On 2/6/2013 5:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:38 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 2/5/2013 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

    On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



    2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>


        On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:

        Hi meekerdb
        There's nothing wrong with science as science.
        But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
        Two completely different worlds.

        That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string 
christian. Let
        us try to be not serious on theology, so we can assert the fairy tales. 
Strong
        Christian are happy because they feel like they can contradict the 
scientific
        evidences, and the atheists are happy so they can continue to mock the
        christians, and continue to sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.


    You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can perfectly 
be an
    idealist... materialism is not part of the definition of atheism.

    Definition here are often contradictory. Some years ago, the definition 
keep changing.

    Can you give me the name of an atheist who is idealist?

    Almost all of them by my definition of a-theist, e.g. Bosanquet, Fichte,
    McTaggart,...  Of course by your definition, hardly anyone is an atheist 
since it
    would be denying there is anything fundamental; something like "It's 
turtles all the
    way down."


If you refer to Johann Gottlieb...Fichte was definitely not an atheist by your definition. In "Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftlehre" he refers constantly to the "absolute I", not to be confused with the individual. In later writing you see this morph into interchangeable uses of "absolute", "being", and "god", which German scholarly consensus considers unambiguous today. "True Self-discovery", including all the extensions of self into action and its products, is the same as "God discovery", and that philosophers have no role, but to remind of this connection. That was the controversy that got him in trouble as blasphemy to religious interests, the inversion of man's "fallenness" into "God, if on truthful self-discovery", not a denial of god.

It was my understanding that he believed in a creator god, but not the god of theism that is all-good and wants to be worshiped and answers prayers.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to