|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:51 pm
|
|
|
|
Henry Dorsett Case TeaDidikai More depends on the kind of atheism you're addressing. Hard v. Soft and I believe I was told at one point that there is a Lateralist Atheistic movement. confused See, I'd disagree with you that it's more about the type of atheism. If we're discussing a religion that states "There is no deity", such as LaVeyan Satanism, then yes, it's important to note that the religion takes a hard atheist stance. But soft atheism as a descriptor of doctrine honestly sounds like the religion is teaching "don't believe that there are no deities, but don't believe that there are, either". It's a lot clearer when you're using the concept of theocentricism, since it gives the concept of "deities are/are not relevant to the teachings of this religion". So we wind up with the differences in -theism, -gnosticism, and -theocentricism. That said, I've known hard-atheist Buddhists...again furthering the need for more clear terminology. The central core of gods and Buddhism lies with the first Buddha - he refused to answer the question, likening it to asking why a house is on fire while still in it. I've always thought that was his way of slapping people upside the head and saying, "stop dwelling!"
I'm a hard polytheist the seemingly common (around here) emanations theory behind it. This is further exacerbated by my musings on matter being slightly slower energy and mostly empty space and the interactions of fields (see: Quantum Physics and molecular theories) and my conceptualization of it is more like matter being spikes on a congruent field, or endlessly recursive fractals.
The polytheism came from dealings with gods; they are different - profoundly so. The emanations theories come from being a bit of a science geek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:53 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|