Return to Answer

Note: The volitive egs above are more likely said by philosophers of the religion than the religious themselves

Note: The cognitive egs above are more likely said by philosophers of the religion than the religious themselves

Added Later

I just saw this discussion between Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali which encapsulates what I earlier wrote better than I did:

14 min:
Dawkins: Christianity is obsessed with sin
Ali: Christianity is obsessed with love

Towards the end
Dawkins: I want the truth
Ali: I want redemption

Ali's closing note: Humanism took away Christianity. The vacuum was filled by the violence of Islamism. What are you offering when you take away Christianity? Humanism has clearly not worked...
Dawkins: You want to cure a virulent virus by vaccinating with a milder virus, I want no virus

It's very clear that they are not disagreeing but talking at very different levels

1. The idea of 'atheism' is essentially a Christian one. What about Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist atheists?
2. The provenance of 'agnostic' is a problematic one. The word 'gnostic' dates to the early centuries of the Christian era, the word 'agnostic' to the 19th century. Are you ok claiming that there were no agnostics between the 1st and the 19th century AD? And if you claim there were how do you address the patent anachronism?

1. The idea of 'atheism' is essentially a Christian one. What about Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist atheists?
2. The provenance of 'agnostic' is a problematic one. The word 'gnostic' dates to the early centuries of the Christian era, the word 'agnostic' to 1869 ie. the 19th century. Are you ok claiming that there were no agnostics between the 1st and the 19th century AD? And if you claim there were, how do you address the patent anachronism?