Hi Leela,
How would you define “faith”?
I think that generally experience is understood by atheists in broader terms than sensory data (Hume’s empiricism). Certainly thoughts, emotions, and relations between sensory information are experienced. As to whether anything exists that is not experienced, pragmatists like myself are simply not interested in the question. We don’t affirm or deny it. It’s just one of those metaphysical questions that dissolve when you apply the pragmatic maxim that any difference must make a difference.
What you have said here = Humes empiricism…
Well, in general Atheists seem to point out hundreds of negative “differences” Christianity has made to society, how do you justify your claim that the Christian faith (or any large faith) hasnt made a difference? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that it hasnt made the kind of difference you would find compelling… i.e. a flash of light, parting a sea, or something of the like?
First of all, I reject the idea of “rejecting religion” as if believing in religion or not is a choice that is somehow forced upon us by nature of being human. It isn’t, any more than being a Communist or not or being a Phillies fan or not is a forced choice. To be an atheist is simply to think that we do not have good reasons to believe in nonhuman intervention in improving human lives.
As for agnosticism in general, it is the belief that there are some things that cannot be known. To be agnostic about gods is to believe that one cannot know whether or not gods exist. I think that it is possible for a god to demonstrate its existence, so I am not agnostic about gods. I doubt that any exist, though I am open to new evidence and arguments on the subject.
Semantics really… as is so often done in this subject, one can define what the words agnostic and atheist mean until the cows come home, but any definition made for personal reasons isnt really worth its salt. Apparently you do not like the term agnostic and have therefore taken it upon yourself to define it in a way that necessarily excludes you… On the other hand, many people define themselves as agnostics in that you cannot know G-d according to what they have learnt, NOT based on the belief that G-d cannot demonstrate His/Her
p) existence (which is what you are implying is the normative meaning of the word)
From the dictionary:
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. (that sounds like you Leela)
…as I said semantics
I don’t mean this reply in a bad or condescending way, so my assumption that your definition is based on personal belief is just that (an assumption)… and not an attempt to irritate or bait you
Regards,
William
