Science and Religion questions

[chevyrunssometimes]

"I don't suggest anything of the kind."

This person may have got that idea from your "irrational belief in no god" comment. You say you don't suggest, yet your words do imply that a lack of evidence is irrational, for that is the very thing many will cite as reason 1 or 2 for their atheist position."

If one really wishes to understand the atheist position though, understand your own -- we're just the same, except, you draw the line one deity short of my line. I don't believe in your god for all the reasons you don't believe in any of the other gods one might happen to believe in. [the ones and yous of this last comment are not referring to DC]

 

[blazerboy30]

One thing I always hated about religious people is how they tell me what my relationship with god was supposed to be, and now they tell me about what my belief in the whole thing is/should be/how I feel.

I don't care if you're religious or not religious. don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it, when you don't have the experience of being agnostic or atheist, and if you do, you don't have MY experience.

You have quite a knack for saying something inflammatory at the beginning of your post and then being totally hypocritical in the rest of your post. It makes you look like a fool.

 

[Denny Crane]

"I don't suggest anything of the kind."

This person may have got that idea from your "irrational belief in no god" comment. You say you don't suggest, yet your words do imply that a lack of evidence is irrational, for that is the very thing many will cite as reason 1 or 2 for their atheist position."

If one really wishes to understand the atheist position though, understand your own -- we're just the same, except, you draw the line one deity short of my line. I don't believe in your god for all the reasons you don't believe in any of the other gods one might happen to believe in. [the ones and yous of this last comment are not referring to DC]

Yeah, I'm saying atheism is just anti-theism. You can see that in the root of the word. Like symmetry and asymmetry. There's no requirement for any evidence or lack of evidence or anything. It's flat out a denial of deity (deities).

Agnosticism is an objective thing. Show me evidence, etc.

 

[blazerboy30]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Thanks for proving my point. From your own link:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

[crowTrobot]

I think the semantics do matter if atheists want to ridicule theists and religious about having beliefs that they can't prove. Which is done on this board quite often.

not at all. atheists might want to jump all over specifically the flaws of arguments used by theists attempting to logically validate belief, but I have not seen anyone here ridicule belief itself. ABM seems to have no interest in proving belief, yet as far as I've seen is never ridiculed.

 

[TripTango]

Thanks for proving my point. From your own link:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Did you miss my link?

 

[blazerboy30]

not at all. atheists might want to jump all over specifically the flaws of arguments used by theists attempting to logically validate belief, but I have not seen anyone here ridicule belief itself. ABM seems to have no interest in proving belief, yet as far as I've seen is never ridiculed.

Then you haven't been reading these forums or walk around with blinders on. Both sides ridicule the other side. And both positions are based on the belief of something they can't prove.

 

[blazerboy30]

Did you miss my link?

Doesn't work.

 

[TripTango]

My use of agnostic is perfectly inline with the definition in post 187.

Post 187? Where mags says

Nope... And I won't label anyone not saved an atheist either. But most people I know and attend all the Churches I went to didn't believe in God. Or were extremely agnostic.

Or was it my quote in that post? Either way, I don't follow...

Regardless, as I said before I understand your usage of the word. Likewise, I would understand if someone said that they were "agnostic on the question of professional baseball in Portland" (also acceptable by some dictionary definitions). Just be aware that your agnostic is another man's atheist.

 

[TripTango]

Doesn't work.

atheism
Syllabification: (a·the·ism)
Pronunciation: /ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

(http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism)

 

[Denny Crane]

It was post #187 on my phone.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/233226-Science-and-Religion-questions?p=2981651&viewfull=1#post2981651

It's 199 on my desktop

 

[TripTango]

Yeah, I'm saying atheism is just anti-theism. You can see that in the root of the word. Like symmetry and asymmetry. There's no requirement for any evidence or lack of evidence or anything. It's flat out a denial of deity (deities).

Agnosticism is an objective thing. Show me evidence, etc.

The "a" doesn't stand for "anti", and it doesn't imply active opposition -- it simply means "without". Asymmetry is a perfect example -- if I am asymmetrical, it doesn't mean I am somehow opposed to symmetry, it just means that I, myself, am lopsided. You may interpret atheism as a "flat out denial", but now you are flat out denying the common interpretation of actual atheists (http://www.atheists.org/content/about-atheism).

