JLNobody wrote:Frank and I have gone around on the matter of atheism vs. agnostism for some time now (sorry, Frank, for talking like you're not here--I've missed you, by the way). To me, in the simplist terms, a theist says there IS a god; an atheist says there is NO god; and an agnostic says there MAY be a god. This is too simple. Frank merely states that he does not know if there is a god (to me that's tantamount to saying there may be a god, but not to Frank). In my version of atheism, I merely say that the theist's conception of god makes no sense to me. I do not believe in a no-god and worship him, as do militant BELIEVING atheists. I share Frank's disdain for that kind of atheist. But buddhists are atheists in the more passive sense that their sense of the nature of things contains no need or room for a theistic god.
JLN is it fair to say that your version of athiesm is that you do not believe in God as religion has described that entity?
TTF
Now I understand what Frank meant by attacking a certain position. He said this conversation was worthless without specifics.
I think my argument attacks some versions of athiesm I should find those definitions for athiesm - state them - and then bring my counterarguments to bear.
I think my eyes are seeing that there are as many versions of athiesm as there are theism.
TTF
Yes, TF. I do not believe in the existence of a god as described by all fundamentalist religions. I'm happy to accept the term when used as a metaphor for some kind of ultimate reality or fundamental principle--for example, spiritually provocative notions like Tillich's "the God above God" or Hinduism's "Brahma"--even though I might be benignly agnostic regarding their ontological status.
Guys, on the back of thoughts inspired here, I just started a new thread on categorizing non-theists...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49029&highlight=
..would appreciate your input.
This thread asks if atheists and agnostics simply reject faith. Obviously, by definition, atheists reject RELIGIOUS faith. But this does not apply to "faith", as in taking things on faith. Most of the cultural presuppositions upon which our world view rests are taken on faith. A thousand years from now our cultural presuppositions will appear quaint, unrealistic and irrational. But for now most of them work. We find that in some corners of science, philosophy, art and the social sciences some presuppositions are being re-examined or challenged. But the effects of this process generally does not, in the short run at least, trickle down to the everyday lives of ordinary people.
JLNobody wrote: This thread asks if atheists and agnostics simply reject faith. Obviously, by definition, atheists reject RELIGIOUS faith. But this does not apply to "faith", as in taking things on faith.
Most of the cultural presuppositions upon which our world view rests are taken on faith.
A thousand years from now our cultural presuppositions will appear quaint, unrealistic and irrational. But for now most of them work. We find that in some corners of science, philosophy, art and the social sciences some presuppositions are being re-examined or challenged. But the effects of this process generally does not, in the short run at least, trickle down to the everyday lives of ordinary people.
I agree with all of this JL. I think that a thousand years from now Christianity (my leaning) will seem very very quaint and misunderstood.
TF
Hi, Osso. Let go and give us your smile.
