|
|
|
|
|
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 2:10:11 AM | "Plus how can a person who does not believe or doubts belief Judge whether or not a person is following their faith?"
Good question and it was also a question that St. Anselm asked in regards to the intelligibility of Christian doctrine. In essence, he posited that in order to fully understand the religious path, one must immerse oneself in the path. In other words, it is not enough to see the path, one must walk the path in order to truly comprehend the quintessence of Christianity i.e. to feel the texture and rapture of water, immersion is requisite. This he called "Credo ut intelligam" or Belief before understanding. The Atheistic inversion would be, "Intelligam ut Credo". This is an interesting postulation, and becomes even more interesting when understood in conjunction with Wittgenstein's interpretation. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 3:14:42 AM | | ^Wrong Latin conjugation. Not "Intelligam ut Credo", but "Intelligo ut credam". Sorry. | |
|
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 53 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 6:27:02 AM | Interesting thread. Atheism is simple position on an ontological issue, nothing more. It is not a belief system, per se. "Atheism" means absent theistic belief. That is, the atheist sees no satisfactory evidence of gods and demons or other supernatural creatures, including the Christian celestrial peeping tom concept. A good book on the existence debate is philosopher George Smith's book "Atheism". Another point: The burden of proof is technically on the theist, because the theist is making the affirmative statement. The bottom line is that the theist is unable to show existence using facts, logic and reason, but nevertheless claims to know the unknowable. Atheists don't deny the possibility that there might be some sort of supernatural creatures out there, only don't see satisfactory evidence thereof. The term "agnostism" got its start from a humanist philosopher as a party joke in the 19th century to mullify Christian intolerance on the issue.
It is Christians, then, that try to generalize atheism into a belief system. Many people holding an atheist view become humanists, who frame moral issues using facts, logic and reason, but the two endeavors are separte philosophical issues. I note further that 3 of the biggest "religions" in the world are absent gods and demons--Buddhism, Taoism, and upper caste Hinduism. These systems are heavily absorbed in epistimological issues. Thats billions of people. They have their anticidents in god and demon mythology, but evolved away from it over time. Campbell's works show the evolution of mythology. Mythology is someone else's religion. And Christianity, I'm sure, similarly evolves.
For the theists, I think the best anyone has done in the direction of defining a godhead is Albert North Whitehead through his process theology, which is interesting, but a far stretch from the Christian celestrial peeping tom godhead. Anyway, thanks for starting the topic. I enjoyed everyone's comments. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 7:09:03 AM | ... how can a person who does not believe or doubts belief Judge whether or not a person is following their faith?
Well I suppose in as such that atheism represents Godlessness, I see your point.
However the same argument negates your own, is it anymore logical for example to make the claim that a person with beliefs or faith can judge whether or not a person can be faithful about anothers non-belief?
We are talking about personal expereinces here.
Divine or mundane you know not my mind more then you do the mind of "God".
I mean this line of reasoning is again obviously (if indirect, and perhaps unconscious then so be it) an attempt to dogmatize something essentially non-dogmatic; which was the thread originators claim, that atheism was religious. Which clearly it is not.
Faithless do not equal faithful by extension of the reversal of opposites, it is not a logical formula we are talking about here!
Things do not equal true, just becasue they sound spiffy off the cuff and in the moment.
That would be the definition of rhetoric at its height of poverty. | |
|
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 55 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 9:45:26 AM | Atheism, a simple position on an ontological issue, has nothing to do "faith" and everything to do with logic and reason; therefore, nothing is "negated", nor does your question make sense. I respectfully submit that you are still trying to make it something more than it is.
I agree with your point that belief gods and demons has to do with personal experience, because that is the only basis, I would think, that anyone would could demonstrate to themself such a belief, which cannot be otherwise shown. Perhaps the theist has a vision or some other sort of spiritual experience. That is definitely personal. American Indians got their insight through dream visions. I'm not saying these experiences are false. I simply don't know; therefore, I agree with your assertion that I can't "know your mind."
Christians, like Islamists and Jews, live in a world of absolutes. You have to tow the company line. There are no in-betweens. The fear, I would think, is that if one pillar falls, maybe others will; however, some Christian sects have stopped trying to explain various things in the Torah, like creation, etc. The absolutism is why, I think, that they have trouble reconciling with groups that have other beliefs.