 

[crowTrobot]

Then you haven't been reading these forums or walk around with blinders on. Both sides ridicule the other side. And both positions are based on the belief of something they can't prove.

I've been here a long time, and other than perhaps Maris I have not seen anyone make the statement that no gods exist. the atheists here don't have anything to prove.

also again, if anything is ridiculed it is the bad arguments being used to support belief - not the belief itself.

 

[blazerboy30]

atheism
Syllabification: (a·the·ism)
Pronunciation: /ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

(http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism)

Yes, that is a reflection of people attempting to change the definition. The more common definition, as seen in more definitions, defines it as a doctrine, or belief in the affirmative that no deity exists. Atheist.com even admits that the longer-term definitions have stated as such.

 

[Denny Crane]

The "a" doesn't stand for "anti", and it doesn't imply active opposition -- it simply means "without". Asymmetry is a perfect example -- if I am asymmetrical, it doesn't mean I am somehow opposed to symmetry, it just means that I, myself, am lopsided. You may interpret atheism as a "flat out denial", but now you are flat out denying the common interpretation of actual atheists (http://www.atheists.org/content/about-atheism).

Without is fine.

In any case, the link you give me is atheists denying the definition of atheism as presented in the dictionaries. They even criticize the dictionaries.

And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be.

It'd be like me claiming to be a Libertarian and that I define Libertarian to mean statist and big government and rigid government control of industry. It just flies in the face of reason

 

[blazerboy30]

I've been here a long time, and other than perhaps Maris I have not seen anyone make the statement that no gods exist. the atheists here don't have anything to prove.

Nobody has anything to prove. But if anybody does, atheists have just as much to prove as theists.

also again, if anything is ridiculed it is the bad arguments being used to support belief - not the belief itself.

I'm pretty sure I've seen many more posters ridiculing the belief. Maybe I'm mistaken.

 

[TripTango]

It was post #187 on my phone.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/233226-Science-and-Religion-questions?p=2981651&viewfull=1#post2981651

It's 199 on my desktop

Ah -- got it. So, when Huxley says that agnosticism is "not a creed, but a method", you don't see any conflict in placing it somehow in-between theism and atheism? By this original definition, "atheism" and "agnosticism" aren't even answering the same question! Later on he expounds further:

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

Where, in that statement, is there anything related directly to belief or disbelief in god?

 

[TripTango]

Without is fine.

In any case, the link you give me is atheists denying the definition of atheism as presented in the dictionaries. They even criticize the dictionaries.

And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be.

It'd be like me claiming to be a Libertarian and that I define Libertarian to mean statist and big government and rigid government control of industry. It just flies in the face of reason

So, who gets to define what the Libertarian party stands for?

 

[crowTrobot]

Without is fine.

In any case, the link you give me is atheists denying the definition of atheism as presented in the dictionaries. They even criticize the dictionaries.

And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be.

It'd be like me claiming to be a Libertarian and that I define Libertarian to mean statist and big government and rigid government control of industry. It just flies in the face of reason

the trouble is, however you justify it insisting on the definition of atheism as strictly 'strong' isn't of any practical use. non-believers think of the god hypothesis in terms of probability, and the level of probability is very fluid both in general and depending on the definition of god. what view of the probability of the existence of god constitutes atheism? 10%? 1%? .000001%? where do you draw a dividing line that doesn't naturally exist and why?

it makes much more sense to use atheism defined as lack of belief in god, which is why it has come to practical use in that way.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"And both positions are based on the belief of something they can't prove."

Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Proof, strictly speaking, is limited to formal systems. But have you ever heard of a convergent proof? Rather than speak of proof, which is mostly irrelevant to this topic, better to speak of reasons we have for justifying the holding of the beliefs we have. You're really just repeating your faith in a few old saws that many consider to be rusted relics -- no longer fit for the job of informing us about actual human experience.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ah -- got it. So, when Huxley says that agnosticism is "not a creed, but a method", you don't see any conflict in placing it somehow in-between theism and atheism? By this original definition, "atheism" and "agnosticism" aren't even answering the same question! Later on he expounds further:



Where, in that statement, is there anything related directly to belief or disbelief in god?

