pigglet, those are some very interesting thoughts. A few points.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
martian, yes i would say its a semantic difference. i used to use the same definition that you are using for atheism. i think its fine if you do, but i found that i kept running into people who considered themselves atheists, and yet still had a spiritual side to them. If you look at the definition, it seems that a theistic belief system specifically implies belief in gods or God, as the focal point of the beliefs. Thus, if you reject the existence of an actual deity, then you technically are an atheist.
|
In the strictest definition of the terms, you're right in that atheism is of course the opposite of theism; that is, an absence of a belief in God and/or Gods. However, I generally find that description to be a bit too narrow. There are certain folks who, while not believing in any deity in the traditional sense, still hold faith that there is some higher power at work. What it ultimately comes down to is where you draw the line for theism or gnosticism. If you accept God in only the Judeo-Christian or Hindi sense, ie beings of higher power than humanity, there certainly can be spiritual atheists. However, if one expands the definition to include other forms of higher powers or forces at work, I think one can actually include most spiritual individuals under the umbrella of theism, though there are definitely those who would balk at the description.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
So, for instance while you call yourself an agnositic, I'd call you an agnostic atheist, based on what you've posted thus far.
|
You are absolutely right about common usage; this is why I make the distinction that I am a strong agnostic. The definition isn't a perfect description, but it is the one that most closely matches my beliefs. I am not an agnostic atheist, because I do not deny or even consider it unlikely that some form of a God exists. It is a definite possibility in my mind, though by no means assured. I don't know what's right and therefore I tend to treat any system of beliefs as equally valid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
my question is...do you know this? or do you accept it because it's convenient, and the alternative is useless?
|
This is, of course, the Descartian resolution and I find that whenever I discuss it people have trouble accepting the idea. The simple fact is that I must exist; the proof of my existence is my ability to postulate the question. Were I not in some form of consciousness, I would not be able to ask if I were here at all. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that my existence takes the form I assume it does. I may be part of a larger consciousness, or even some form of dream or hallucination, but even still that I can ask questions in the first place implies that I have some form of unique identity. It's a bit like the anthropic principle, if you can dig that; I know that I must exist, because if I didn't exist I wouldn't be able to ask in the first place.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
The thing is, I personally take it on faith that our perceptions are pretty close to the actual universe. Basically, it doesn't really bother me that much. Part of that feeling is my personal realization that there is no use in dwelling on the opposite overly much. I've found it to be pretty much useless; not even constructive to attaining new knowledge.
|
You're right in that the question is largely an academic one. Whether the reality I view and function in is true or not, it is for the time being at least all I have and therefore what I'll work with. It seems to me that where we differ here is that you consider the question to be unanswerable and therefore dismiss it, whereas I, while acknowledging same, still think of it as a valid point to ponder. Make no mistake, I don't spend my days fretting over whether or not there is a spoon; however, I still consider the question to be worth asking and will not assume it to be invalid until I have proof of such.