North Korea 'executes Christians'

[Tiberius]

I thought it was a belief in the non-existence of gods. Okay, let's be specific.

Positive atheism is irrational.

The original word from the greek 'a' (without) 'theos' (gods) meant someone without gods, or to put it another way, someone who did not believe in gods.

In more modern times, the word means the rejection of theism (theism being belief in one or more gods), ergo atheism is the rejection of the belief in one or more gods, which is tantamount to saying "disbelief in one or more gods" or just "disbelief in gods".

It's on the same level as modern skepticism; in other words, if something doesn't have evidence to back it up, we do not believe it. Same thing we do with most claims in life.

I doubt very much that many atheists today are the so-called "strong" atheists, who espouse positive atheism, and firmly believe that gods do not exist. None of the great atheist thinkers today are of this mindset, although one must not confuse anti-theism with positive atheism. You can be anti-theistic and still have a "weak" atheistic stance (Hitchens is a good example of this), mainly because anti-theism concerns itself with the actions of believers rather than the actual belief.

[Anto Kennedy]

So atheism is only the rejection of other people's (theist's) beliefs?

Ya learn something new everyday.

One question though, why criticize others (theists) for their beliefs when 1. You do not know that they are wrong in their beliefs, and 2. you can provide no truthful alternative?

[Dotard]

Truthful alternative? What the hell is that?

Truthfulness is not something a theistic choice offers. No 'truth' in theistic notions can be demonstrated.

Your statement is about as silly as saying one should not criticize a child for believing there is a monster in their closet because you can't offer the child a truthful alternative.

[Anto Kennedy]

Truthfulness is not something a theistic choice offers.

You don't know if God exists or not so you don't know if the "theistic choice" is true or not. Unless, in Tiberius's words, "you are omniscient".

I agree with you that there is no evidence that God doesn't exist; the existence of such evidence would be illogical since you cannot prove a negative unless you are omniscient (we aren't).

Your statement is about as silly as saying one should not criticize a child for believing there is a monster in their closet because you can't offer the child a truthful alternative.

But you can offer the child a truthful alternative: look in the closet and if there isn't a monster, then otell the child there is no monster in their closet.

You can't provide a truthful alternative to the theist. In fact, you have no idea wheither that theist's beliefs reflect reality or not.

Although you can look in the theistic "closet". All you have to do is, in the words of the J-Man, "forget self, carry cross and follow me".

A transcendental experience of the divine is scientific, using perception as a means to validate reality, however you cannot share you're findings with others, although others may percieve the same reality, only never simultaneously. Therein lies the problem for the theist in providing evidence that God exists. If, however, the entire human population were to experience the divine simultaneously, that would be conclusive proof that God exists.

So either experience it alone, or not at all.
Medititate; or watch Sex in the City reruns
Withdraw from society into a cave in the middle of the desert; or go to a shopping mall.

Personal evidence that God exists is available to all, but it is only personal, only subjective.

The question for an atheist then is; Is it better to seek the subjective truth than to live in objective ignorance?

I suppose this where the weak atheists place themselves; "I respect you're faith, but I don't have it myself," as opposed to the out and out opposition to any and all manifestations of faith in public life.

[Tiberius]

One question though, why criticize others (theists) for their beliefs when 1. You do not know that they are wrong in their beliefs, and 2. you can provide no truthful alternative?

I do not criticize theism as a general concept (i.e. belief in god); the most I would do is criticize their belief in that it is based on no sound evidence. I personally don't think one should believe things based on only assumption or logical deduction. I think the most demonstratively "correct" way of knowing things (and by "knowing" I mean a high probability of existence) is the scientific method, mainly because of the technological leaps we have made through its use.

So whilst I would not criticize the belief in god directly, I would perhaps criticize their reason for believing.

In a more specific sense, I criticize the beliefs of religion (both theistic and atheistic) that simply do not hold when the evidence is brought into the conversation. Ideas like Noah's Flood, the 6-day creation, etc are not the stories we get when we implement the scientific method to find out what really happened.

As I've said before, I'm more philosophically inclined to say that humans have no "knowledge" of anything, at least absolutely. Science does not prove things, it provides a probability (often very high mind) of things actually existing. This can be said to be relative knowledge, although I would argue that we can no more say something is relatively correct than we can absolutely.

In conclusion, knowledge is a real brainfuck.

[Anto Kennedy]

Fair enough, I wish all atheists were as reasonable as yourself.

[Dotard]

You can't prove the monster doesn't exist. You can look for it's physical presents, but that's not the nature of the monster. In order to experiance the reality of the monster you have to spin around three times on one foot......yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda....


You talk, AK, as if none of us ever took that journey you speak of and came up empty handed.

[Anto Kennedy]

You talk, AK, as if none of us ever took that journey you speak of and came up empty handed.

Your supposed to come up empty handed. That's the point.

Kenosis is a Greek word for emptiness, which is used as a theological term. The ancient Greek word κένωσις kénōsis means an "emptying", from κενός kenós "empty". The word is mainly used, however, in a Christian theological context, for example Philippians 2:7, "Jesus made himself nothing (ἐκένωσε ekénōse) ..." (NIV) or "...he emptied himself..." (NRSV), using the verb form κενόω kenóō "to empty".

In Christian theology, Kenosis is the concept of the 'self-emptying' of one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to God and his perfect will. It is used both as an explanation of the Incarnation, and an indication of the nature of God's activity and condescension. Mystical theologian John of the Cross' work "Dark Night of the Soul" is a particularly lucid explanation of God's process of transforming the believer into the icon or "likeness of Christ".

In Tibetan Buddhism, the Adi-Buddha is the "Primordial Buddha." The term refers to a self-emanating, self-originating Buddha, present before anything else existed. Samantabhadra/Samantabhadri and Vajradhara are Adi-Buddha.

Ati Yoga (or Primordial Yoga), which is another name for the Tibetan tradition of Dzogchen, employs an Adi-Buddha sadhana, or practice.

According to some schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön, Dzogchen is the natural, primordial state or natural condition of every sentient being, including every human being. Dzogchen, or "Great Perfection", is the central teaching of the Nyingma school and is considered by them to be the highest and most definitive path to enlightenment.[1] The Madhyamaka teachings on emptiness are fundamental to and thoroughly compatible with Dzogchen practices.

Śūnyatā, शून्यता (Sanskrit noun from the adj. sūnya - 'void' ), Suññatā (Pāli; adj. suñña), stong pa nyid (Tibetan), Kòng/Kū, 空 (Chinese/Japanese), Gong-seong, 공성(空性) (Korean), qoɣusun (Mongolian) meaning "Emptiness" or "Voidness", is a characteristic of phenomena arising from the fact (as observed and taught by the Buddha) that the impermanent nature of form means that nothing possesses essential, enduring identity (see anattā). In the Buddha's spiritual teaching, insight into the emptiness of phenomena (Pali: suññatānupassanā) is an aspect of the cultivation of insight (vipassanā-bhāvanā) that leads to wisdom and inner peace. The importance of this insight is especially emphasised in Mahayana Buddhism, and receives a more 'positive' explication in the Tathagatagarbha sutras.

Don't forget the unnameable Tao either.