I'm not placing agnosticism somehow between theism and atheism. It's neither an irrational belief or disbelief. It's a system, a method, as you say. Objectivism. If there's evidence one way or the other, it suggests you believe what the evidence shows.

Currently, there's no evidence that deities exist outside the reality distortion fields between peoples' ears. So you "follow your reason as far as it can carry you" to the point where you can't believe in deities. But the rest is true, too. There's no pretention the conclusion is absolute, nor is there an assertion of some objective truth (e.g. absolute proof of no deity).

I consider myself an agnostic. I simply don't see any objective evidence of a deity or deities. No Reason to believe. As someone posted, if a deity came down on a chariot of fire doing godly things (beyond science), then I'd consider it objective evidence of a deity and Reason to believe.

 

[Denny Crane]

the trouble is, however you justify it insisting on the definition of atheism as strictly 'strong' isn't of any practical use. non-believers think of the god hypothesis in terms of probability, and the level of probability is very fluid both in general and depending on the definition of god. what view of the probability of the existence of god constitutes atheism? 10%? 1%? .000001%? where do you draw a dividing line that doesn't naturally exist and why?

it makes much more sense to use atheism defined as lack of belief in god, which is why it has come to practical use in that way.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief in god. Why do we need two words to describe the same thing when it comes to philosophy?

Like I said and you said, MARIS61 is the only actual atheist who posts here (that I can think of, there may be others I'm overlooking). He simply violently opposes any notion of deity and religion and doesn't offer any Reason for it.

 

[TripTango]

Yes, that is a reflection of people attempting to change the definition. The more common definition, as seen in more definitions, defines it as a doctrine, or belief in the affirmative that no deity exists. Atheist.com even admits that the longer-term definitions have stated as such.

This is the semantic aspect if the argument that is nonproductive. Even if there was some grand, organized movement to shift people to atheism by redefining the word, why in the world shouldn't we allow atheists to define what they stand for? As you point out, dictionary definitions are variable over time and subject to popular usage. Why accept definition A as gospel, but reject definition B as a modern bastardization? If the original usage is the correct one, why do you seem to espouse the modern, popularized definition of "agnostic"?

 

[magnifier661]

One thing I always hated about religious people is how they tell me what my relationship with god was supposed to be, and now they tell me about what my belief in the whole thing is/should be/how I feel.

I don't care if you're religious or not religious. don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it, when you don't have the experience of being agnostic or atheist, and if you do, you don't have MY experience.

Well said! I fucking hate that!

In fact a true Christian shouldn't be religious at all. Jesus teaches the man without sin cast the first stone. That means that no man on this planet can pass judgement or blame on another; unless of course you are Denny!

 

[magnifier661]

Denny.... If humanity had means to travel to the next galaxy that supports life. We land on this planet and meet the indigenous people there.

What would you think if we discovered that these people looked exactly like we do?

What if these people had identical DNA?

Would you believe that our planet's life was designed by a creator?

 

[crowTrobot]

you just stated confusingly incompatable definitions of agnosticism in consecutive posts.

I'm not placing agnosticism somehow between theism and atheism. It's neither an irrational belief or disbelief. It's a system, a method, as you say. Objectivism. If there's evidence one way or the other, it suggests you believe what the evidence shows.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief in god.

 

[TripTango]

Agnosticism is a lack of belief in god.

This is where you are diverging from Huxley's definition. Agnosticism can LEAD to a lack of belief in a god, but it is a method, not a creed!

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny.... If humanity had means to travel to the next galaxy that supports life. We land on this planet and meet the indigenous people there.

What would you think if we discovered that these people looked exactly like we do?

What if these people had identical DNA?

Would you believe that our planet's life was designed by a creator?

It's no empirical evidence of a creator. There is some commonality that would need to be investigated. Maybe all intelligent life is human and evolution works that out everywhere the same. So much of animal life here has two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, four limbs, etc. That might be a clue that is the optimal form that life would take anywhere.

 

[crowTrobot]

face it Denny, you're a heathen atheist : )

 

[Denny Crane]

This is where you are diverging from Huxley's definition. Agnosticism can LEAD to a lack of belief in a god, but it is a method, not a creed!

Fair enough. Agnostics don't believe in god. I should have stated it better (like I just did).

Why don't agnostics believe in god? Because the process doesn't lead them to believe in one.