On 7/8/2013 12:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


        On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:

            On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


                On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:




                    
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/



                I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is 
more an
                anticlerical than an atheist to me ...


            Everybody called him an atheist.  He called himself an atheist. I 
think you
            just don't like the term.


        "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have 
realized now
        that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many 
people
        confuse agnosticism and atheism. Some atheists maintains the confusion 
to hide
        that they are believers (in "matter" and in the non existence of God).


    I don't know any atheists who are shy about their belief that matter exists 
and God
    doesn't.

    Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not God 
exists
    is unknown" with agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is impossible to 
know".
     I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation 
because it
    only describes someone in contrast to "theist".  It just means they fail to 
believe
    in a God who is a person and whose approval one should seek.  As Harris 
points out
    we don't invent words like awarmist to describe one who fails to believe 
there is
    global warming or anummerist to describe someone who's not sure about the 
existence
    of numbers.


There is the term "Bright", which perhaps better describes someone who seeks to include only naturalistic explanations in their world-view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

But what would happen if naturalistic explanations lend credence to the existence of God or gods?

Then people would have a greater degree of belief in gods; but they wouldn't have "faith", i.e. unquestioning belief, in them. In fact that's the way it was at one time. The belief in storm gods, volcano gods, deer spirits, rain gods, plague's as punishment for impiety,...were all 'naturalistic' explanations at the time. It was just assumed that important, unpredictable events must be the work of a powerful being. It wasn't forbidden to doubt these models and their effectiveness as predictors was not supposed to depend on how pious or faithful you were. There was no distinction between natural and supernatural. Those were later developments as religion was split from science and subsumed into an instrument of social control.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to