(no subject)
Dec. 4th, 2004 06:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockI looked up "atheism" in a search engine to make sure I hade the spelling right (I did), and on a lark I ended up reading this page which basically defines atheism and answers a lot of frequently asked questions about atheism and the logic behind it and in relation to religious beliefs.
It's a fairly long page, but I ended up reading the whole thing out of curiousity. I have to say their definition pretty closely matches my approach to the idea of religion and I would say I'm probably an example that fits their definition of atheist-- the "probably" being left in because I'm not entirely sure I accurately understood all the preconceived definitions of certain theological or philosophical words/terms used. One thing I particularly liked about the article was discussion of charity in relation to religious organizations.
It's a fairly long page, but I ended up reading the whole thing out of curiousity. I have to say their definition pretty closely matches my approach to the idea of religion and I would say I'm probably an example that fits their definition of atheist-- the "probably" being left in because I'm not entirely sure I accurately understood all the preconceived definitions of certain theological or philosophical words/terms used. One thing I particularly liked about the article was discussion of charity in relation to religious organizations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 09:12 am (UTC)It's a very interesting and well reasoned site,coming at it from the opposite end of the the spectrum from you (and with a background in theology).
Not sure I agree with the following statement:
So the sceptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
I think the later part is flawed since it seems to apply a level of scientific/formal logic to an area that to the best of my knowledge, 4000 years of human though has fallen down generally on the side of it being untestable. If God(s)/no God(s) was testable there would be no need for faith on ether side.
Still a wonderful site thank you for bringing it to my attention.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 11:20 am (UTC)So I would say that I understood it in general but I don't think I could break down pieces of it and debate it and be totally certain I accurately understood the statement I was debating.