QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 21 2011, 09:12 AM)
What!? They're that close to nothing? WTH does that mean?
Is that the same as something being that close to infinity??
I know you won't understand, but infinity is closely related to nothing. We cannot talk about either absolute other than to express an approach to it. There's more than that, but you would understand.
Is that the same as something being that close to infinity??
I know you won't understand, but infinity is closely related to nothing. We cannot talk about either absolute other than to express an approach to it. There's more than that, but you would understand.
QUOTE
We cannot talk about either absolute other than to express an approach to it.
Yup you're right I don't understand, Freudian slip notwithstanding. A mathematical approach or a real approach? I never know whether you're talking here or in wonderland.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 21 2011, 10:54 PM)
Yup you're right I don't understand, Freudian slip notwithstanding. A mathematical approach or a real approach? I never know whether you're talking here or in wonderland.
Either. We can express infinity as a symbol, but we can only ever be approaching infinity, as we can only have a finite becoming, or on its way to, infinity. Infinity is inherently dynamic just as nothing can be described as chaotic.
Either. We can express infinity as a symbol, but we can only ever be approaching infinity, as we can only have a finite becoming, or on its way to, infinity. Infinity is inherently dynamic just as nothing can be described as chaotic.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 22 2011, 07:22 AM)
Either. We can express infinity as a symbol, but we can only ever be approaching infinity, as we can only have a finite becoming, or on its way to, infinity. Infinity is inherently dynamic just as nothing can be described as chaotic.
Ok, you need to do some research on limits. This word does not mean what you think it means.
For example: As a spacecraft approaches the speed of light, the fuel it would need to do so approaches infinite. Therefore, it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light.
In this case, the fuel requirements that approach infinite are purely hypothetical, not real. Nothing in nature is infinite.
Ok, you need to do some research on limits. This word does not mean what you think it means.
For example: As a spacecraft approaches the speed of light, the fuel it would need to do so approaches infinite. Therefore, it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light.
In this case, the fuel requirements that approach infinite are purely hypothetical, not real. Nothing in nature is infinite.
The "strong" argument for Nothing existing and the use of the word Nothing, reminds me of a Monty Python skit (cannot remember which one) where they "joke" around with the idea of telling.....The Almost Truth.
Well trained scientists will always say "a near vacuum" when describing space, bad science is calling space a vacuum.
Calling something Nothing is sensationalist but it aint Nothing. Nothing is Nothing and Potential is something else, no matter how much science or bad science you throw at it.
Well trained scientists will always say "a near vacuum" when describing space, bad science is calling space a vacuum.
Calling something Nothing is sensationalist but it aint Nothing. Nothing is Nothing and Potential is something else, no matter how much science or bad science you throw at it.
QUOTE (FBM+)
In this case, the fuel requirements that approach infinite are purely hypothetical, not real. Nothing in nature is infinite.
Now that was understandable enough, and I'm in total agreement. In fact FBM, would you say that even the concept of approaching an infinite quantity is not really an approach. Are we any closer to an infinite quantity of fuel whether we are going .00000009% c, or 99% c? I see no difference whatsoever.
synthsin is (I think
) more concerned with infinite possibilities based on real numbers than on actual reality - iow, potential. I believe that potential nothingness can certainly be presented purely in abstract terms, but merely because a mathematical system works doesn't mean that it verifies in the natural world.
otoh, if I have truly misperceived what synthsin is trying to present, and I have obfuscated it, I will step back, and not be an impediment to the presentation. So this will be my last post in his threads for awhile.
synthsin is (I think
) more concerned with infinite possibilities based on real numbers than on actual reality - iow, potential. I believe that potential nothingness can certainly be presented purely in abstract terms, but merely because a mathematical system works doesn't mean that it verifies in the natural world.otoh, if I have truly misperceived what synthsin is trying to present, and I have obfuscated it, I will step back, and not be an impediment to the presentation. So this will be my last post in his threads for awhile.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 22 2011, 07:13 AM)
In this case, the fuel requirements that approach infinite are purely hypothetical, not real. Nothing in nature is infinite.
QUOTE (me+)
...we can only ever be approaching infinity, as we can only have a finite becoming...
Yes, I said that the approach can only be in finite terms. I never said infinity could be realized, quite the opposite. That's the problem with splitting an explanation between lay and more technically minded people. But you made my point.
lim x-->inf(1/x)= 0
The limit of 1 divided by x, as x approaches infinity, is zero.
Similarly:
lim x-->0(1/x)= +/-inf
The limit of 1 divided by x, as x approached zero, is a positive or negative infinity.
Whereas we can have a zero quantity, we can only have an approach to an absolute zero[nothing] (undefined, or non-contextual nothing). So here is the mathematical statement of what I earlier said as, "If nothing could be isolated, it wouldn't be contextual." Thus undefined, or generalized potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Yes, I said that the approach can only be in finite terms. I never said infinity could be realized, quite the opposite. That's the problem with splitting an explanation between lay and more technically minded people. But you made my point.
lim x-->inf(1/x)= 0
The limit of 1 divided by x, as x approaches infinity, is zero.
Similarly:
lim x-->0(1/x)= +/-inf
The limit of 1 divided by x, as x approached zero, is a positive or negative infinity.
