22 Feb 2011, 11:19 pm
22 Feb 2011, 11:28 pm
22 Feb 2011, 11:30 pm
23 Feb 2011, 12:33 am
23 Feb 2011, 1:08 am
23 Feb 2011, 1:14 am
23 Feb 2011, 1:43 am
23 Feb 2011, 1:55 am
23 Feb 2011, 7:42 am
aghogday wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
I forgot Ignoistic (people who think the Question is does not make sense)
-Jake
-Jake
So pertinent to many of the discussions on this forum. When arguing the existence of God or making value judgements about God, it is a common error to assume a definition of God. Often, an anthropomorphic conception of God is assumed.
Expansion on this point from Wiki:
Quote:
Dependence on a particular view concerning the word GodDrange emphasizes that any stance on "Does God exist?" is made with respect to a particular concept of what one claims to consider "God" to represent:
Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]
As god means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of god.[10] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of god while affirming belief in another conception of god, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.
Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]
As god means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of god.[10] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of god while affirming belief in another conception of god, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.
Exactly.
an ex-buddist is a very different critter than a ex-trinitarian , ex-mormon or ex-jew.
the nature of a persons atheism is "flavored" by the tradition they left. (as is alot of their thinking).
everybody holds irrational beliefs maybe it is better to be religious
cuz then at least you know what they are.
-Jake
23 Feb 2011, 11:05 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
aghogday wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
I forgot Ignoistic (people who think the Question is does not make sense)
-Jake
-Jake
So pertinent to many of the discussions on this forum. When arguing the existence of God or making value judgements about God, it is a common error to assume a definition of God. Often, an anthropomorphic conception of God is assumed.
Expansion on this point from Wiki:
Quote:
Dependence on a particular view concerning the word GodDrange emphasizes that any stance on "Does God exist?" is made with respect to a particular concept of what one claims to consider "God" to represent:
Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]
As god means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of god.[10] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of god while affirming belief in another conception of god, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.
Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]
As god means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of god.[10] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of god while affirming belief in another conception of god, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.
Exactly.
an ex-buddist is a very different critter than a ex-trinitarian , ex-mormon or ex-jew.
the nature of a persons atheism is "flavored" by the tradition they left. (as is alot of their thinking).
everybody holds irrational beliefs maybe it is better to be religious
cuz then at least you know what they are.
-Jake
I was raised a Catholic. I found the routine and structure comforting through my youth.
23 Feb 2011, 11:06 pm
23 Feb 2011, 11:09 pm
23 Feb 2011, 11:28 pm
24 Feb 2011, 12:35 am
24 Feb 2011, 12:40 am
Quote:
You'd probably still count as a "Christian atheist"
Can't I just be a Human?
Quote:
in the same way that Americans are still faintly British.
I'm Canadian
So I feel a little more attachment to our homeland and former magnanimous overlordQuote:
Mention "the Queen" to someone and, unless you're at a table in Vegas, odds are they'll think of the Queen of England. But very few Americans drink afternoon tea, and even fewer drive on the left side of the road (twice, anyway).
24 Feb 2011, 8:35 am
Vigilans wrote:
Quote:
You'd probably still count as a "Christian atheist"
Can't I just be a Human?
Quote:
in the same way that Americans are still faintly British.
I'm Canadian
So I feel a little more attachment to our homeland and former magnanimous overlordQuote:
Mention "the Queen" to someone and, unless you're at a table in Vegas, odds are they'll think of the Queen of England. But very few Americans drink afternoon tea, and even fewer drive on the left side of the road (twice, anyway).
No one exists free of context.
wow I said that backwards.
everybody exists as a member of their culture so in the west we are all christian and we are all pagan to some extent.
