> >--- 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
> Sorry, but you've lost me entirely here. What has to
> to with religions and what is nonreligious.
Gods and jinns are "religious": they're the things we
were originally talking about (or at least the things
some of us were talking about), the things for which
the word "theist" doesn't really work well.
"Something more than material" could be anything from
mental images or memories all the way to Goddess
Herself. This implies a need for a different set of
vocabulary than the one we were discussing.
> > > (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.
Er. OK. I guess we've got two or more points going on
then...
> >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).
> Well, I suspect I'm not entirely alone in thinking
> that Gods and ethical duties both belong to the
> immaterial.
Indeed not. If you're lumping ethics and gods together
(especially as a matter of necessity), though, you may
find less company. I don't see religion or gods (or
Gods for those that prefer) are prerequisites for
ethics.
This secondary point, then, is more of a material v.
nonmaterial; rather than a gods v. lesser supernatural
beings thing.
> > > 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?
No. The "mental" part. I know the material part does.
> 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).
Sheesh. You said the mental part of the universe
follows natural laws [please reread what you wrote
above]; _that's_ what I'm aiming at. I want to know
what you mean by this.
> We seem to've been talking rather past one another.
Could be. If we keep at it, I'll catch your train next
time it rounds the bend.
Padraic.
=====
beuyont alch geont la ciay la cina
mangeiont alch geont y faues la lima;
pe' ne m' molestyont
que faciont
doazque y facyont in rima.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com