05 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingetthow can u be an athiest an have regular posts on the spirituality forum?
I do not presume to know anything about god. It may be that there is a deist god who set the laws of nature into motion but then has had no other interaction with his creation. Would the existence of that god be irrelevant? Irrelevant to whom, exactly? I cannot answer for everyone, but only for myself.
My atheism does not imply a knowledge of anything, ...[text shortened]... that the statement that 'god is unknowable' is not an absolute truth, but a provisional one.
Then again you have good points.
Are you sure you're not an agnostic?
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelNowhere does it say that the 'spirituality' forum is restricted to theists.
how can u be an athiest an have regular posts on the spirituality forum?
Then again you have good points.
Are you sure you're not an agnostic?
I have no use for the term 'agnostic.' As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not a theist, they are, by definition, an atheist (without theism). As far as I can see, the term 'agnostic' is only useful for people who buy into the presupposition that atheism necessarily equals 'hard' or 'strong' atheism, which is false. If you want to call me an agnostic atheist, that would be fine, but unnecessary, as I think just 'atheist' is sufficient.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28004
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat is actually my personal stance twhitehead. If I told you that I had a gift for you of a fluzlubbleklak - what would you expect? When you use the term "god" it is completely meaningless to me.
The term "God" needs first to be properly defined for a coherent answer to that question can be given.
For the term "God" to be meaningful it needs to be knowable.
As for you not being able to understand the difference between positive affirmation and passive acceptance - what can I say? You need to define what 'truth' is. The way I was using it in my sentence was in the ordinary absolute way that we use it in everyday conversation. If I say, "I woke up this morning" then I am making a claim to that 'truth.' If I say, "It is logical to me that western religion is more concerned with the issue of controlling people in the society than making their actual lives better" then I am not making the same kind of claim. Likewise if you tell me that you believe in god (or little green men) then I don't expect that you will be able to offer the same kind of compelling evidence (shared experience) that can verify the fact that I woke up this morning. Do you see the difference?
karoly aczel - some of us obviously read spirituality as an interest in religion in general - I am religious but I don't believe in god. Atheism is NOT the affirmation that god died (formerly existed, no longer does) - it is an acceptance that the term has no meaning (but that has nothing to do with religion or your own ideas and feelings about the universe.)
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackI think you need to recheck who posted that reply, my good man. 🙂
That is actually my personal stance twhitehead. If I told you that I had a gift for you of a fluzlubbleklak - what would you expect? When you use the term "god" it is completely meaningless to me.
As for you not being able to understand the difference between positive affirmation and passive acceptance - what can I say? You need to define what 'truth' ...[text shortened]... has nothing to do with religion or your own ideas and feelings about the universe.)
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackyep. thnx both of you
That is actually my personal stance twhitehead. If I told you that I had a gift for you of a fluzlubbleklak - what would you expect? When you use the term "god" it is completely meaningless to me.
As for you not being able to understand the difference between positive affirmation and passive acceptance - what can I say? You need to define what 'truth' has nothing to do with religion or your own ideas and feelings about the universe.)
A lot of times people have 'weaved' through sprirtual discussions without actually stating anything-and thats fine,however i get more out of it when people put their 'nuts' on the line
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettWhy label yourself an athiest? is it literal or metaphoric?
Nowhere does it say that the 'spirituality' forum is restricted to theists.
I have no use for the term 'agnostic.' As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not a theist, they are, by definition, an atheist (without theism). As far as I can see, the term 'agnostic' is only useful for people who buy into the presupposition that atheism necessarily equals 'h ...[text shortened]... eist, that would be fine, but unnecessary, as I think just 'atheist' is sufficient.
(or both or neither?)
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28004
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI was following the chain: you replied to karoly aczel who replied to twhitehead and so on to me. Was this not the case?
I think you need to recheck who posted that reply, my good man. 🙂
As for atheism - do you call monotheists apolytheists? (Surely they are.) How about calling an atheist an apatheist? (What a friend suggested that he was - he just didn't care what you called it.)
05 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by TerrierJackSo you were just using my post to address twhitehead (you did address your post to twhitehead after all)? I thought you had mistaken my post for twhitehead's.
I was following the chain: you replied to karoly aczel who replied to twhitehead and so on to me. Was this not the case?
As for atheism - do you call monotheists apolytheists? (Surely they are.) How about calling an atheist an apatheist? (What a friend suggested that he was - he just didn't care what you called it.)
As for the rest, I don't see the relevance with respect to my own opinions, but I'll answer anyway.
Monotheists are always apolytheists, but the converse isn't always true. The terms are then not perfectly interchangeable, so I would tend not to call them so. A similar argument applies for atheists and apatheists.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackAn apatheist could be a theist who was just too lazy to question any of his beliefs. Or someone who believes because it is the path of least resistance.
I was following the chain: you replied to karoly aczel who replied to twhitehead and so on to me. Was this not the case?
As for atheism - do you call monotheists apolytheists? (Surely they are.) How about calling an atheist an apatheist? (What a friend suggested that he was - he just didn't care what you called it.)