Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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. 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.
|
Martian, I can certainly understand your position; what I find somewhat humorous, especially in light of the previous exchange concerning the inability to understand how people can consider themselves to be adherants of a particular faith, while not fully accepting the espoused positions of said faith, is the fact that we're using different definitions of atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism in this discussion. I tend to view atheism, particularly using your definition of the philosophical position, to be another religion, much like zero is a number. Regardless, I don't know that its worth spending too much time on.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I've always thought that there was a considerable amount of debate as to whether or not this actually consistutes
proof of existance. Didn't Descartes have about four or five different approaches in trying to prove his own existence? As far as I can see, its very easy to get into a place where one is simply arguing the meaning of the word "proof." I pretty much agree with your position in terms of this position, but I don't really find it useful to argue over whether or not it's actually a "proof" or not.
Quote:
|
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.
|
actually, i agree completely with this; depending on circumstances. for instance, in terms of gaining greater knowledge, i think its a great question - easily one of the most important questions to come to grips with. at the same time, if i'm about to be run over by a bus, that's not really the time that i would choose to dwell on questions of whether i exist or not, and thus whether or not being hit by a bus can be absolutely proven to have a negative affect on my health, or what the actual nature of the terms "negative" and "my health" mean. i'm just going to accept the blase definitions of the terms, and get out of the street
seriously, similarly to something i think you posted earlier - i think ultimately the absolute truth is unapproachable to our comprehension, but i don't think this means that gaining better approximations, within the caveat that we are limited by the "facts" we've already accepted as truth, is a waste of time. in fact, its probably one of the most worthwhile things we can do, in my opinion.