Padraic wrote:
>
>--- Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> wrote:
>
> > I also noted that I don't seem to know any word
> > for somebody who disbelieve in supernatural
> > creatures of any kind or power,
> > but yet believe in the existence of something more
> > than the material
>
>Now we're moving away from where words like "atheist"
>and "religionist" are at home. The one has to do with
>religions and the trappings thereof (Gods, Powers, The
>Force, etc.); the latter is mundane and nonreligious.
Sorry, but you've lost me entirely here. What has to to with religions and
what is nonreligious.
>
> > (they
> > may f'rinstance believe there are objective ethical
> > rules with an
> > accompanying duty of material creatures to follow
> > them,
>
>This doesn't fit in the atheist to theist spectrum.
That was kind of the point.
>Any of _them_ can believe in objective ethical rules,
>etc. Generally, such ethical systems are either
>implied or explied (hm) in a religion (7 of 10
>commandments are totally objective ethical rules,
>e.g., put in the mouth of a god).
>
>This is like not believing in gods, but believing in
>goldfish. The two aren't of the same realm.
Well, I suspect I'm not entirely alone in thinking that Gods and ethical
duties both belong to the immaterial.
> > or in a
> > mind-and-matter dichotomy that's non-supernatural
> > since the mental part of
> > the universe follows laws of nature just like the
> > material).
>
>Wow. Does it?
The material part of the universe? It seems so to me, but that's harldy
relevant. Unless you want to deny the existence of people who think that
matter follows laws of nature, I don't see what you're aiming at (if
anything).
We seem to've been talking rather past one another. I hope I've clarified
what I meant a bit.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com