It's Monday so hey...let's talk about the deeper, boozier stuff!
It is the day after the Superbowl, which means I am slightly tired in the "I had a few drinks and a lot of rich food, spent a lot of time in the company of other people and therefore my resources are drained, and like a good classic social introvert I now need to spend a day or two alone."
(where "alone" means either alone, or in the company of individuals who do not drain me. Not-people, as an ex of mine once termed them.)
It was a good party, though, cumulating in the now-almost-traditional inebriated argument with David Silverman (president of the American Atheists organization), about his repeated attempts to co-opt me [and others] under the umbrella of "atheists' even though that is not how I self-identify. The argument is always in good fun, but there are times when I just want to drop an anvil on his head (Me: "you know who redefines terms in the middle of an argument, David?" Republicans!" David, recoiling in horror: "Low blow!")
For the record, although I do not consider myself particularly religious, I do believe in something greater than the individual, a spark (for lack of any more specific and accessible term) that connects all living things (and possibly non-living things too). I can describe it via faith and I can describe it via science, but the base result is that I do not require any proof or verification of that greater spark, but accept it as a thing that exists because hey look, Life and Self-Awareness! Yes, I suppose that this spark could be seen by others as a deity (I neither accept nor refuse that term but find it useless, since we all are part of the spark and therefore we would all be god). But I do not see it as being 'conscious' in the way we've oft-portrayed a deity. Then again, our idea of "conscious" is limited by our own current awareness, which may or may not encompass all that exists. So why must we assume godhead is a conscious entity? Wheee.
(I also reject the use of "supernatural" in this instance (which atheism arguments seem fond of) because if it exists in and of itself, rather than by fabrication, it is by definition "natural." )
No, David, I'm not an atheist. You don't get to claim me. I'm not a theist, either, unless you expand the term to the broadest possible definition. It's possible I'm a reconstructionist* deist**?
(It's worth noting that the conversation started to break up in laughter when I told David "of course we're both Jewish! Listen to how we're arguing over this!")
*for those unfamiliar with the term, Reconstructionst Judaism sees the collective body of Jewish laws, customs and traditions not as binding, but as a valuable cultural remnant that should be upheld unless there is reason for the contrary.
**and while the Authorities often decried deists as atheists, they were using it as an insult, along with 'heretic,' rather than an accurate description.
(where "alone" means either alone, or in the company of individuals who do not drain me. Not-people, as an ex of mine once termed them.)
It was a good party, though, cumulating in the now-almost-traditional inebriated argument with David Silverman (president of the American Atheists organization), about his repeated attempts to co-opt me [and others] under the umbrella of "atheists' even though that is not how I self-identify. The argument is always in good fun, but there are times when I just want to drop an anvil on his head (Me: "you know who redefines terms in the middle of an argument, David?" Republicans!" David, recoiling in horror: "Low blow!")
For the record, although I do not consider myself particularly religious, I do believe in something greater than the individual, a spark (for lack of any more specific and accessible term) that connects all living things (and possibly non-living things too). I can describe it via faith and I can describe it via science, but the base result is that I do not require any proof or verification of that greater spark, but accept it as a thing that exists because hey look, Life and Self-Awareness! Yes, I suppose that this spark could be seen by others as a deity (I neither accept nor refuse that term but find it useless, since we all are part of the spark and therefore we would all be god). But I do not see it as being 'conscious' in the way we've oft-portrayed a deity. Then again, our idea of "conscious" is limited by our own current awareness, which may or may not encompass all that exists. So why must we assume godhead is a conscious entity? Wheee.
(I also reject the use of "supernatural" in this instance (which atheism arguments seem fond of) because if it exists in and of itself, rather than by fabrication, it is by definition "natural." )
No, David, I'm not an atheist. You don't get to claim me. I'm not a theist, either, unless you expand the term to the broadest possible definition. It's possible I'm a reconstructionist* deist**?
(It's worth noting that the conversation started to break up in laughter when I told David "of course we're both Jewish! Listen to how we're arguing over this!")
*for those unfamiliar with the term, Reconstructionst Judaism sees the collective body of Jewish laws, customs and traditions not as binding, but as a valuable cultural remnant that should be upheld unless there is reason for the contrary.
**and while the Authorities often decried deists as atheists, they were using it as an insult, along with 'heretic,' rather than an accurate description.
No comments have been added yet.