Whereas we can have a zero quantity, we can only have an approach to an absolute zero[nothing] (undefined, or non-contextual nothing). So here is the mathematical statement of what I earlier said as, "If nothing could be isolated, it wouldn't be contextual." Thus undefined, or generalized potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
QUOTE (^+)
Quantum field theory (QFT) provides a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of systems classically parametrized (represented) by an infinite number of dynamical degrees of freedom, that is, fields ...
Since "an infinite number of dynamical degrees of freedom" can't be realized, but only approached, the limit of something as its degrees of freedom approaches infinity has a mean value of zero.
"Nothing in nature is infinite." Another literal meaning that may be closer to the truth.
Since "an infinite number of dynamical degrees of freedom" can't be realized, but only approached, the limit of something as its degrees of freedom approaches infinity has a mean value of zero.
"Nothing in nature is infinite." Another literal meaning that may be closer to the truth.
QUOTE (fred+)
Nothing is Nothing and Potential is something else, no matter how much science or bad science you throw at it.
You have yet to show that you know the difference.
You have yet to show that you know the difference.
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
NA, you're free to beg off, I just thought it fair to point out some possibly erroneous assumptions driving your line of reasoning that "universe" was sufficiently inclusive.
This I agree with but I do not agree with this statement, “Christians and Atheists, Both are wrong.”
Christians state that there’s a god, and ascribe attributes to this god, which in turn, leads to psychological manipulation. I don’t have to tell you that atheists simply lack belief. We didn’t make the assumption that there’s a god. The religious did, and if they want to make this amazing claim, which manipulates the masses, then they should offer evidence. I agree that science has nothing to say about things beyond its domain, but it is the best tool that we have to understand reality, and the debate isn’t fallaciously about science, it’s about REALITY.
We can not rely on what we perceive to be sensical or we wouldn’t have made it this far. The universe isn’t sensical. Our brains are continuously taking in information to create a theory about us within our surroundings, but there are far more ways to be wrong than right. I think that we are electrochemical machines that are known to be irrational.
I feel that the main difference between pantheists and atheists are that pantheist also ascribe attributes to the universe that atheist do not, e.g. consciousness? Or do you think that pantheists are atheists, who are simply expressing Carl Sagan’s sentiment.
When I asked you, if you felt that the universe had a consciousness, you said that humans do, and that they have the potential to evolve into something close to omniscience, correct? Are humans the only creatures that are capable of evolving intellectually, appreciating the splendor, or the most adaptive?
Atheists feel that we can create our own purpose but if there’s no god then there’s essentially no purpose. We all want life to continue, but the universe can, and may go on without life, and without caring. In the big picture, we are very insignificant.
There is no way that we can say that a god doesn’t exist, just like there is no way that we can say that multi-universes, or other dimensions, do not exist. However, we can say that we do not yet have any scientific evidence that proves they do. I hate the multi-verse idea but if our universe was created from nothing then others may exist. We just don’t know.
This I agree with but I do not agree with this statement, “Christians and Atheists, Both are wrong.”
Christians state that there’s a god, and ascribe attributes to this god, which in turn, leads to psychological manipulation. I don’t have to tell you that atheists simply lack belief. We didn’t make the assumption that there’s a god. The religious did, and if they want to make this amazing claim, which manipulates the masses, then they should offer evidence. I agree that science has nothing to say about things beyond its domain, but it is the best tool that we have to understand reality, and the debate isn’t fallaciously about science, it’s about REALITY.
We can not rely on what we perceive to be sensical or we wouldn’t have made it this far. The universe isn’t sensical. Our brains are continuously taking in information to create a theory about us within our surroundings, but there are far more ways to be wrong than right. I think that we are electrochemical machines that are known to be irrational.
I feel that the main difference between pantheists and atheists are that pantheist also ascribe attributes to the universe that atheist do not, e.g. consciousness? Or do you think that pantheists are atheists, who are simply expressing Carl Sagan’s sentiment.
QUOTE
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked and science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, and more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
When I asked you, if you felt that the universe had a consciousness, you said that humans do, and that they have the potential to evolve into something close to omniscience, correct? Are humans the only creatures that are capable of evolving intellectually, appreciating the splendor, or the most adaptive?
Atheists feel that we can create our own purpose but if there’s no god then there’s essentially no purpose. We all want life to continue, but the universe can, and may go on without life, and without caring. In the big picture, we are very insignificant.
There is no way that we can say that a god doesn’t exist, just like there is no way that we can say that multi-universes, or other dimensions, do not exist. However, we can say that we do not yet have any scientific evidence that proves they do. I hate the multi-verse idea but if our universe was created from nothing then others may exist. We just don’t know.
Hi NA,
You mention your incredulity with multi-verses, and that is very apropos to my point. Currently, we know that there is a very strict limit on what we can actually know, and thus prove, about anything prior to the BB. So aside from being more satisfactorily "scientific" sounding, how is that fundamentally different from any other postulated origin we cannot gain sufficient information about to prove? Like any other such postulated origin, God included, we can always tailor it to fit known and proven scientific detail.
It's just erroneously cloaking an ideological argument in science. Thus both sides are wrong to make science the battleground, as science cannot currently mediate this debate. If you think science can, you have simply been duped by speculation.
If atheists wish to make a rational argument, they cannot credibly use pure speculation to do so, any more than they're willing to accept unsubstantiated speculation from their opposition.
Whether it's God or a serial/multi-universe, any infinite regression of an origin's origin is just an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it cannot be proven either way. No amount of justification makes a non-answer an answer.