In the first post on this thread, there was a suggestion that atheists were somehow picking on Christians. I think your beef is probably with humanists. Many are technical atheists, and derive their moral framework logic and reason, instead of faith. Another great book on all this is Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian." Thanks for your comments. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 56 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 2:37:26 PM | Best example I'm right - my posts were removed. Wrong people dont like to hear the truth... Hope you dont make it to hell cause it looks like that's where you're headed... Thanks for the warm wishes (pun intended, ok... possibly not wise, but all shall be revealed in time, maybe)…
The smiley face does make all the difference. *giggle*
More likely it suggests your posts didn’t follow the forum posting guidelines; if post deletion was an endorsement of truth… then you don’t even want to know what other ideas POF endorses via deletion.
People rarely like to hear opinions differing from their own. People almost always believe their view is the normal one. It takes a fairly mature and secure person to deal with the concept that their beliefs are not universal or even normal.
Differing view abound.
Arguably both sides believe they are right, or that they have the closest proximity to truth.
When’s the last time you believed in something you thought was untrue?
Very much how people have a physical personal space. If you step into it, they feel infringed on and often threatened. They may step back, leave, shut-down or retaliate. People also have an emotional personal space. Likewise, if you push up against that you’ll have a similar reaction. People are often incredibly protective of their ethical or religious framework. And for good reason, you need it to function and make decisions.
It’s courtesy to respect that space and be gentle with people’s beliefs.
I feel no “moral obligation to spread their kind of truth.”
Although it is fun to discuss philosophy, ethics and religion with willing participants. I love it as an opportunity to grow, learn and refine my ideas and ideals.
However, it makes for horrible discussion should either party be unwilling.
I very rarely make exceptions.
One is when it impacts government policy or similar issues where it would result in an infringement.
The other is if they bring it up. And even then, I usually give them a way out first. | |
|
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 57 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 2:41:38 PM | Jeremy, Truth is, as one guy put it above, an individual concept or experience in these matters. Everyone's religion is special. We should respect everyone's bent, as everyone should respect ours. The world has gotten smaller, given information sharing. Christians and other religionists, who have historically been taught that their respective dictums were absolute, are having to learn tolerance and understand that other diciplines work for other people. Its a rough transition for some.
Our founding fathers, many of them Unitarian, understood this dynamic, which is why we have the establishment clause in the Constitution. Unitarians, then quasi Christian, did not agree with the trinity doctrine (which Serveitis called the three headed god), which put them in an extreme minority at the time. The concept spilled over into other areas, and is probably why the US is a successful democracy. The issue is tolerance. Religon works for those who believe it. So does humanism or the eastern "religions", which are godless, for those who believe it. Its more productive to look for things we all agree on. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 12/31/2005 11:32:27 PM | I was wondering, what inspires Atheists to pick on Christians, or other religious groups.
Just an opinion, but I believe it is often in self defense. Christian love often comes off as an accusation of something done wrong. (This is probably not intended, but entirely true.)
Picking on a christian becomes akin to socking it to the school bully. (Not the Cerebus father fagure)
I mean why bother? Do Atheists have a moral obligation to spread their kind of truth?
Again, an opinion, but resistance to christian indoctrination can make sense when the christian character shows lacking in redeeming values. The church as an institution has lost it's appeal. The characters present are far from inspiring. I can think of much better ways for my loved ones to spend their time than around other christians.
And something else. Atheists also base their beliefs in some theories. You well know what those theories are, and "theory" is not my choice of word.
Here's the thing, I don't stand on street corners passing out tracts to passersby telling them my "theory" that nothing will happen when they die. There will be no heaven or hell. There will be no salvation, no forgiveness. I don't make it a mission to SOLICIT FUNDS TAX FREE in order to spread my message of futility. I keep it too myself. Or share it on internet forums.
They are mentioned as such.
They are not.
Doesn't it take a dose of belief, to base your life on something that probably won't be proven untill the time you are well rotten, 3 feet under the ground?
Bury 'em kinda shallow in NC, don't they?
Wouldn't that make Atheism, a form of religion just as well?
