Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by cognoscente
An Atheist speaks with real life context in mind, and this is very important to note, while a religious advocate tends to disregard that
completely. The only context is the foundation upon which their religion is based, i.e. the Bible, Qu'ran.
Not exactly.
First of all, that is simply a position. And one dictated by someone else's belief system to boot...
I think you're missing the point, O Canine of Superposed States.
Atheism may be, as you say, a position dictated by someone else's belief system -
if you are speaking of the kind of atheist who is one
because he cannot abide religion.
As
cognoscente pointed out, there are different varieties of atheist. I believe the kind of which he or she spoke - the kind who 'speaks with
a real-life context in mind' - is one who has looked at the world without prejudice and drawn some specific conclusions from it. These conclusions
are as follows.
- All material events, when properly and thoroughly investigated, prove to have material causes.
- Nature is, by human standards, amoral. It contains much that is good but is also supremely cruel.
These observations prompt the conclusion that either there is no God, or that God is not to be understood in anthropomorphic terms, even those of the
greatest refinement, and is therefore a null hypothesis.
A religious person - an indoctrinate - cannot view the world absent the prejudice of his faith. These rather obvious conclusions are therefore beyond
him, and he is fated to continue in error and self-deceit until he sheds his dogma.
That is the difference. It is a real one, which folk who bluster that atheism is only another kind of faith (I know you are not one of them)
cannot perceive because they cannot understand what it is to be free.
...