You mention your incredulity with multi-verses, and that is very apropos to my point. Currently, we know that there is a very strict limit on what we can actually know, and thus prove, about anything prior to the BB. So aside from being more satisfactorily "scientific" sounding, how is that fundamentally different from any other postulated origin we cannot gain sufficient information about to prove? Like any other such postulated origin, God included, we can always tailor it to fit known and proven scientific detail.
It's just erroneously cloaking an ideological argument in science. Thus both sides are wrong to make science the battleground, as science cannot currently mediate this debate. If you think science can, you have simply been duped by speculation.
If atheists wish to make a rational argument, they cannot credibly use pure speculation to do so, any more than they're willing to accept unsubstantiated speculation from their opposition.
Whether it's God or a serial/multi-universe, any infinite regression of an origin's origin is just an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it cannot be proven either way. No amount of justification makes a non-answer an answer.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 1 2011, 12:24 PM)
Hi NA,
You mention your incredulity with multi-verses, and that is very apropos to my point. Currently, we know that there is a very strict limit on what we can actually know, and thus prove, about anything prior to the BB. So aside from being more satisfactorily "scientific" sounding, how is that fundamentally different from any other postulated origin we cannot gain sufficient information about to prove? Like any other such postulated origin, God included, we can always tailor it to fit known and proven scientific detail.
It's just erroneously cloaking an ideological argument in science. Thus both sides are wrong to make science the battleground, as science cannot currently mediate this debate. If you think science can, you have simply been duped by speculation.
If atheists wish to make a rational argument, they cannot credibly use pure speculation to do so, any more than they're willing to accept unsubstantiated speculation from their opposition.
Whether it's God or a serial/multi-universe, any infinite regression of an origin's origin is just an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it cannot be proven either way. No amount of justification makes a non-answer an answer.
The difference, synthnis75, is that atheists aren’t claiming to know. I’m not saying that I know there is no God. I’m saying that based on our current knowledge, the probability is low, and the initial claim of such, are highly suspect.
Most do not claim to BELIVE there is a God. Most claim to KNOW there is a God.
The first question that people should ask is,” how do they KNOW that there is a god?”
It is an extraordinary and powerful declaration and science can certainly falsify some specific claims.
"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction."
~Percy Bysshe Shelley
You mention your incredulity with multi-verses, and that is very apropos to my point. Currently, we know that there is a very strict limit on what we can actually know, and thus prove, about anything prior to the BB. So aside from being more satisfactorily "scientific" sounding, how is that fundamentally different from any other postulated origin we cannot gain sufficient information about to prove? Like any other such postulated origin, God included, we can always tailor it to fit known and proven scientific detail.
It's just erroneously cloaking an ideological argument in science. Thus both sides are wrong to make science the battleground, as science cannot currently mediate this debate. If you think science can, you have simply been duped by speculation.
If atheists wish to make a rational argument, they cannot credibly use pure speculation to do so, any more than they're willing to accept unsubstantiated speculation from their opposition.
Whether it's God or a serial/multi-universe, any infinite regression of an origin's origin is just an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it cannot be proven either way. No amount of justification makes a non-answer an answer.
The difference, synthnis75, is that atheists aren’t claiming to know. I’m not saying that I know there is no God. I’m saying that based on our current knowledge, the probability is low, and the initial claim of such, are highly suspect.
Most do not claim to BELIVE there is a God. Most claim to KNOW there is a God.
The first question that people should ask is,” how do they KNOW that there is a god?”
It is an extraordinary and powerful declaration and science can certainly falsify some specific claims.
"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction."
~Percy Bysshe Shelley
How would you "know" you had fibromyalgia? It's highly debatable whether or not we can discern any objective criteria for diagnosis. You'd "know" because you'd experience pain. When the religious claim to "know" it is specifically by such a subjective experience. Yes, both the pain of fibromyalgia and the belief in God may only be in the mind, but we treat the former as real without batting an eye. What's good for the goose...
If you had any genuine doubt about the existence of a God, i.e. "I’m not saying that I know there is no God", you would be better defined as an agnostic. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the atheist asserts there "is no God", and argues accordingly.
If you had any genuine doubt about the existence of a God, i.e. "I’m not saying that I know there is no God", you would be better defined as an agnostic. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the atheist asserts there "is no God", and argues accordingly.
QUOTE (wiki+)
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
QUOTE (wiki+)
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
You see? Agnosticism doesn't make an assertion where atheism does. If you're not making an assertion, I'd suggest that you'd probably be better served claiming to be an agnostic, rather than an atheist. Of course atheism is more intellectually fashionable, and it's harder to refute a Christian from the stance of "I’m not saying that I know".
You see? Agnosticism doesn't make an assertion where atheism does. If you're not making an assertion, I'd suggest that you'd probably be better served claiming to be an agnostic, rather than an atheist. Of course atheism is more intellectually fashionable, and it's harder to refute a Christian from the stance of "I’m not saying that I know".
r u ripping off Immanuel Kant where both atheism and theism r contradictions in pure reason?
No.
I was looking for a word "antinome" supposed to mean contradiction in pure reason. I think Kant coined it but it never became an actual word.
I remember getting into a debate with a friend who studied and he actually got his philosophical dictionary and looked up the meanings of both atheism and agnosticism.
I never took philosophy myself.
I remember getting into a debate with a friend who studied and he actually got his philosophical dictionary and looked up the meanings of both atheism and agnosticism.
