PaliRichard Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Why is it different?[/Quote] Because religion tells us we can find the evidence if we follow a set of prescribed instructions. The tooth fairy has never been claimed to be unknowable, we can follow a line of enquiry to the origins of the idea of the tooth fairy, with God we cannot, we can follow a line of enquiry as to the origins of particular religions and what they claim God is, but we cannot follow a line of enquiry to disprove something that is claimed to be unknowable. It's like experience, we can follow a line of enquiry to say what areas of the brain are lit up and what those areas correspond to, but we cannot experience the experience of the person who is having it, that is unknowable except in the first person. An atheist simply has no belief in God(s), not necessarily a belief that no God(s) exists. The distinction is irrelevant for the point I was making, and different dictionaries have different descriptions, some say it is an absence of belief some say it is an active unbelief, for the most part the difference is hair splitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Because religion tells us we can find the evidence if we follow a set of prescribed instructions. The tooth fairy has never been claimed to be unknowable, we can follow a line of enquiry to the origins of the idea of the tooth fairy, with God we cannot, we can follow a line of enquiry as to the origins of particular religions and what they claim God is, but we cannot follow a line of enquiry to disprove something that is claimed to be unknowable. It's like experience, we can follow a line of enquiry to say what areas of the brain are lit up and what those areas correspond to, but we cannot experience the experience of the person who is having it, that is unknowable except in the first person. The distinction is irrelevant for the point I was making, and different dictionaries have different descriptions, some say it is an absence of belief some say it is an active unbelief, for the most part the difference is hair splitting. God is defined by the religion that claims their God is the true God, without religion the word God wouldn’t exist. Not all religions claim God is unknowable and the ones that do also claim other things about God. Many of the attributes of God are impossible therefore that particular God cannot exist. Some gods can exist but are irrelevant because of their inability to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 ...The tooth fairy has never been claimed to be unknowable, we can follow a line of enquiry to the origins of the idea of the tooth fairy, with God we cannot, we can follow a line of enquiry as to the origins of particular religions and what they claim God is, but we cannot follow a line of enquiry to disprove something that is claimed to be unknowable. OK, I'll claim it now: the tooth fairy is unknowable. We can follow a line of enquiry as to the origins of particular ideas and attributes given for the tooth fairy, but we cannot follow a line of enquiry to disprove something that is claimed to be unknowable. We can follow a line of enquiry to the origins of the idea of god. In the case of the abrahamic religions and its monotheistic god - there is a good historical understanding of why and how this god developed. That aside, the idea of god or gods always seem to originate from our need to apply agency behind our environment(who created that/who created us) and the events in our lives(who caused the earthquake? and is it because the 'who' didn't like my neighbours nose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 OK, I'll claim it now: the tooth fairy is unknowable. We can follow a line of enquiry as to the origins of particular ideas and attributes given for the tooth fairy, but we cannot follow a line of enquiry to disprove something that is claimed to be unknowable. We can follow a line of enquiry to the origins of the idea of god. In the case of the abrahamic religions and its monotheistic god - there is a good historical understanding of why and how this god developed. That aside, the idea of god or gods always seem to originate from our need to apply agency behind our environment(who created that/who created us) and the events in our lives(who caused the earthquake? and is it because the 'who' didn't like my neighbours nose). I entirely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Let me clarify some Buddhist teachings. technically Buddhism is not atheistic, because the Buddha taught that there were Gods (an atheist is someone who believes that God or Gods do not exist) Neither however is it theistic, because Theism is the belief in a creator God, which Buddhism does not believe in. This rather confusing 'technical' information aside, Gods in Buddhism refers to 'heavenly' beings, but they are subject to the same laws of Kamma as the rest of us, so they will still be reborn and live and die. I only know of two references to a creator God (as we would identify it in the west) in Buddhism, one is that Buddha said if there is a loving God why would he let people suffer, the other which refers to Brahma thinking he was the creator because he was the first to be reborn in a particular realm. Because he was the first, he assumed he had created it, and those that followed made the same assumption, but the Buddha said this was a mistaken belief and that Brahma was subject to birth and death like the rest of us Buddhists do believe in an after life but not in the way Christians/Muslims etc do, because in Buddhism there is no solid soul that is reborn. In Buddhism EVERYTHING is subject to change, including the self (which is equivelant to the soul) So from a technical perspective in Buddhism 'I' am not reborn only the clinging nature that is identified as myself, when this clinging nature is extinguished, so is any concept of 'I' and this is when one 'enters' Nirvana. Buddhism and other Eastern religions have had an infuence in some areas of Christianity.I'm particularly thinking of Christian meditation groups.Some Christian writers have written favourably about many of their practices,and have encouraged open thinking,especially with regard to their spiritual practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 So what is the answer to the question: "Is agnosticism actually atheism without the attitude?"? I don't really know yet. The title is ambiguos,maybe there is a clue in the word attitude. What are you? what is everyone that subscribed to the thread? What is the OP? What am i? What does it really matter anyway what anyone is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 So what is the answer to the question: "Is agnosticism actually atheism without the attitude?"? Read six45ive's post in #770 above which explains the difference between agnosticism and atheism. In truth the question posed in the thread title makes as much sense as asking; "Is blue actually red without the noise?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Read six45ive's post in #770 above which explains the difference between agnosticism and atheism. : What is the post saying that is any different from your post of explanation or Roots or Jimmy's or other posts. The only difference in that post is that is written at greater length as if copied from a text.There is nothing really personal in that post.It isn't replying to anyone,it is just a statement,more like a speech to an audience from what i can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 So what is the answer to the question: "Is agnosticism actually atheism without the attitude?"? Agnosticism is professing not to know if there may be a god. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Everyone is an atheist to some degree. Does anyone believe in Thor or Zeus in these enlightened days? Anti-theism is a response to theists wanting to impose their perception of their particular god's views in mainstream life. Look at the Bishops Elect, Gay marriage or Islam in general. Atheism doesn't mean attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.