religious proselytizers from abusing this list. And
as this is only one of the very few lists that is first and foremost
about atheism that cater primarily to the Pinoy consciousness, we try
to discourage "religious debates" that can be had in most other
forums out there. Of course "god" and religion is on-topic here but
there are some basic rules that we need to lay down to suit the
context of the list. Why do atheists have to say about god and
religion? Lots. First and foremost of them is that the "gods" of
others and theuir religious "teachings" are often used to justify
public policies that affect everybody - including agnostics and
atheists alike. Secondly, atheism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Atheism
exists only because we can anchor it on the various concepts of "god"
and differentiate it with theism. If "god" was not invented, then
there can be no atheism understandable in and by itself.
So what kind of god talk should be allowed? To give you an example,
you stated that "god is energy". That is something that has been made
in this list already and which was not carried into its full meaning
because at face value unfortunately - it's braindead. But that aside,
still that is a statement that can be debated in a purely secular
manner, setting aside theological beliefs. In fact, I am interested
in how believers formulate this idea within the context of Physics
(not "theology") though I honestly think people who make that
statement doesn't understand its implications, though the discussion
often degenerate into absurdities due to the introduction of theistic
nothingisms. (Frankly, it would be humor for me but still I would be
willing to listen - and feel hopeless - from time to time.)
- Romeo Macapobre wrote:
>I think there is no other way to define 4 or 2 or 1 without getting
> 2 + 2 = 4 makes sense.
> god is light (when god said let there be light) doesnt make sense.
into a tautology. 4 by itself means something we all can agree with
believers and atheists alike. Now "god" is a different beast by itself.
The believers cannot define their gods and agree altogether what are
the attributes of "god". No self-respecting physicist can say god is
energy. Only those who are ignorant of what energy is can say that.