I never took philosophy myself.
Never cared for Kant.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 2 2011, 07:26 PM)
Never cared for Kant.
I just Kant take him seriously.
I just Kant take him seriously.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 2 2011, 08:12 PM)
How would you "know" you had fibromyalgia? It's highly debatable whether or not we can discern any objective criteria for diagnosis. You'd "know" because you'd experience pain. When the religious claim to "know" it is specifically by such a subjective experience. Yes, both the pain of fibromyalgia and the belief in God may only be in the mind, but we treat the former as real without batting an eye. What's good for the goose...
If you had any genuine doubt about the existence of a God, i.e. "I’m not saying that I know there is no God", you would be better defined as an agnostic. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the atheist asserts there "is no God", and argues accordingly.
You see? Agnosticism doesn't make an assertion where atheism does. If you're not making an assertion, I'd suggest that you'd probably be better served claiming to be an agnostic, rather than an atheist. Of course atheism is more intellectually fashionable, and it's harder to refute a Christian from the stance of "I’m not saying that I know".
The diagnosis of fibromyalgia and knowing that there is a god are not equally probable. They are both mysterious but surely one claim is slightly more extraordinary than the other, wouldn't you say? At the very least we know that people exist and people experience pain.
It's true, there are those who will assert that there is no god and those that assert the opposite. However the atheist does not need to assert that there is no god, so it's kinda moot. Just as one need not proclaim that fairies do not exist one need not claim that god's' do not exist, and there have been many gods put forward.
I just don't believe the evidence supports those claims so for me they are on the back burner while I concentrate energy on better understanding claims for which the evidence is stronger.
If you had any genuine doubt about the existence of a God, i.e. "I’m not saying that I know there is no God", you would be better defined as an agnostic. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the atheist asserts there "is no God", and argues accordingly.
You see? Agnosticism doesn't make an assertion where atheism does. If you're not making an assertion, I'd suggest that you'd probably be better served claiming to be an agnostic, rather than an atheist. Of course atheism is more intellectually fashionable, and it's harder to refute a Christian from the stance of "I’m not saying that I know".
The diagnosis of fibromyalgia and knowing that there is a god are not equally probable. They are both mysterious but surely one claim is slightly more extraordinary than the other, wouldn't you say? At the very least we know that people exist and people experience pain.
It's true, there are those who will assert that there is no god and those that assert the opposite. However the atheist does not need to assert that there is no god, so it's kinda moot. Just as one need not proclaim that fairies do not exist one need not claim that god's' do not exist, and there have been many gods put forward.
I just don't believe the evidence supports those claims so for me they are on the back burner while I concentrate energy on better understanding claims for which the evidence is stronger.
QUOTE (SU+)
I just don't believe the evidence supports those claims so for me they are on the back burner while I concentrate energy on better understanding claims for which the evidence is stronger.
But that's an agnostic statement bro...
QUOTE (soundhertz+Jul 3 2011, 02:48 PM)
QUOTE (SU+)
I just don't believe the evidence supports those claims so for me they are on the back burner while I concentrate energy on better understanding claims for which the evidence is stronger.
We objectively know people exist and have subjective experience, period. By the very nature of subjective experience, we cannot objectively know anything for sure. With pain, we merely have an equivalent subjective experience. There are people whose nervous systems do not register pain. Would they be as equally justified in claiming your pain to be hallucination, imagined, or anything else you may claim of theistic experience? Wouldn't the theist be equally valid in assuming your "divine experience" senses were somehow damaged?
Whether or not you feel a particular subjective experience is probable is completely dependent upon your person subjective experience. So refuting one non-objective with another.
Now don't get me wrong, I've never had any sort of "divine experience", and I don't tolerate such when it contradicts scientific fact. I have merely reasoned out that some specific form of theism (not the naive children's stories told in church) is more likely than not.
Allow me to be crystal clear then. I don't believe there are gods, but I don't know that there are no gods. I have not been exposed to any argument or evidence that give me sufficient reason to believe that god's, God, or super nature actually exist. Perhaps one day that will change, but as it stands, the burden of proof remains with the claimant.
If you want to say that I am agnostic that is fine by me, but from the perspective of the main religious dogmas, (given some of the proactive things one needs to do to satisfy safe passage to heaven and avoid eternal damnation), I ain't getting in and neither are the agnostics. Only 'true believers' cut the mustard, so what does it matter whether you're agnostic or atheist?
Unfortunately there are those theistic institutions and individuals that interfere with scientific progress and deny and lie about scientific findings when they inconvenience or contradict their beliefs and certainties. Some actively intend harm on those who do not subscribe to their 'truth'. Calling myself an agnostic in light of this gives the impression that they are on to something, when as far as I can tell they are not. So politically (for want of a better word) I am an atheist. I live a non religious lifestyle as opposed to a theistic lifestyle. I'm not sure how agnostics differ in that regard.
And someone claiming that they feel pain is not as extraordinary as claiming that there is a god. Obfuscating about the subjectivity of pain is not going to change that fact.
But that's an agnostic statement bro...
Why can't an atheist make an agnostic statement?
Why can't an atheist make an agnostic statement?
QUOTE (SU+)
I just don't believe the evidence supports those claims so for me they are on the back burner while I concentrate energy on better understanding claims for which the evidence is stronger.
