Posted by Xavier on March 05, 1999 at 13:36:18:
In Reply to: Let's not over react... posted by Boje on March 04, 1999 at 19:20:26:
: Xavier:
: I know that you have not said those exact words; I have read all of your posts, and I remember most of what you said in them. I think that I can reasonably draw those conclusions from your posts. They are logical extensions of your statements. You have said that you prefer proof over faith. Proof requires utilization of mathematics; mathematics demands acceptance of the concept of infinity - on faith, no less.
: Further, I realize that you have recently altered your stance from one of atheism to agnosticism.
(Xavier)Untrue. I may have only changed the name of my beliefs. Many atheists believe that there is no such thing as agnostics. They maintain that most atheists may lack a belief in a god, but do not claim that there is absolute proof that one exists. If given empirical evidence they may change their view. Those convinced ABSOLUTELY that god are in the minority among atheists and are called "hard atheists" or something like that. Based on those definitions, then, I am one of the atheists in the majority. I always thought that that philosophy was labeled agnostic. The terms may be somewhat interchangeable for many. Therefore, my views and philosophy have not changed.
You have the freedom to prefer to be called anything you like. Tell folks that you believe in "Bojeism" for all I care. Labels are not really that important, although blue seems to have a strange desire to narrowly pigeonhole all those who call themselves atheist. Apparently, some little bird has told him that, as a Christian, he is this boards resident expert on the philosophy of atheism. Perhaps he is a "reformed" or ex-atheist who grew weary of free thought.
I have also read rcpman’s treatise on the difference between the two. Yet both of you seem to have no problem with using the two terms interchangeably. I guess since I claim to be neither, I don’t have that same freedom? ( I guess it’s kind of like African/Americans and the "n" word, huh?)
(Xavier)Call yourself anything you want. Christians seem very adept at tossing around their label, whether it always fits or not. Be a "Bojeist".
: The point being: you both consistently deride faith as a means of knowing anything or making meaningful statements about reality, while the very tool which you use to define reality is replete with premises which must be taken on faith. If you can accept the existence of infinite quantities in nature, then why do you discount even the possibility of applying the concept to evidence of the existence of God? You may not be saying that you know for certain that God doesn’t exist, but neither are you attempting to consider the possibility that He does.
: Boje
(Xavier)I may accept those things now, but not based on faith. If those concepts seem to fit the data and observations that we have, then I accept them. The concepts are not sacred though, and new data may call my acceptance into question. I will then see what the new data and observations point to. I have never seen a living T-Rex but my acceptance that they once lived (and weren't just always a big pile of dead fossils) is not based on faith. It is based on rational conclusions using the available physical evidence.
Whereas you may see rpcman and myself "deride" faith, blue insists that EVERYTHING uses faith, EVERY philosophy or school of thought is a religion, and EVERY human MUST worship a diety or supreme authority. Is he implying that religion and worship of god can be equated to simply following an accepted set of laws so as to avoid punishment (like following the speed limit)? If religion allows for the questioning of authority, the acceptance that no authority or law is infallable, and that new information can be used to alter religious philosophy and beliefs then maybe I am in a religion. I guess I just didn't realize that Christianity and other religions were so flexible.