Hi Cornel, Thanks for your private response to my Goanet article. You explain a lot about your perspective as well your personal philosophy. I appreciate it. Yet, you (and the other four on the aethesit / agnostic side) do not answer the two questions in my post. They are not trick questions. I would welcome an edited version of your private post (few perspectives at a time) as you make many valid points.
Let me not put you and others on the spot regarding my two questions. So let me tell you my thoughts / answers to them. Question 1: If one makes no claim on religion, but does live by "a rock solid principles and moral code", is he / she an true ATHEIST? GL's answer: An "agnostic" (no formal faith) with a "rock solid moral code" does in-effect have a philosophy and an "unstructured religion" albeit not a named (recognized) faith. So IMHO, they are NOT true agnostic, as they do follow and believe in something. It may be I have a different semantic definition of "atheist, agnostic, free thinker, etc" than what is generally accepted. Question 2: If one claims a religion, but then DOES NOT live by it, by their OWN claim or actions, is he a true Believer (NON-ATHEIST)? GL's answer: The individual claiming to be affiliated with a recognized religion, yet adamantly refusing to follow many of its basic tenets (not machem machem cafeteria) is effectively an agnostic / atheist. The same applies to an agnostic with no "rock solid moral code". IMHO, in both groups, they do not follow anything other than what they make up to suit their convenience. And both groups ... repeat... both groups... repeat... both groups... are termed in amchi bhas as bamtos. >From both a purist and a practical view, doesn't the analysis make sense? Regards, GL _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
