Posted really quickly…. Will edit soon.
When I was writing the post, ‘Atheism – A Defense Part 1.‘ I did not clearly explain what I meant to explain… at all. I reread the post and thought a couple of things were missing. So I want to recap what I wanted to say and ask my co-blogger a couple of questions so that I can proceed with writing Atheism – A Defense Part 2, which I believe will be a strong case for using some of the traditional atheist tenets in an activephilosophy.
I would first like to say that I am not trying to be Atheist Charlatan or an internet troll… I advocate for a more spiritual form of Atheism that is more similar to my co-blogger.
In my first post, I attempted to define the two possible ways of defining the keywords for this discussion, while what I actually wrote insinuates that I was defining the words or somehow coming up with the correct definition for them,
At this point it is necessary to define (these very big) words very carefully. These types of conversations can quickly diverge into two main categories: philosophical and literal.
In the most cases, the word religion is tied to a specific religion rather than a general philosophy or world view, which is what my makes the previous post’s on Atheism misleading.
I left out a very key sentence at the end of the first paragraph what I meant to say was more along the lines of,
At this point it is necessary to define (these very big) words very carefully. These types of conversations can quickly diverge into two main categories: philosophical and literal. For the purposes of this discussion I wish to focus on the literal (or practical) definitions of these words. This is because it is very easy to see and define these keywords in one context when they are meant for the other. I say this, because this happened to me when read my co-blogger’s post.
I then wanted to go on to say, that depending on which of the two (valid) definitions one uses, these words can mean (or at least in my perception) very different things. Thus any discussion of these ideas, must take time to clearly define the context of the conversation.
At this point, I just want to ask my co-blogger a couple of questions, so I can proceed in a more education manner.
-What is the point/validity/purpose for seeking Truth in like of the Hsi-Westbrook Theory of Wrongness?
-Similarly, what is the point of defining/seeking a god, God, Gods, etc., when knowledge of such is not possible?
-When using the word God, how do you expect to get out of the Giant Floating Daddy Figure?
-More a personal question, American atheist’s do tend criticize Christianity far more than other religions (for both obvious and non-obvious reasons). What does this say about Atheism, it’s followers, and modern day philosophy.
– The main thing I see as an “advantage” of atheism, is that has no scripture. Do you think there would/could/should be such an equivalent? Is scripture necessary?
– Do you think the word God should be capitalized?
– If you couldn’t use the word God, what word would you use?
I have more questions, which I will post later, but I think I am behind on some co-bloggers latest thoughts, so I needed to ask some questions to catch up.
Active Philosophy 