Spirituality
02 May 10
09 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think atheism is a position of faith only in the special case that we're talking about strong atheists (I don't think they represent the majority)
To me, these two points stand out of your last post.
As to the scripture, I think most people nowadays have rejected the literal interpretation (particularly regards the OT) that you adhere to, even amongst believers. It is now considered reasonable and rational to reject third-party claims of the miraculous. Acceptance based on hearsay is gene ...[text shortened]... hich may or may not have come down to us more or less intact from their original inscription.
09 May 10
Originally posted by AgergFor clarity, I'm understanding the term 'atheist' to mean someone who believes that there is no creator. As far as I see, evidence generally supports this position, but it remains unproven.
I think atheism is a position of faith only in the special case that we're talking about strong atheists (I don't think they represent the majority)
09 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think it's unfortunate we (who don't hold that position) have to share the name 'atheist' with the small minority that do make such universal statements of negation.
For clarity, I'm understanding the term 'atheist' to mean someone who believes that there is no creator. As far as I see, evidence generally supports this position, but it remains unproven.
There is precisely zero evidence (other than looking in the wrong places) for the non-existence of any god; similarly there is zero evidence for the non existence of a supernatural magic pot that has an aversion to smarties (or any other supernatural entity I or you care to dream up).
09 May 10
Originally posted by AgergDoesn't that make your position agnostic then?
I think it's unfortunate we (who don't hold that position) have to share the name 'atheist' with the small minority that do make such universal statements of negation.
There is precisely zero evidence (other than looking in the wrong places) for the non-existence of any god; similarly there is zero evidence for the non existence of a supernatural magic pot ...[text shortened]... at has an aversion to smarties (or any other supernatural entity I or you care to dream up).
09 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI don't think so...atheism to me (and many others) represents a failure to believe in gods (putative or otherwise). Agnostism represents only a failure to have any knowledge on the matter.
Doesn't that make your position agnostic then?
To say I, with my position as it is, am agnostic cheapens the word somewhat because I am agnostic about every claim which can be in some way equated to magic or the supernatural. In fact I am agnostic about pretty much all claims actually because I cannot know for sure that all the phenomenon I would attribute to natural laws are not just special cases of a different set of laws which in general, behave not the way I or others would expect.
09 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI see. I have always understood there to be two definitions of agnosticism - the strong sort, being a belief that the nature and/or existence of god is unknown and unknowable, and the common sort (my sort), wherein the agnostic accepts that there is yet insufficient evidence to accept existence or otherwise of god. Sounds like we're on the same page but under a different cover!
I don't think so...atheism to me (and many others) represents a failure to believe in gods (putative or otherwise). Agnostism represents only a failure to have any knowledge on the matter.
To say I, with my position as it is, am agnostic cheapens the word somewhat because I am agnostic about every claim which can be in some way equated to magic or the super ...[text shortened]... cases of a different set of laws which in general, behave not the way I or others would expect.
09 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatPerhaps we are on the same page but I really don't think the atheist position (in so far as how the majority of us define ourselves) is one steeped in faith.
I see. I have always understood there to be two definitions of agnosticism - the strong sort, being a belief that the nature and/or existence of god is unknown and unknowable, and the common sort (my sort), wherein the agnostic accepts that there is yet insufficient evidence to accept existence or otherwise of god. Sounds like we're on the same page but under a different cover!
There are of course caricatures of this position (the strong atheist who feels the claim "there exist no gods" can be proved or rigorously justified with logic and/or lack of evidence to the contrary) Similarly there are caricatures of the Christian position (in that belief in the way of Christ necessarily implies belief in a 6000 year old earth, talking serpents, great floods, etc...)
I believe I've been in conversation with the latter type of Christian in this thread but he/she is not the voice of the majority. (though the majority here on RHP who care to argue about it seem to be of this ilk!)
09 May 10
Originally posted by AgergSeems like any disagreement we might have on this subject would be down to semantics. Guess we're both damned eh?
Perhaps we are on the same page but I really don't think the atheist position (in so far as how the majority of us define ourselves) is one steeped in faith.
There are of course caricatures of this position (the strong atheist who feels the claim "there exist no gods" can be proved or rigorously justified with logic and/or lack of evidence to the contrary) ...[text shortened]... jority. (though the majority here on RHP who care to argue about it seem to be of this ilk!)