So, I went to church today.....shocker shocker. Yes, I know it isn't really that much of a shocker.
Anyways, I had a rather interesting conversation with a teacher o' mine about Atheism and Believers. Now prior to entering into a diatribe on the discussion, a few definitions of religiosity will be primarily divulged for the purposes of this conversation. If you don't like my definitions, well, take it up in the comments.
1. Believer - someone who believes in the existence of an almighty being, or superior power (we won't get into, in this post what that superior power is, or who that superior power is.)
2. Knowers - someone who professes to "Know" or have a surety of knowledge of a supreme being, superior power, etc.
3. Agnostic - someone who does not know whether or not there is a superior power, but also does not think that someone can know, or at minimum that they cannot know.
4. Atheist - someone who professes to "Know" or have a surety of knowledge that there is no such thing as a supreme being.
So, with that being said (and mind you, these are crude defintions) I'll launch into the philosophical discussion and how I have come to believe that Atheists, based purely on philosophical reasoning, are completely pompous and arrogant a**es!
So, I would say that the majority of people that read this blog are Believers, and maybe there are a few Knowers, and possibly we have an agnostic or two in the mix....that is if Sharona reads this blog (just kidding). Anyways, the premise is on that a believer, believes that something exists, but does not have a sure knowledge one way or the other, and the flip is an agnostic.....most people are ok with that in some way shape or form. Then there are the extremes, the Knowers and the Atheists. now, to know something exists, is to have a relatively specific knowledge of a certain person, place, or thing. For instance, I know (well, I won't get into what to know is and is not, but for these purposes, it is to have a surety of knowledge as is physically possible, leaving wiggle room for the very fact that we are all human and our knowledge is limited)....I digress....I know that I am in my bed typing on a laptop at 12:56am on a Sunday night, which was a fast sunday, and whereby I attended sacrament meeting. Some Knowers claim to know the supreme being with the same amount of surety as I have that I went to church. Now, becuase I do not know all things and because I am inclined to believe them, I therefore believe that it is possible.
Now take the role of the Atheist. Not only do they not believe that Knowers "know" what they claim to have knowledge of, but also that Believers are also vastly mislead in their delusional adherence to illogical bemusements of a flacid intellect. Moreover, they believe that they know that there is no supreme being. Now to believe a finite thing, is to claim to have a limited knowledge or belief, as in a belief that there is a supreme being. But to claim that none exists, how can one claim that none exists, save one is all knowing, and that one knows all things and comprehends all things to such an extent that there is no supreme being.
I can tolerate the non-believer, and I can tolerate the believer. I can even tolerate the aethist to a certain degree....but that doesn't change the fact that the Aetheist must claim to know more than I believe it is possible to know. I can handle that someone claims they do not believe in a supreme being...but to be able to claim that one does not exist and cannot exist, depends on someone having the knowledge that they understand all things enough to know there is nothing else.
In other words, it is far more presumptious to claim that something does not exist than to claim that something does exist, or you believe it does exist...for to believe that something does exist one must simply have an inkling of knowledge or a sign of existence in one direction or the other.
Similarly to believe that something does not exist, one must simply have an inkling of knowledge or a sign of non-existence.
Moreover to know that somehting exists, one must simply konw of a surety of a small fact....that there is a supreme being.
However, for one to claim to know that something does not exist, one must be prepared and have the knowledge that there is no feasible way for a supreme being to exist. That they must have searched through all the canals of knowledge and depths of contemplation to know that there is nothing there, for they cannot find it in any place whereby they look to prove its existence.
Anyways, that was a tangent in Sunday School, which all that know me, know I thorougly enjoyed it.
Ciao!
2 comments:
How come you don't condemn the "Knowers" with the same amount of arrogance as the "Atheists". They are both claiming to know something and would therefore have to have some knowledge that applies to everyone (as the topic of God does.). I don't see that either one would, by virtue of their claim to knowledge, be more arrogant than the other. was there maybe a little bit of bias towards the knowers in this discussion?
Ahhh...see that was my first thought....that someone who claimed to know something was logically just as audacious as the reverse, but alas, that is not true. Because the person who claims to know of the existence of something, simply knows that 1 fact, and claims nothing else. A person that claims that a certain thing does not exist means that person claims to know that there is no way for something to exist, i.e. they know all and that one thing does not exist. Hence the claim is much more audacious.
Post a Comment