1. Why am I theist but you are an agnostic atheist? The way you pose the question seems to show that you are still not differentiating things correctly. But to answer it anyway: You are theist because you BELIEVE in god. I am an atheist because I DONT believe in god. I am an agnostic because I dont KNOW if god exists or not, and have no knowledge of god. The other half of your position is still unanswered. 2. Was B. Russell a "weak atheist"? Russell was a self proclaimed agnostic. In fact, Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian is considered a classic text about agnosticism. I seriously doubt Russell BELIEVED in god, so he therefore also an atheist, which makes him a WEAK ATHEIST by modern definitions. 3. Why do you not want to be called a strong atheist - is it because of the .1%? Not at all. A strong atheist positively asserts that god does NOT exist. I do no such thing. I think that strong atheists who assert that NO GODS EXIST are just as irrational and dogmatic as theists. (There are important exceptions. I SOMETIMES am a strong atheist given a specific definition of god) 4. Any materialist worth his salt knows that he/she can't prove God doesn't exist, so by your definition are there any strong atheists on planet earth? Its not that cut and dry. You can be a STRONG atheist in very specific instances. For example, if someone claims that THEIR god is all good, while creating evil at the same time, I will switch to the STRONG ATHEIST position and proclaim that THIS specific instance of god doesnt exist because its a contradiction by definition. But my default position is that of weak atheism. However, there ARE strong atheists (and they are incredibly rare) who positively assert there are NO gods. (Which is why when people proclaim that the proper definition of atheism, is a person who believes god DOESNT exist is so silly. It doesnt describe the 99% majority of atheists at all, but only the rarest of atheists.) Strong atheists are completely irrational as far as im concerned, because this is NOT provable. Strong atheists and theists have much in common in my opinion. But you still have not given me enough information to properly label you gnostic or agnostic though. Answer the following question: Do you KNOW god exists, or have actual knowledge of god? a) Yes - you are a gnostic theist. b) No - you are an agnostic theist. The other question, of course is: Do you BELIEVE in god? a) Yes ----> theist b) No ----> atheist Again.... knowledge and belief are two different domains. You cant substitute agnosticism with atheism, etc... peace axeman
see, i'm still not getting through. you have the relationship exactly backwards, the more orthodox the jew, the more allegorical becomes the Torah reading. the least allegorical Jews are the most secular ones. listen: ultra-orthodox jews always dispose of fingernail clippings by *burning* them. don't ask me to explain their rationale, because i can't, all i know is they've pulled some allegory out of Torah that says fingernail clippings may cause a miscarriage in a pregnant woman. so they burn them. i challenge you to find anything literal anywhere in Tanakh that comes close to suggesting such a thing. the ultra streams of judaism in general are so far out beyond the allegorical edge i doubt they see the same colors in the rainbow as do you and i. the exception that proves the rule are the Karaites - a Jewish sect that attempts to read Torah as a strict literal document. there are roughly 15 million Jews in the world: approx 12,000 of them are Karaites.
Okay, sorry, I'm showing my complete ignorance. But here's what I'm wondering: what % of Jews really believe that there was a "cloud by day and a pillar by night"? And I'm talking real clouds here and a real pillar as well. And, yes, I know you don't have a % to the fourth significant digit. What I'm getting at is the impression that I'm getting from you is that the vast majority of Jews (orthodox, reform or otherwise) don't believe that there were plagues, a true parting of the Red (or reed) Sea, etc. Am I correct? Oh, and why do they burn their fingernails again? Just kidding!
This is tough because there is not an English word for my position. I guess I would answer that of course I believe I "know" God. One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that God indwells the believer as I'm sure you're aware. That implies intimacy, etc. and I believe I have seen ample evidence of this of course or I wouldn't be a theist. And yet I admit I've never seen video footage of Jesus rising from the dead. And I admit that I must rely on faith to a certain extent (even though I feel my position is rational and and has evidence). So how do I answer your question? I really don't know. I'm not trying to evade the question - I truly don't know how to respond... By one of your definitions - "know" - I would say I'm a gnostic theist. But by the other definition - no faith involved - I would say I'm an agnostic theist. I hope you're satisfied - I think you've induced a spontaneous cluster headache!
yes. no. you are trying to stuff this into black and white and there just is no way to do that. old joke. a related parable...
Those are great! No, I'm not trying to "stuff" - it's just that you've made some broad categorizations such as Muslims and Christians are at each other throats because they don't allegorize enough. Now one of the implications of that is that Jews, at least the great majority, have allegorized and to prove that to myself I'm asking: do you the great majority of Jews not believe for example in the miracles of Moses? And, yes, I'm somewhat repeating myself, but then maybe I'll get a few more jokes out of you...
Axe, I'm still waiting for my Haikus. C'mon - we know you're out there. Damir said you could do four dozen Haikus! I don't believe it...
Your spontaneous cluster headache may be due to the emphasis you inserted onto the word know. Axeman had no qualms about stating the word and using its clear and meaningful definition . On the other hand you encased the word with quotation marks, denoting (from my take of this)know as anything from know to - understand - to don't know. Might it help if you required a little more precision in the use of English words before arriving to conclusions by belief. The headaches might start to diminish.
There is an impatience and frustration in your tone that betrays the struggle of your own rationality attempting to view the light of day. Going off what you say above and what you say next, apparently it is in effort against the odds. If you want to be less inflammatory, quit the false accusation habit. State what insults I make here. You accused me in a previous post of calling you a liar, but when confronted with that false accusation, you offered no evidence I said any such thing. You accuse me of making insulting accusations in my previous reply, yet there are none. Correct...I don't know. So I make the statement God MUST have made it...and I would be wrong ...wouldn't I !!?? Not the good example you first thought it was perhaps. So I say... God MUST have made it .... and from the overwhelming evidence at hand....it appears I would be wrong again ! You are simply describing a God of the Gaps. You don't know what the complete answer is... like the caveman...so you fit God in in place of answers!! Some will say the universe requires design and intelligence ...against the overwhelming mountains of evidence which show it requires no design and intelligence, but rather natural events as being sufficient for its creation . Then what else is the response 'they feel it in their bones' based upon?? It seems nothing rational, as Rationality requires substantial evidential confirmation to become proof of something. The evidence trail to - man the watchmaker - would produce rational evidence of proof for the caveman that the watch had a creator. The evidence trail to - God the creator - stops at the words. There is no substantial evidence. It is the case however, that substantial evidence exists for natural creation. The reference for all this was your statement that "Many lay people can feel this in their bones" " So based upon such emotions, there is still no reason you have shown to assume God as True. The caveman of your allegory "felt in his bones" that God made the watch. It appears allegory and cavemen both have a distinct aptitude for developing mistake.