No.
    | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/1/2006 4:07:15 PM |
I told friends that I will no longer celebrate Christmas, rather the ancient Briton festival of Yuletide, with the log, and holly, and mistletoe etc. When Christianity was invented, it became necessary to kill muslims, (hence the Crusades) and modern britons are doing it to this day. Druids did not do this. They did create Stonehenge, a wonderful mathematical analysis of the workings of the world.
I think Christians keep re-inventing atheism by their actions.
Get your facts straight. Christianity has existed long before Islam came into existence so the killing of muslims wasn't brought about by X-tianity. Muslims have killed more people than x-tians to impose their beleifs on others. Get the facts my friend. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/1/2006 4:10:46 PM |
There is a certain amount of "smugness" directed at Xians from athiests. Athiests keep searching for truth incessantly, while Xians don't need to keep searching. Xians bring most of the resentment upon themselves, though. A tendency to condemn people to eternal damnation for not following their rules tends to get non-Xians a little peeved.
As an Atheist, I used to enjoy poking fun at the logic and rules of their religion. I used to get excited when some poor Xian would bang on my door, asking if I "had accepted Jesus into my heart yet". I would have them chasing their tails, in some elegant display of circular logic. Good times.....
Why does it bother you when you're told you're going to hell?...Isn't it because you know that there is some truth to that?.Either way , atheists loose. If there is no God, we all die and turn to dust but if there is, then guess where you're going my friend? | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/1/2006 4:27:44 PM |
Either way , atheists loose. If there is no God, we all die and turn to dust but if there is, then guess where you're going my friend?
If the Muslims are right then we're both screwed. If the Jews are right then we're both screwed. If you're not the right brand of Christian we're both screwed. If God has a funny sense of humor and wants us to live our lives as atheists then you're screwed and I'm okay. I'd say my chances are even regardless of which religion I follow or don't. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/1/2006 5:16:36 PM |
I'd say my chances are even regardless of which religion I follow or don't.
You're a gambler, are ya?
Well tell me, if
"either way, atheists loose", what's tight?
What's the right fight, white?
Athiesm is the plan, Stan.
| |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/1/2006 5:28:02 PM | | I like to point out that if God intended us to be Atheists we'd be born that way. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/1/2006 5:32:40 PM |
If the Muslims are right then we're both screwed. If the Jews are right then we're both screwed. If you're not the right brand of Christian we're both screwed. If God has a funny sense of humor and wants us to live our lives as atheists then you're screwed and I'm okay. I'd say my chances are even regardless of which religion I follow or don't.
Ohh no, you do not have an even chance regardless of religion. A religion like mormonism that preaches that black people are condemned for life, that in itself will tell you that they're a joke and you're getting nowhere with them. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 2:01:55 AM |
I was wondering, what inspires Atheists to pick on Christians, or other religious groups.
It's the other way round, most of the times. I'm not usually walking around picking on others, but if I get a handout about how I'm going to hell on every street corner then I'm going to defend my point of view.
I mean why bother? Do Atheists have a moral obligation to spread their kind of truth?
Yes we do - not to defend our worldview (I couldn't care less if someone believes in god, santa claus or a giant guinea pig that's going to eat up the solar system). But as members of a democratic society, there is a need that atheists defend their views against christian influence (well, any religion, but it's christianity where I live). For example, christians want to influence what we teach in scools (all that ID nonesense), when we go shopping (stores still closed here on Sundays) or even when we are allowed to dance (dancing on religious holidays was prohibited until shortly where i grew up). I disagree and I will fight for my ideals, this is my obligation as a member of this society.
And something else. Atheists also base their beliefs in some theories. You well know what those theories are, and "theory" is not my choice of word. They are mentioned as such.
I think you mix some things up here - atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god. Someone once said, calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour (I guess it was Don Hirschberg). Atheism is a concept that's not foreign to religious people, Christians are atheists regarding Zeus for example. Most eastern religions are atheistic (for example Bhuddism). So in regard to christianity, I'm an atheist based on the facts (not theories) given by the bible which disproves itself, the philosophical impossibility of god being good, almighty and all-knowing or the contradiction of free will and an all-knowing god. In regard to any religion at all, most atheists are agnostic or nontheists in one way or the other (simplifying terms here), but the burden of proof that there is a god clearly lays with the theists, since they claim his/her/its existence.
