Comments on: Tricycle responds on Buddhists and atheism http://darwiniana.com/2009/04/19/tricycle-responds-on-buddhists-and-atheism/ History, Evolution, and the Darwin Debate Thu, 24 May 2012 14:43:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: nemo http://darwiniana.com/2009/04/19/tricycle-responds-on-buddhists-and-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-333879 nemo Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:26:27 +0000 http://darwiniana.com/?p=23286#comment-333879 In fact, Christians were sometimes called 'atheos' by the Pagans in the Roman era. In fact, Christians were sometimes called ‘atheos’ by the Pagans in the Roman era.

]]> By: Darwiniana » Comment on Buddhits and atheism http://darwiniana.com/2009/04/19/tricycle-responds-on-buddhists-and-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-333878 Darwiniana » Comment on Buddhits and atheism Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:25:52 +0000 http://darwiniana.com/?p=23286#comment-333878 [...] Comment on Tricycle responds on Buddhists and atheism James said, April 19, 2009 at 4:26 pm · One of the main problems is the sheer impossibility of giving a precise definition to “theism” and “atheism” across time and space. There are many possibilities within each category and different varieties of “theism” may not be logically compatible with each other (sames goes for “atheism”). Historically, it’s a bit absurd to claim that “theism” can only be conceived in Judeo-Christian terms. Decent discussion here: [...] [...] Comment on Tricycle responds on Buddhists and atheism James said, April 19, 2009 at 4:26 pm · One of the main problems is the sheer impossibility of giving a precise definition to “theism” and “atheism” across time and space. There are many possibilities within each category and different varieties of “theism” may not be logically compatible with each other (sames goes for “atheism”). Historically, it’s a bit absurd to claim that “theism” can only be conceived in Judeo-Christian terms. Decent discussion here: [...]

]]> By: James http://darwiniana.com/2009/04/19/tricycle-responds-on-buddhists-and-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-333858 James Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:26:30 +0000 http://darwiniana.com/?p=23286#comment-333858 One of the main problems is the sheer impossibility of giving a precise definition to "theism" and "atheism" across time and space. There are many possibilities within each category and different varieties of "theism" may not be logically compatible with each other (sames goes for "atheism"). Historically, it's a bit absurd to claim that "theism" can only be conceived in Judeo-Christian terms. Decent discussion here: "In those terms, God may be no more a logical problem than the universe. But that doesn't resolve the contradictions. God as conceived in Judeo-Christian and monothesitic terms is not the only such possible conception of the transcendent. Thus, we have theologies as different as those of Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Whitehead, etc. We have Supreme Beings that are not personal Gods at all, as in the impersonal Brahman of the Advaita Vedânta of Shankara. Or, we have the impersonal Forms of Plato. Indeed, all these possibilities are counter-examples to arguments for God like those of St. Thomas, for although he ends his demonstrations with statements like "This all men speak of as God," there is really a rather large logical gap between an identity like "Prime Mover" or "First Cause," and the God of Abraham and Issac." http://www.friesian.com/proof.htm One of the main problems is the sheer impossibility of giving a precise definition to “theism” and “atheism” across time and space. There are many possibilities within each category and different varieties of “theism” may not be logically compatible with each other (sames goes for “atheism”). Historically, it’s a bit absurd to claim that “theism” can only be conceived in Judeo-Christian terms. Decent discussion here:

“In those terms, God may be no more a logical problem than the universe. But that doesn’t resolve the contradictions. God as conceived in Judeo-Christian and monothesitic terms is not the only such possible conception of the transcendent. Thus, we have theologies as different as those of Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Whitehead, etc. We have Supreme Beings that are not personal Gods at all, as in the impersonal Brahman of the Advaita Vedânta of Shankara. Or, we have the impersonal Forms of Plato. Indeed, all these possibilities are counter-examples to arguments for God like those of St. Thomas, for although he ends his demonstrations with statements like “This all men speak of as God,” there is really a rather large logical gap between an identity like “Prime Mover” or “First Cause,” and the God of Abraham and Issac.”

http://www.friesian.com/proof.htm

]]>