Vedic definition of atheism

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Prabhu! Pamho, agtSP!

 

>> Some years back I translated a lot from the article into danish and

>> used it. After that I read a lot of William Lane Craigs texts. He's

>> very good.

 

>From the same one as me? So there must be some merit. 8)

 

No, I translated from yours! And then I did more research on WLC.

 

> for preaching against atheist. Right now in working on a strategy

> for debating against defensive (also called weak, implicit,

> negative) atheists. They are the most tricky types.

 

Do you differentiate them from agnostics?

 

Yes, an agnostic is usually defined as one who actively believes and/or

denies that it is impossible to know, or at least we humans can't know,

whether or not God exist. According to him we can neither prove nor disprove

God. A weak atheist might be open to the idea that God exist and that His

existence can be proven, he just claims that it has'nt happened yet - at

least not for him - and so therefore by reason he's forced to remain an

atheist.

 

And agnostic is a sort of atheist, because he has a lack of belief in God,

but a weak atheist is not necessarily, mostly not at all, an agnostic.

 

According to some you can even be an agnostic theist - a person who thinks

it impossible to prove or disprove God, but still believes in the existence

of God.

 

>I don't have any books on atheism but there must be also plenty of

>academic resources online.

 

Lot's. There's a really "nice" site here: http://atheism.about.com/

 

>> Sure, of course, but if someone examines it and then says that

>> Prabhupada was wrong then there is something wrong.

 

>That's another issue, a direct apology of Prabhupada and Gaudiya

>siddhanta. Also very needed and so far underdeveloped. There are at

>least fourteen issues to tackle. Sivarama Swami wrote a book apology

>for BG As It Is. Do you know about any other publications or docs in

>ISKCON?

 

Unfortunately not!

 

Ys, AKD