The main misinterpretation of the use of these two pejorative expressions causes the confusion which is met by opponents in debates. Dr. Ehrman you must define your terms if you wish to clarify your position.
Atheism does not necessarily deny the existence of a diety and Agnosticism does not necessarily deny the knowledge needed to recognize that deity. My posture is that I do not believe in a personal God. That is, a God who has human attributes known as anthropomorphism. Does that make me an atheist? No. As a scientist I strongly believe in a transcendental spiritual entity, a Supreme Architect, who is responsible for the orderly harmony that is observable in nature. A big difference.
More specifically, I claim to be a Deist. That is, like Thomas Jefferson, I believe in a non-personal God as an entity responsible for the creation and harmonious maintenance of the cosmos. This is the complete antithesis of Theism which places its belief in a personal God (anthropomorphism).
Dr. RAR
Well nothing is more fruitless than getting bogged down in definitions and word play. You can define yourself as you wish. Yet words do have meanings. Traditionally theism is defined as a belief in a personal god. So atheism would in fact be a denial of the existence of a personal god. But these are largely western concepts. It gets a bit more tricky as we move east. The tradition of Buddhism that the Dalai Lama holds does not believe in a personal god, so technically he could be described as a atheist, but that seems strange because he definitely has a metaphysic. Many sects of Hinduism are the same. For them the gods exist but they are not ultimate reality. Ultimate Reality is Brahman, the impersonal transcendent absolute. Brahman doesn’t do anything, it simply is. Perhaps this is the concept of god you are striving for. I’m fascinated by these conceptions myself. Even the Deist god, the Divine Architect, retains the personal attribute of creator. Maybe you should abandon that as well.
I believe in the god without attributes. Including the attribute of existence.
rar4433 said
I do not believe in a personal God. That is, a God who has human attributes known as anthropomorphism. Does that make me an atheist? No. As a scientist I strongly believe in a transcendental spiritual entity, a Supreme Architect, who is responsible for the orderly harmony that is observable in nature. A big difference.
More specifically, I claim to be a Deist. That is, like Thomas Jefferson, I believe in a non-personal God as an entity responsible for the creation and harmonious maintenance of the cosmos.
This is the complete antithesis of Theism which places its belief in a personal God (anthropomorphism).
Dr. RAR
Forgive my semantic game, but wouldn’t the “complete antithesis” of a belief in “an entity responsible for the creation and harmonious maintenance of the cosmos” be a disbelief in such an entity?
Presumably, many of the reasons for your Deist beliefs (and I say that as someone with similar type beliefs/suspicions) are similar to the reasons of believing Christians, Jew and Muslims for their theistic beliefs.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)