And yes, I was born an atheist.
/ken | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 4:40:51 AM | Great posts, Rhusbr. I have no problems with your prevailing argument, with the exception of...
"Atheism, a simple position on an ontological issue, has nothing to do "faith" and everything to do with logic and reason; therefore, nothing is "negated", nor does your question make sense. I respectfully submit that you are still trying to make it something more than it is."
Atheism is a negation of Theism, and it is a position that requires a certain degree of faith. Atheism is a position of negation, for which its premise, "There is(are) no God(s)", cannot be proved nor disproved. This is due to the nature of the God Axiom. Being self contradictory and an insoluble paradox, there can be no absolute solution to the proposition and the only 'logical' position is that of Huxley's Agnosticism, which is a noncommital stance. Owing to the fact that Atheists cannot prove for their negation of the proposition, "God exists", and owing to the fact that Theists cannot prove for their affirmation of the proposition, the logical validity of either value judgement is equal. This is simple Pyrrhonian Skepticism and is corroborated by 1st Order Logic, i.e. Bivalue Logic of T/F propositions (Atheism v. Theism) and the Principle of the Excluded Middle, and is essentially P=1 v ~P=1. Even in cases where Probability Theory of Logic is included (3rd Order Logic), the truth-functional proposition would be, (Pr (p)=1) v (Pr (~p)=1), and the probability would, again, be the same, i.e. 1/2 or equal. In short, because P=1 cannot be proved nor disproved, and ~P=1 cannot be proved nor disproved, due to the nature of the paradox which is the God Axiom, Atheists and Theists both take a leap of faith, whereas there can only be one 'logical' stance, and that stance is Agnosticism, which exercises Lukasiewicz's third modal value of 'possibility', which is neither T nor F. Because of this, the Metaphysical/Ontological argument becomes a model for what is known as the Truth-Value Gap of M-value Logic, which detaches itself from the Bivalue framework of logic to include a third indeterminate value, i.e. True, False, or Neither. In short, due to the fact that the proposition "God exists" can neither be proved T(1) or F(0), there can only be one other alternative, which would be ~(T v F) (1/2). If you're interested, C.I. Lewis also delves deeper in the the paradoxes of material implication (both antecedent/consequent) in regards to this Truth Functional argument, with the help of Russell-Whitehead's third logical operator. | |
|
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 67 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 7:42:04 AM | Vincent, I think it would be contradictory for an atheist to pretend to know what is unknowable, and that is exactly what he/she would be doing under your theory. As I noted, atheists cannot prove or disprove the proposition, which is one of your points. They don't "negate" the possibility of gods and demons, including the Christian ones, running around somewhere. The atheist is simply neutral on the issue due to the absence of evidence, let alone definitional issues (ie, which of the various supernatural beings avanced by various religionists would in such an event make the cut). On the proofs, the Smith book on atheism I talked about goes through all the applicable proofs advanced over the years by philosphers for existence, including some very interesting arguments from St. Thomas, a very smart fellow, and the applicable counter arguments, each of which leaves the atheist neutral.
Again, knowing the unknowable is the business of the theist, and over the years theists have conjured up a wide and interesting variety of supernatural beings to believe in and fight over. I think we should look to the Orient for some practicable answers on all this. All the great basins began with similar primative myth, which evolved into religions with gods and demons. Yet large groups in the east evolved out of godhead based religions and into belief systems (still called "religions" in the west) heavily preoccupied with epistimology, ie, what can be seen and known. This might give us a clue as to where the west is going in the next few hundred years.
Fun thread. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 10:49:04 AM | I agree, fun thread. Pardon a couple of minor digressions (one pertinent, one mildly corrective).
Rhusbr:
Thanks for bringing up the Unitarian framers of the Constitution which is particularly cogent to this topic of religious tolerance (I will refer any curious reader to the ongoing POF thread on the "Unitarian Jihad" for a painlessly light-hearted intro to the core principles of my own oft-misunderstood Unitarian "faith".) Also an article on the faith of Unitarian Thomas Jefferson in the December issue of Harpers magazine.