If you aren't making a definite assertion that no god exists, you are not an atheist, by definition. If you "don't believe the evidence supports those claims", but are not willing to take a definite stand against theism, you are, by default, an agnostic. Atheism is defined as anti-theistic not merely skeptical-theistic. IOW, an atheist has come to a solid decision where the agnostic is undecided or unsure of what can be known with certainty.
We objectively know people exist and have subjective experience, period. By the very nature of subjective experience, we cannot objectively know anything for sure. With pain, we merely have an equivalent subjective experience. There are people whose nervous systems do not register pain. Would they be as equally justified in claiming your pain to be hallucination, imagined, or anything else you may claim of theistic experience? Wouldn't the theist be equally valid in assuming your "divine experience" senses were somehow damaged?
Whether or not you feel a particular subjective experience is probable is completely dependent upon your person subjective experience. So refuting one non-objective with another.
Now don't get me wrong, I've never had any sort of "divine experience", and I don't tolerate such when it contradicts scientific fact. I have merely reasoned out that some specific form of theism (not the naive children's stories told in church) is more likely than not.
If you aren't making a definite assertion that no god exists, you are not an atheist, by definition. If you "don't believe the evidence supports those claims", but are not willing to take a definite stand against theism, you are, by default, an agnostic. Atheism is defined as anti-theistic not merely skeptical-theistic. IOW, an atheist has come to a solid decision where the agnostic is undecided or unsure of what can be known with certainty.
QUOTE
The diagnosis of fibromyalgia and knowing that there is a god are not equally probable. They are both mysterious but surely one claim is slightly more extraordinary than the other, wouldn't you say? At the very least we know that people exist and people experience pain.
We objectively know people exist and have subjective experience, period. By the very nature of subjective experience, we cannot objectively know anything for sure. With pain, we merely have an equivalent subjective experience. There are people whose nervous systems do not register pain. Would they be as equally justified in claiming your pain to be hallucination, imagined, or anything else you may claim of theistic experience? Wouldn't the theist be equally valid in assuming your "divine experience" senses were somehow damaged?
Whether or not you feel a particular subjective experience is probable is completely dependent upon your person subjective experience. So refuting one non-objective with another.
Now don't get me wrong, I've never had any sort of "divine experience", and I don't tolerate such when it contradicts scientific fact. I have merely reasoned out that some specific form of theism (not the naive children's stories told in church) is more likely than not.
Like Dawkins, I'm a Six
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 3 2011, 09:19 AM)
Like Dawkins, I'm a Six
Notice Dawkins said, "I'm an agnostic...".
Like I said, agnostics seem to prefer to call themselves atheists simply because it is intellectually fashionable. IOW it makes them seem more intellectual.
Notice Dawkins said, "I'm an agnostic...".
Like I said, agnostics seem to prefer to call themselves atheists simply because it is intellectually fashionable. IOW it makes them seem more intellectual.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 3 2011, 07:24 AM)
Notice Dawkins said, "I'm an agnostic...".
Like I said, agnostics seem to prefer to call themselves atheists simply because it is intellectually fashionable. IOW it makes them seem more intellectual.
An atheist is a person who lacks belief, a disbelief in a deity. However, open to the possibility, however small, that there might be one.
I am an atheist.
An agnostic is someone who believes that it is theoretically impossible to prove that God exists. Huxley coined agnostic, and at that time, it was more intellectually fashionable. IMHO, it was unnecessary and only added to the confusion. However, I can understand how difficult it would have been to state that you did not believe in God during that period of time.
An anti-theist is someone opposed to the practicing of religion or spirituality of any kind, for moral, political, and/or social reasons.
I am also an anti-theist.
Like I said, agnostics seem to prefer to call themselves atheists simply because it is intellectually fashionable. IOW it makes them seem more intellectual.
An atheist is a person who lacks belief, a disbelief in a deity. However, open to the possibility, however small, that there might be one.
I am an atheist.
An agnostic is someone who believes that it is theoretically impossible to prove that God exists. Huxley coined agnostic, and at that time, it was more intellectually fashionable. IMHO, it was unnecessary and only added to the confusion. However, I can understand how difficult it would have been to state that you did not believe in God during that period of time.
An anti-theist is someone opposed to the practicing of religion or spirituality of any kind, for moral, political, and/or social reasons.
I am also an anti-theist.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 3 2011, 03:19 PM)
We objectively know people exist and have subjective experience, period. By the very nature of subjective experience, we cannot objectively know anything for sure. With pain, we merely have an equivalent subjective experience. There are people whose nervous systems do not register pain. Would they be as equally justified in claiming your pain to be hallucination, imagined, or anything else you may claim of theistic experience? Wouldn't the theist be equally valid in assuming your "divine experience" senses were somehow damaged?
Whether or not you feel a particular subjective experience is probable is completely dependent upon your person subjective experience. So refuting one non-objective with another.
Now don't get me wrong, I've never had any sort of "divine experience", and I don't tolerate such when it contradicts scientific fact. I have merely reasoned out that some specific form of theism (not the naive children's stories told in church) is more likely than not.
Allow me to be crystal clear then. I don't believe there are gods, but I don't know that there are no gods. I have not been exposed to any argument or evidence that give me sufficient reason to believe that god's, God, or super nature actually exist. Perhaps one day that will change, but as it stands, the burden of proof remains with the claimant.
