PGC, Brent, et all (Liz? with Dawkins quoted) - the word is *"GOD-LIKE" * what I object to. Like WHAT god of the past 20,000 years? the one imagined as the Big Baer, or the 'author' behind the Abrahamic Scripture, or Bruno's Univ. Machine? The Greek socials, or the Nordish brutes?
I missed Bruno's definition of atheist and agnostic and my own is poorly formulated. I THINK (my) *atheist* (I) is *not to include* a human-like person as a factor for the 'creation' etc., *with *human attributes and deficiencies, rather leaving it to *Nature(?*) to evolve as it goes. *Agnostic*, however, is a person (me) who BELIEVES that the Everything includes lots of unknown and still unknowable items in unknowable qualia and relations beyond any inventory we so far ever assembled about *Her*. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to >> "Conscience & Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and >> atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic >> is useful if only to explain that difference. >> >> >> It's more complicated than that. It depends on what you mean by "g". Is >> it the god of theism, who is a person who created the world, answers >> prayers, and judges humans in an afterlife. Or is it the god of deism who >> created the world but doesn't act in it. Or is it one of the "gods" of >> mystics who is a principle or "nature" or an unnameable and unknowable >> something. Literally "atheist" is one who is not a theist, one who fails >> to believe in the god of theism. Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist >> because he believed in the god of deism. >> > > This use with Jefferson as example is particular. Atheism in most contexts > is more broad, roughly the sense "belief in non-existence of god/deities"; > where the kind of god matters less. > > Unless of course, this is some kind of US linguistic use/habbit or domain > bound jargon. But if this is how you've always understood the term, then > this explains why we've disagreed here before. ~[]g and []~g is independent > of the kind of "g". PGC > > >> >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
