🚀 go-pugleaf

{ A quick aside for JL, I can't know how not to be "preachy" if you don't 
  give feedback. Let me know, please. Which doesn't mean I'll change. ;-}

In article <1inonnINN112@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...

>In article <8JAN199323235160@utarlg.uta.edu>,
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>|> 
>|> So are you an atheist? Are there special kinds of atheists apart
>|> from agnostics? (I'm not curious about "atheism," any more than 
>|> I am about "theism" ... only about atheist.)

>Asking if someone is an atheist is problematic if you have a particular 
>meaning of the word in mind.

Ok. I asked understanding that "atheist" are different than "agnostics"
and likewise "skeptics." Likewise different from political activists
or intellectuals for whom atheism is merely faddish.

To me, atheist are people who express disbelief in GOD. Comparing this
with my own anarchist stance, I recognize that just as I think human
governments are mostly irrelevant, then atheist may consider GOD as
mostly irrelevant. So the question is perhaps better phrased, "what do 
atheist hold relevant?"  Or important?  Or essential to one's being?

>I was told at an early age that I would have to make up my own
>mind about God and religion.   When I thought about it long 
>enough, I concluded that the burden of proof lay with those who 
>asserted the existence of God, and that, given that each culture 
>has produced a different relgion, and a different view of God, 
>it was at least slightly unlikely that we had it right.

From this I gather you hold "reason" and "choice" valuable.

>I'm not interested in "disproving" the existence of an entity
>for which there is no concrete evidence.  On the other hand, I
>don't carry around some strong "belief" in the non-existence
>of this supposed entity.    

..and you have "no axe to grind."

> If I opened the paper tomorrow and
>read that concrete evidence of some non-human advanced entity 
>had been discovered - by scientists, I wouldn't give you twopence 
>for what some lying christian might claim - then it wouldn't 
>phase me in the least.   I would simply start wondering if we 
>had run across a powerful alien - and if so, what might their
>relgion be like? - or if there was some way in which we could 
>provoke this entity to demonstrate supernatural powers.

Nor would I believe such entity was GOD, expecting that any physical
encounter with GOD requires no intermediaries. But you've indicated
that you're interested in "comparative religion?" And demonstrable
supernatural events?

>I suspect that if that above scenario came to pass, Religion 
>itself would enter a phase of great confusion.   Much greater
>confusion than that experienced by any atheist.

Since religion is mostly impersonal to me, I would have said,
"Religionists would enter a phase of great confusion." Which 
sounds likely to me under the conditions given. As to atheist
not being confused, what would make you think so? A penchant for
reason? Hesitancy to jump to conclusions? Some other trait?

>So you tell me.   Am I an atheist?

You don't sound like an agnostic. And as to denying the existence
of GOD, no you don't sound like an atheist. You seem skeptical to me, 
and strong "believer" in you own reason and perception of evidence??

Have I missed anything relevant?

You may have seen in other posts that I place no such confidence in
my own reason, or even sanity. So I could be reading into what your
saying. In fact, I'd bet on it. What have I mistaken??

>jon.

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen