John said:
...But non-theist, I can live with, even though technically speaking "a-theist"
means exactly the same thing. Atheists in the flesh, however, usually aren't
simply non-theists, they are usually actually strident anti-theists. They think
religion should be abolished in the name of scientific rationality. The MoQ
sees through that silliness - "scientific rationality" as just another thing
that's only in your head.
dmb says:
Well, no. You want religion and science to be equally bogus. You want to make
science and religion equal by discrediting both. That's no good. The difference
between them still obtains, regardless or whether or not you can find fanatical
subscribers to scientism. Science itself - as a method - is better than
religion because science is based on empirical evidence and it is far more open
to change. It's more dynamic and more concrete.
And yes, atheism and non-theism mean exactly the same thing. The connotation
that concerns you, ironically, is a product of the fact that so many of today's
atheists are actually former theists who are in recovery, who are trying to
undo their religious upbringing. Their fanaticism and their stridence is a
thought STYLE. They've exchanged the substance of one worldview for another but
their style remains the same. Once a fanatic, always a fanatic. I've seen the
same thing happen in politics. Check out David Horowitz, for example. He used
to be a fanatical left-winger and now he's a fanatical right-winger. Different
content, same form.
And that kind of "atheists" defies the actual meaning of the term. It's not
just that they don't believe in God. Their non-belief is asserted is asserted
as a positive position rather than the absence of one. As Sam Harris points
out, almost everyone is an atheist with respect to Zeus but they don't go
around insisting that they is no Zeus. They don't set up organizations or have
meetings about how there is no Zeus. Why bother?
Next time you run across an annoying atheist, make sure you remember this. He's
probably trying to exorcise some demons, he's trying to heal the damage, he's
trying to grow. And that's a good instinct. But NOT believing something is just
a form of rejection. It's purely negative. And eventually one has to decide on
something positive to believe. And in such cases, science is not a crazy place
to start. At least it's based on experience and it's open and checkable and
refutable and testable.
And this is the big difference between a theistic religion like Christianity
and a non-theistic religion like Buddhism. Christianity says you should believe
because it is written in the word of god, you should believe on the basis of
faith and authority. Buddhism says you should go find out for yourself. That
makes all the difference in the world.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