If you want to say that I am agnostic that is fine by me, but from the perspective of the main religious dogmas, (given some of the proactive things one needs to do to satisfy safe passage to heaven and avoid eternal damnation), I ain't getting in and neither are the agnostics. Only 'true believers' cut the mustard, so what does it matter whether you're agnostic or atheist?
Unfortunately there are those theistic institutions and individuals that interfere with scientific progress and deny and lie about scientific findings when they inconvenience or contradict their beliefs and certainties. Some actively intend harm on those who do not subscribe to their 'truth'. Calling myself an agnostic in light of this gives the impression that they are on to something, when as far as I can tell they are not. So politically (for want of a better word) I am an atheist. I live a non religious lifestyle as opposed to a theistic lifestyle. I'm not sure how agnostics differ in that regard.
And someone claiming that they feel pain is not as extraordinary as claiming that there is a god. Obfuscating about the subjectivity of pain is not going to change that fact.
No, NA, you are still hopelessly mangling definitions.
"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
So anti-theism is the disbelief in a deity. Has nothing to do with practices.
Now if you've made a solid decision that no god exists, then yes, you are an atheist. But if that is the case, then statements such as, "I’m not saying that I know there is no God" is merely an agnostic statement of atheistic apologetics. If you've made a decision, then it is assumed you believe yourself to know well enough to come to such a conclusion.
Which is exactly what you're saying when you say, "I’m not saying that I know there is no God", since if it could be proven one way or the other, you'd know.
But since you brought up Dawkins as your reference, why exactly is his "six" agnostic and yours atheist? Anything but a solid decision one way or the other is in the spectrum of agnostic.
"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
So anti-theism is the disbelief in a deity. Has nothing to do with practices.
Now if you've made a solid decision that no god exists, then yes, you are an atheist. But if that is the case, then statements such as, "I’m not saying that I know there is no God" is merely an agnostic statement of atheistic apologetics. If you've made a decision, then it is assumed you believe yourself to know well enough to come to such a conclusion.
QUOTE
An agnostic is someone who believes that it is theoretically impossible to prove that God exists.
Which is exactly what you're saying when you say, "I’m not saying that I know there is no God", since if it could be proven one way or the other, you'd know.
But since you brought up Dawkins as your reference, why exactly is his "six" agnostic and yours atheist? Anything but a solid decision one way or the other is in the spectrum of agnostic.
SU, you seem to have the same problem with differentiating theism from organized religion, as NA does.
I would suggest that both of you are agnostic towards theism but anti-organized religion, as it seems you have a much more definite opinion of practices than the premise of God alone. IOW you are opposed to religious people more so than their specific belief in a god.
I would suggest that both of you are agnostic towards theism but anti-organized religion, as it seems you have a much more definite opinion of practices than the premise of God alone. IOW you are opposed to religious people more so than their specific belief in a god.
IMHO, the term agnostic is outdated and no longer a reasonable stance. Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic, and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" and the "unknowable."
Most agnostics feel, in part, that they are merely suspending their belief, until further evidence is acquired. It is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge.
Belief can be defined as an internal thought, which exist in one’s mind, and for it to be knowledge it must be, at least true and justified. It is a conviction of the truth based on the examination of evidence. Knowledge can be defined as the condition of apprehending truth of fact through reasoning.
Atheism and Theism deal with belief. I don’t believe vs. I do believe.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with knowledge. I don’t know vs. I do know.
As history has indicated, Thomas Hobbes was the first person that even resembled an atheist. Therefore, theists were the first to make a claim, a proclamation that God does exist. Atheists are simply stating that they lack belief in this contention because theists do not have sufficient evidence to back this up.
Theists back up their beliefs with miracles, prophecies, ancient writings, and now with the design concept, etc. Atheists oppose this with an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence and knowledge. If any portions of either side are found compelling then the agnostic’s stance should be invalid. To say that it is unknowable is the same thing as saying that you lack belief in the theist’s position, which by the definition, makes you an atheist by default.
Atheists believe that there is a "high probability" that God does not exist, but if any future evidence supported the claim that he did, I as an atheist, would reevaluate my decision based on that evidence. Not having an explanation does not support the idea of the supernatural.
Pysforum Topic- Sinister Utopia
Richard Dawkins - The Poverty of Agnosticism Part 1
Richard Dawkins - The Poverty of Agnosticism Part 2
Atheism is not a belief
Most agnostics feel, in part, that they are merely suspending their belief, until further evidence is acquired. It is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge.
Belief can be defined as an internal thought, which exist in one’s mind, and for it to be knowledge it must be, at least true and justified. It is a conviction of the truth based on the examination of evidence. Knowledge can be defined as the condition of apprehending truth of fact through reasoning.
Atheism and Theism deal with belief. I don’t believe vs. I do believe.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with knowledge. I don’t know vs. I do know.
As history has indicated, Thomas Hobbes was the first person that even resembled an atheist. Therefore, theists were the first to make a claim, a proclamation that God does exist. Atheists are simply stating that they lack belief in this contention because theists do not have sufficient evidence to back this up.
Theists back up their beliefs with miracles, prophecies, ancient writings, and now with the design concept, etc. Atheists oppose this with an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence and knowledge. If any portions of either side are found compelling then the agnostic’s stance should be invalid. To say that it is unknowable is the same thing as saying that you lack belief in the theist’s position, which by the definition, makes you an atheist by default.
