From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:07:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)

In article <92099.082248J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm (John A. Johnson) writes:
>That may indeed be one source of my impressions.  I'm perfectly willing
>to admit that I leapt far beyond the evidence in assuming you were a
>nonatheist.  But what does that matter, now that I am trying to get to
>the truth?

Since I don't think it matters to much, I'm ignoring it.

>>>>Why don't you help me out?  Which God do I believe in?

>>>Belief in ANY God will disqualify you from using the label "atheist"
>>>to describe yourself.  Define God any way you wish.

>>"God" is the Creator of Emacs, the One True Editor.  Does this disqualify
>>me?

>Humorous, but evasive.

But it gets to my point: spell out what you've concluded that I believe
in.  It's not arbitrary, like my evasive RMS reference indicates.

I don't think you can.  I don't think I've said anything in the past two
months or so that was about _my_ beliefs as such, so I'm wondering how
you made your conclusion.

>[in reply to the paradox of believing one can have a relationship with
> a being whose existence one denies]

>>Nu.

>Unless R. Pirsig got it wrong, the reply is "mu," rather than "nu."

Sigh.  It was a joke, son.  JOKE.  Jay Oh Kay Eee.  "nu" happens to be
the quintessential untranslatable Yiddish answer/interjection for any
occasion.  It can mean yes/no/what?/go for it/how are you?/go away/etc.
And yes, in this context, it can mean the same as "mu".  

>>Anyway, the above is a koan, but it is not what I was discussing.  It is
>>not absurd for a religion to say one thing, and a person to say another.
                                                  ^ ^^^^^^
>No kidding.  That's why I want to know what YOU say.

Since you see the difference, you can also see how there is no paradox
here: Judaism claims Weemba, by a recursive claim via his mother, has a
certain relationship with God.  Weemba's opinion on the matter is a minor
footnote to Judaism, which has made this and similar claims for millennia.

It does not do so by checking into the person's individual beliefs.

>I assumed that you believed that you had a relationship with the
>totally unknowable Jewish God by virtue of your ancestry.  Do you,
>or do you not believe you have such a relationship?

Judaism claims this, correct.  I do not know enough about the supernatural
to counter such a claim.  Do you?

>>One Jewish definition is that an atheist (for a Jew) is     | D H l a | gtk
>>someone who does not keep the Sabbath.  Is that acceptable  | a e y g | rhi
>>to you?  The fact that I visit my rabbi Uncle Farley every  | m   i a | eib
>>Sabbath and out of respect for _him_ do not engage in any   | n i n i | pso
>>Sabbath violations suddenly make me a theist in your eyes?  | . s g n | -,!

>Ahh, but you say that this is only ONE Jewish definition of atheism.
>Do you meet ALL Jewish qualifications for nonatheism?

I certainly don't know.  Would you buy that one Jewish definition--a Jew
who works on the Sabbath?  Does it accord with your definition?  Would the
not working--not for holy reasons but for sheer mundane reasons--make a
difference to you in *your* thinking about atheism?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)