Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robaggio
I'm curious. Why do you postpone faith-based acceptance of a pink unicorn when you embrace the notion of the conventional god? Neither entities have any more "proof" going for them- why one over the other?
|
Hmm... Maybe the way I state thoughts comes out unclearly, but I actually postpone my acceptance of both the pink unicorn and a conventional god. Both based on the same line of reasoning.
RCALyra, I may be off base here myself, but I define theists as being those who believe in god (they may do so because of pure faith - and people say blind faith for a reason, blind being the operative term for not requiring to see the proof for their faith, or they may do so because thay have actual proof, some sort of divine rapture - yes I did see the Simpsons last night).
I define atheists as those who do not believe in god, and they do not believe in god , based on faith, that is they do not have any proof for the lack of god.
somehow, i think that your definition of atheism:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RCALyra2004
"If a person does not see any evidence that there is a God, or diety, or dieties it does not imply that they have taken a position of "faith that there is no God"
It simply means that they cannot see God, "Therefore she does not appear to be there." After rereading all of your posts I get a sense that you feel it necessary to define atheism from a perspective of faith. Atheism by accepted definition is an non-theistic perspective on the world. That is to say that my world view does not currently have God in it."
|
maps to my definition of an agnostic. I see no evidence that there is a god, nor any evidence to the contrary. I therefore cannot accept either position, and must await the so called 'proof' for one of these positions.
You are correct (in my view) when you say that if I do not see any evidence, it doesn't imply that I have to take a position of faith that there is no god. In my view, I do not. I have to take one of three positions:
1) faith that there is a god
2) faith that there is no god
3) Not knowing either way (agnostic)
while in any of these three positions, if I am presented with actual proof, I can translate to one of two more positions:
a) Knowledge that god exists
b) knowledge that god does not exist
In which case it is impossible for me to hold tenure on position 3), but 1) & a) or 2) & b) can co-exist.
klugey reply, but I am trying to work this out myself...