Atheists believe that there is a "high probability" that God does not exist, but if any future evidence supported the claim that he did, I as an atheist, would reevaluate my decision based on that evidence. Not having an explanation does not support the idea of the supernatural.
Pysforum Topic- Sinister Utopia
Richard Dawkins - The Poverty of Agnosticism Part 1
Richard Dawkins - The Poverty of Agnosticism Part 2
Atheism is not a belief
NA, now you're contradicting yourself.
For the atheist, no belief, let alone “faith”, is involved.
So which is it? Now you may say that our knowledge is what effects your belief in no god, but that is exactly what agnostics would say.
Just because you may wish to polarize the debate with diametrically opposed sides (black and white, two-valued logic) doesn't, in the least, mean the term agnostic is outdated or unreasonable. What this kind of thinking is a sign of is how the meaning of words degenerate with time. Kind of a PC version of atheism where you try not to step on anyone's toes too hard.
Agnostics leave themselves the room to quibble about what is known. Atheists make a clear statement, whether that may be altered in the future or not.
If I were an agnostic, I'd say that we don't know enough to determine one way or the other. Would that make the two possibilities equal? No, but what defines that stance is not precluding the lesser possibility, even if the greater is currently favored.
If I were an atheist, I'd say that there is no God and that, while we do not have proof, we have ample evidence to support such a claim. Would that mean I am not open to new evidence that may sway me in the other direction? No, but what defines that stance is a certainty from which to debate.
It's very confusing when atheists, feeling they have been pulled onto shaky ground, retreat to agnosticism as if that doesn't show some doubt in a purely atheistic assertion.
QUOTE
Atheism and Theism deal with belief. I don’t believe vs. I do believe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Atheism and Theism deal with belief. I don’t believe vs. I do believe. |
For the atheist, no belief, let alone “faith”, is involved.
So which is it? Now you may say that our knowledge is what effects your belief in no god, but that is exactly what agnostics would say.
Just because you may wish to polarize the debate with diametrically opposed sides (black and white, two-valued logic) doesn't, in the least, mean the term agnostic is outdated or unreasonable. What this kind of thinking is a sign of is how the meaning of words degenerate with time. Kind of a PC version of atheism where you try not to step on anyone's toes too hard.
Agnostics leave themselves the room to quibble about what is known. Atheists make a clear statement, whether that may be altered in the future or not.
If I were an agnostic, I'd say that we don't know enough to determine one way or the other. Would that make the two possibilities equal? No, but what defines that stance is not precluding the lesser possibility, even if the greater is currently favored.
If I were an atheist, I'd say that there is no God and that, while we do not have proof, we have ample evidence to support such a claim. Would that mean I am not open to new evidence that may sway me in the other direction? No, but what defines that stance is a certainty from which to debate.
It's very confusing when atheists, feeling they have been pulled onto shaky ground, retreat to agnosticism as if that doesn't show some doubt in a purely atheistic assertion.
You know, synthsin75, I find it rather ironic that even your panentheistic type views rely on scientific speculation.
It’s very confusing when panentheists , feeling they have been pulled onto shaky ground, retreat to scientific speculation, but then claim that science has nothing to say about things beyond its domain.
It’s very confusing when panentheists , feeling they have been pulled onto shaky ground, retreat to scientific speculation, but then claim that science has nothing to say about things beyond its domain.
I've already shown where my rather panentheistic view aligns quite well with science. That doesn't mean that science proves my view anymore than any other theistic or atheistic view. This is my point. Most theism, especially monotheism, denies or perverts science to support their claim, while atheists think science fully supports their own claim.
I don't ever feel as if I've been pulled onto shaky ground, as I have reasoned out my views from every perspective, playing devil's advocate. I can freely tell you what science may be pertinent to that reasoning without the necessity of claiming that science directly proves or overwhelmingly supports my reasoning. My reasoning is my own, and not inherently related to any ideology, even panentheism. It's just easier to have a label from which to start in a discussion of this nature.
I don't ever feel as if I've been pulled onto shaky ground, as I have reasoned out my views from every perspective, playing devil's advocate. I can freely tell you what science may be pertinent to that reasoning without the necessity of claiming that science directly proves or overwhelmingly supports my reasoning. My reasoning is my own, and not inherently related to any ideology, even panentheism. It's just easier to have a label from which to start in a discussion of this nature.
QUOTE (sythsin75+)
Society is an innocent bystander that doesn’t need to be pulled into this.
We are part of society.
Do you have a solution? Should we be tolerant of religious views, no matter what?
We are part of society.
Do you have a solution? Should we be tolerant of religious views, no matter what?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 3 2011, 04:59 PM)
SU, you seem to have the same problem with differentiating theism from organized religion, as NA does.
I would suggest that both of you are agnostic towards theism but anti-organized religion, as it seems you have a much more definite opinion of practices than the premise of God alone. IOW you are opposed to religious people more so than their specific belief in a god.
Well, we can all make up our own gods and call ourselves theists. And to be honest good luck to those that follow this path. It's simply a difference of opinion I have with them.
And I have no problem with people 'believing' or forming organised religious groups or whatever they want to do. It's only when that which they wish to do affects me in a manner that I disapprove of for whatever reason. ie; Stem cell research.
I live my life as if no gods exist or until I see reason to live otherwise. So does that make me atheist, agnostic or theist in your opinion?
I would suggest that both of you are agnostic towards theism but anti-organized religion, as it seems you have a much more definite opinion of practices than the premise of God alone. IOW you are opposed to religious people more so than their specific belief in a god.
