?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Failed The Test - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Failed The Test [Sep. 23rd, 2006|10:47 am]
Tony Grist
I'd like to be an atheist, I really would.

A proper atheist, I mean- like Richard Dawkins- taking the fight to the fundies, telling them their Bibles and Korans are silly- just silly.

But I can't be, not quite.  I don't believe in God, but I do believe in Spirit. 

Is there a place in the ranks of proud and militant atheists for someone who suspects that trees have souls?

No, I thought not.

Reincarnation?

Yeah, sure; I'll close the door quietly behind me...
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: airstrip
2006-09-24 03:38 am (UTC)
Reincarnation is hard but pantheism isn't so much, it's so close to Kantian/Hegelian idealism that it's hard to dismiss out of hand.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-09-24 07:56 am (UTC)
I believe Dawkins defines Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: airstrip
2006-09-24 08:32 am (UTC)
Dawkins should stick to genetics. The reason pantheism works so well is that it accords with an intuition as real as any of the senses: that we are connected to everything else in a way that does not reduce to the material.

That's enough to believe in pantheism of some sort unless some hard contrary evidence comes up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-09-24 09:28 am (UTC)
That's it. Dawkins has no time for "intuition".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: airstrip
2006-09-24 09:30 am (UTC)
Dawkins should look up the trilemma.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-09-24 09:53 am (UTC)
That's a new one on me. I like it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ibid
2006-09-24 10:54 am (UTC)
Dawkins claims not to be a fundamentalist Athiest because he would change his beliefs were he given proof of the existance of God - That's what gets me when the notion of God is fundamentally unprovable
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-09-24 12:01 pm (UTC)
Dawkins is just too absolute. And, yes, I think he's a fundamentalist.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hardrada
2006-09-24 01:26 pm (UTC)
His arrogant stance of flat, outright denial certainly looks and feels more religious than scientific, but that doesn't undermine the quality of the work he has contributed to the canon of science.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-09-24 09:47 pm (UTC)
I agree with Dawkins up to a point, then we part company- But I find his outspoken polemicism refreshing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)