Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 05-05-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shake
Nor is it a worldview as other theists would argue.

I agree that definitions to terms should be agreed upon before a debate (or during if you can get away with it). If you're talking to an Xian, you should make sure you know what flavor they are and what they think an Xian is/should be. I further agree that perhaps you should qualify your generalizations with "most" or "many" instead of "all" (implied or otherwise).

Who is "op"?

It is not a generalisation. I consider theism to be inherently detestable and rotten. All, not some, theists are to me "devils". Although that is only my opinion, yet it is not a generalisation.

Shake · 05-05-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Who is "op"?

It is not a generalisation. I consider theism to be inherently detestable and rotten. All, not some, theists are to me "devils". Although that is only my opinion, yet it is not a generalisation.

Not who, what? OP = original post.

OK, I understand where you're coming from now, and while I share your view about theism, I don't agree that all theists are "devils."

Shadowy Man · 05-05-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad
The nice thing about magic, though, is that we've pretty much all experienced it as both believers and non-believers.

Hrm? When have I experienced magic?

JerryM · 05-05-2003, 02:23 PM

I'm a naturalist. I believe that matter, energy, and the laws of nature are all that exist, even though our understanding of them is quite incomplete. Lack of belief in any kind of supernatural deity follows as a logical conclusion from this view. Can I prove this with absolute epistemological certainty? No. I think naturalism is very well founded, based on centuries of observation and experimentation. But it still is subject to Hume's problem of induction. Just because it has been true in the past is no guarrantee that it will always be true. To be honest, it does require a degree of faith.

What I'm getting at, is that many theists or religious believers confuse atheism and naturalism (or alternative non-theist philosophies.) Atheism, as has been pointed out, is simply the lack of a belief, and is not a positive fact statement about the universe. Naturalism, however, is a definite worldview, and I think an honest and thoughtful proponent must be prepared to justify and defend it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2003, 02:23 PM	#14
JerryM Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO. Posts: 1,100	I'm a naturalist. I believe that matter, energy, and the laws of nature are all that exist, even though our understanding of them is quite incomplete. Lack of belief in any kind of supernatural deity follows as a logical conclusion from this view. Can I prove this with absolute epistemological certainty? No. I think naturalism is very well founded, based on centuries of observation and experimentation. But it still is subject to Hume's problem of induction. Just because it has been true in the past is no guarrantee that it will always be true. To be honest, it does require a degree of faith. What I'm getting at, is that many theists or religious believers confuse atheism and naturalism (or alternative non-theist philosophies.) Atheism, as has been pointed out, is simply the lack of a belief, and is not a positive fact statement about the universe. Naturalism, however, is a definite worldview, and I think an honest and thoughtful proponent must be prepared to justify and defend it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.