Well, we can all make up our own gods and call ourselves theists. And to be honest good luck to those that follow this path. It's simply a difference of opinion I have with them.
And I have no problem with people 'believing' or forming organised religious groups or whatever they want to do. It's only when that which they wish to do affects me in a manner that I disapprove of for whatever reason. ie; Stem cell research.
I live my life as if no gods exist or until I see reason to live otherwise. So does that make me atheist, agnostic or theist in your opinion?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 3 2011, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE (sythsin75+)
Society is an innocent bystander that doesn’t need to be pulled into this.
We are part of society.
Do you have a solution? Should we be tolerant of religious views, no matter what?
Would be nice to be able to track down the context of that quote (a different thread?), before being asked to respond to whatever it applied to.
I haven't been talking about tolerance in the least. All I've been saying is that atheism is definitively anti-god, nothing else. It doesn't inherently imply anti-religious-practice, anti-religious-people, nor anti-religious-behavior. All of these are added bric-a-brac merely tangentially related to whether a person believes in a god or not. These have very much more to do with a belief in a specific "holy text" than a strictly theistic view. It's very much like scorning bathing because the hedonistic Romans did it.
Thus, if you have a definite claim about those who believe in a god and their practices, but not such a strong view of the belief itself, then you are agnostic, where strictly theism is concerned. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Labels much more relevant to you may be:
"Antireligion is opposition to religion. Antireligion is distinct from atheism and antitheism (opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine."
"Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. ... The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity ..."
Notice how both of these are inclusive of opposition to religion in general. After all, it is only organized religion that can actually have any significant effect socially, so I suspect this is the real target of your angst.
We are part of society.
Do you have a solution? Should we be tolerant of religious views, no matter what?
Would be nice to be able to track down the context of that quote (a different thread?), before being asked to respond to whatever it applied to.
I haven't been talking about tolerance in the least. All I've been saying is that atheism is definitively anti-god, nothing else. It doesn't inherently imply anti-religious-practice, anti-religious-people, nor anti-religious-behavior. All of these are added bric-a-brac merely tangentially related to whether a person believes in a god or not. These have very much more to do with a belief in a specific "holy text" than a strictly theistic view. It's very much like scorning bathing because the hedonistic Romans did it.
Thus, if you have a definite claim about those who believe in a god and their practices, but not such a strong view of the belief itself, then you are agnostic, where strictly theism is concerned. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Labels much more relevant to you may be:
"Antireligion is opposition to religion. Antireligion is distinct from atheism and antitheism (opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine."
"Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. ... The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity ..."
Notice how both of these are inclusive of opposition to religion in general. After all, it is only organized religion that can actually have any significant effect socially, so I suspect this is the real target of your angst.
QUOTE (SU+)
And I have no problem with people 'believing' or forming organised religious groups or whatever they want to do. It's only when that which they wish to do affects me in a manner that I disapprove of for whatever reason. ie; Stem cell research.
I live my life as if no gods exist or until I see reason to live otherwise. So does that make me atheist, agnostic or theist in your opinion?
It seems the above terms would apply better to you as well, as things such as curtailing stem cell research only occurs due to some significant degree of organization. (Although I'd hazard that such only occur as long as a majority actively support such organizations, and that, I'm afraid, is called democracy.)
If you believe you can positively assert that there is no god, and stand behind that assertion without wavering for anything but evidence to the contrary, then you may be an atheist. I suspect though that most professed "atheists" are much more concerned with refuting a simple text or behavior rather than the possibility of theism. You see, most debates are centered around specific descriptions of deity in specific "holy texts", and this seems to be all that is actively opposed.
I live my life as if no gods exist or until I see reason to live otherwise. So does that make me atheist, agnostic or theist in your opinion?
It seems the above terms would apply better to you as well, as things such as curtailing stem cell research only occurs due to some significant degree of organization. (Although I'd hazard that such only occur as long as a majority actively support such organizations, and that, I'm afraid, is called democracy.)
If you believe you can positively assert that there is no god, and stand behind that assertion without wavering for anything but evidence to the contrary, then you may be an atheist. I suspect though that most professed "atheists" are much more concerned with refuting a simple text or behavior rather than the possibility of theism. You see, most debates are centered around specific descriptions of deity in specific "holy texts", and this seems to be all that is actively opposed.
That’s your opinion. A term may have many different senses or meanings. The definition itself is controversial but we have all explained what it means to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
“In the meantime, in answer to the question Why is there something instead of nothing?, it is okay to say “I don’t know” and keep searching. There is no need to turn to supernatural answers just to fulfill an emotional need for certainty and comfort. Science’s uncertainty is its greatest strength. We should embrace it.”
Biggest Question of All-Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing
I did learn a great deal from the exchange.
Thank you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
“In the meantime, in answer to the question Why is there something instead of nothing?, it is okay to say “I don’t know” and keep searching. There is no need to turn to supernatural answers just to fulfill an emotional need for certainty and comfort. Science’s uncertainty is its greatest strength. We should embrace it.”
Biggest Question of All-Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing
I did learn a great deal from the exchange.
Thank you!
Like science, the value of words relies upon the precision of use.
question:have you stopped beating your wife
theist:Yes
atheist:No
agnostic:Huh?
theist:Yes
atheist:No
agnostic:Huh?
So where's the loaded question here?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.