As a life-long Unitarian atheist (OK, nominal philosophical Buddhist, I admit) who recently fled 8 years of relentless "Christian" persecution in one of the North American heartlands of mordant Calvinism (the CRC and RCA Dutch Christian Reformed congregations of western Michigan), I found the OT's complaint about "atheist intolerance" risible. While living there I was able to bring several incidents of "faith-based" browbeating by Calvinists to a crashing halt by citing the example of early Unitarian apologist Michael Servetus (whom you also mentioned) who had the dubious distinction of being possibly the only Protestant philosopher to be burned at the stake for heresy by another Protestant (his own mentor, John Calvin himself.) So much for "Christian tolerance."
And to Greenstar1 (if you're still following this thread):
Being of Celtic descent, I share your sentimental fondness for northern European winter solstice traditions. However, as a trained archaeologist I must correct you on that commonly held error that the Druids (600 BC to 50 AD) had anything to do with Stonehenge, which was constructed between 3200 BC (the earliest outer circle of chalk rubble) and 2100 BC (when the great sarcen circle was erected.) Druidic rituals were primarily based on forest and water themes (rather than the cosmological events delineated by Stonehenge) and their sacred sites were woodland groves and springs for the most part.
Keep it up, guys. This is great "brain porn". | |
|
| |
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 70 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 4:20:47 PM | Pygalgia, On intolerance, lets take the thought of brain porn a step further. Read the first volume of Runcimen's set on the Crusades. When the Christian Europeans sacked Antioch, they put every Jewish and Arab man, woman and child to the sword in a Jewish temple. The scene per the Chronicles, the major source document, described the executioners being up to their knees in blood, as they killed all these people to which Runcimen rhetorically concluded the episode by saying, "...and Antioch was Christian once more."
In the next post, someone tries to distinquish agnostism from atheism. As I explained in an earlier post, "agnostism" was a humanist party joke. Not having belief does not intimate that you preclude the possibility of gods and demons, let alone which ones. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 4:23:19 PM | Rhusbr, as I suspected, we are not in disagreement. As I've mentioned before, there is a lax mode of Atheism (Practical Atheism) and a stricter mode (Theoretical Atheism). Practical Atheism is tantamount to Agnosticism, whereas Theoretical Atheism is the negation of the Theist proposition. For this reason, in contemporary Religious Philosophy, a strict delineation is used to restrict the overlapping of signifiers and to solve the need for deixis, i.e. Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism. Unless a writer denotes the mode of Atheism, i.e. "Practical" Atheism, which is uniform with Agnosticism, Theoretical Atheism is assumed. Your above post, although well articulated, does not infringe upon the validity/truth of my logical interpretation. Our problem is one of semantics. And yes, Aquinas was a brilliant Theologian. I've read all of his works.
"I think we should look to the Orient for some practicable answers on all this. All the great basins began with similar primative myth, which evolved into religions with gods and demons. Yet large groups in the east evolved out of godhead based religions and into belief systems (still called "religions" in the west) heavily preoccupied with epistimology, ie, what can be seen and known. This might give us a clue as to where the west is going in the next few hundred years."
However, I do disagree with this postulation. Eastern Mysticism is mere conjecture, and is consistent with the empirical demonstrability of Western Philosophy of Religion, i.e. there is none. Chuang or Lao Tzu's Taoism, or Wang Pi's philosophy on both I Ching and Taoist Philosophy, Mahayana/Theravada Buddhism and all branches that are derived from these two great schools i.e. Zen, Cha'an,Yogacara, the reiterated scripts of the Five Classics, Hinduism, etc. are simply postulations regarding the metaphysical organization of the world, and what is 'seen or known' is up for interpretation. In this, Western religious philosophy holds no more 'truth' than Eastern 'religious' philosophy. It is simply a matter of rendering meaning from extant empirical knowledge, while utilizing postulated premises. Whether or not a godhead is believed in, or if a pragmatically efficient philosophy for living life is posited i.e. Taoism, both sects are adjuncts of mysticism and prove for no metaphysical truths.
"In the next post, someone tries to distinquish agnostism from atheism. As I explained in an earlier post, "agnostism" was a humanist party joke. Not having belief does not intimate that you preclude the possibility of gods and demons, let alone which ones."
I find it strange that you should mention that it was a humanist party joke. I'm not sure how that affects the viability of the Agnostic stance. The Agnostic noncommital stance was first iterated by Kant i.e. the unknowability of God and therefore the emergence of faith. The bottom line is, Agnosticism is a accepted and logical stance. Nihilism too has gone a long way since it was introduced in Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons". Where terms originate and in what context they originate in, doesn't negate or compound a signifier's significance. | |
|
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 72 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 4:43:35 PM | Vincent, First, the origin of the term "agnostism" was in fact a party joke. The humanist was Huxley (spelling--its been awile since I read all of the jazz on this). The joke was just a reaction to Christian intolerance at the time, which was much more intimidating then as it is now, as humanist belief would adversly affect social standing.
On Eastern "mysticism", one has to understand the evolution. Buddhism from every class I took is not mystical, never was. Some sects might be, but the mainline is the 8-fold path to enlightenment, which I'd describe as a flow experience VS a mystical one. Alan Watts is very instructional on this. Taoism is similar, and the Bhramma thing (upper caste versions of Hinduism), as it has been described to me, is as well. Buddhism is a cross of Confusianism, an anticedient to Toaism, and Hinduism. Put another way, Buddha discovered 500 years ago what Freud and Jung recently came to understand. We'll get there. In the meantime, perhaps it has to have "mysticism" to have validity in western eyes. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 4:51:25 PM | Signs and signifiers... hmmm, if I said I was a cat you'd expect be to purr, well this one doesn't, it ROARS!  | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 4:57:26 PM | "Vincent, First, the origin of the term "agnostism" was in fact a party joke. The humanist was Huxley (spelling--its been awile since I read all of the jazz on this). The joke was just a reaction to Christian intolerance at the time, which was much more intimidating then as it is now, as humanist belief would adversly affect social standing."
Again, Rusbr, it doesn't matter where the term originated. Whether or not it began as a party joke. It is a universally accepted stance in Academia today. To argue the term's validity based on its origination is an Argument from Irrelevance.
"On Eastern "mysticism", one has to understand the evolution. Buddhism from every class I took is not mystical, never was. Some sects might be, but the mainline is the 8-fold path to enlightenment, which I'd describe as a flow experience VS a mystical one. Alan Watts is very instructional on this. Taoism is similar, and the Bhramma thing (upper caste versions of Hinduism), as it has been described to me, is as well. Buddhism is a cross of Confusianism, an anticedient to Toaism, and Hinduism. Put another way, Buddha discovered 500 years ago what Freud and Jung recently came to understand. We'll get there. In the meantime, perhaps it has to have "mysticism" to have validity in western eyes."
Sure, the four noble truths, the 8-fold way, consequential enlightenment IS Mysticism, by way of epistemology. The premise of Buddhism that you have taken classes for, is that all life is suffering. Note* Schopenhauer takes this to another interesting level. If you're using 'Mysticism' in regards to a communion with a Godhead, then sure, I agree. However, again, this is due to polysemics. Whether or not a Godhead is used or believed in, if a proposition is unfounded and based merely on structured conjecture in regards to metaphysics, it is deemed mystic or orphic. The bottom line is, Eastern 'religious' philosophy holds no more truth or promise than Western 'religious' philosophy.
"Signs and signifiers... hmmm, if I said I was a cat you'd expect be to purr, well this one doesn't, it ROARS!"
Hmm. Okay... | |
|
rhusbr
|
Joined: 10/30/2005
Msg: 75 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/2/2006 7:16:21 PM | Vincent, Maybe we splitting hairs. I just expained atheism, as it really is. I explained that agnostism is basically atheism, apart from being a party joke predicated on Christian intolerance. The bottom line is that these folks are absent belief pending a showing or evidence of some existence, which theists can't provide.
On another front, attaching mysticism to Buddhism is only something a westerner can do, because a westerner is into mysticism. Its a leep, if you read the various works. The east does not need gods, demons and the Christian celestrial peeping tom. It once did, but it moved away from such years ago. Sure, some sects were left behind, especially the lower castes in India, but the bottom line is that the east has proven that mankind does not need gods, demons and celestrial peeping toms.
I'll make one other point. The occident is impatient for answers. Where we do not have them, we tend to make them up. Gods and demons are convenient for this purpose. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
