From atheism to agnosticism

Keneke said:
It's not that I am saying it cannot be proven, only that it currently is not. And my atheism was defined by belief in absence, or at least imagining it that way based upon evidence at the time. As I thought one could tell by the context (but I apologize, I was wrong), I was referring to the terms as per popular usage.
Click to expand...


Who's popular usage? Popular usage of atheists themselves? Or popular usage by the religious?

Look in the dictionary and you can often find "wicked" (or some such term) listed as one of the definitions of atheist. If I refer to THAT usage, then I am not atheist, either, and neither are none of the atheists I have ever met.

You can call yourself what you want. But if the list of gods that you believe exist is empty, then I still consider you an atheist, without the belief in god.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
"Pre-big bang" doesn't make any sense. The big bang is the start point of time.
Click to expand...

There are theories that the big bang was caused by the collision of at least two "membranes" or "branes" in higher dimensions.
 
Solus said:
So you don't deny the existence of some kind of deity then?

I have to say it's possible, in the same way it's possible a invisible pink unicorn is sitting next to me right now. You can't disprove that there isn't one, ergo irrelevant. I'm god but I refuse to show you my power, disprove my statement... If it can't be falsified you have to take it on faith.

I was the opposite of you, I was agnostic for years but I started to do some deeper thinking and research on the subject. I had my "spiritual" experiences and they mean nothing; all signals from within the mind. I've been closer to "god" than most believers could ever dream of.
Click to expand...

You should have just said, "IPU" and I would have known what you were talking about. ;)

The problem with IPU is that it is a good argument against theistic beliefs, but really reductio ad absurdum when it comes to the mere non-existence of any evidence of what is outside perceived existence. Of course believing in something that is funny, such as IPUs, is a good laugh to prove a point against meddling gods, but when considering the mere possibility of existence, such absurd statements are not valid.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Then I pose to you the same question I asked Mr. Hastur, and will reach the same impasse, I am sure (the definition of universe): in what sense is it separate if you can travel (escape) to it?
Click to expand...

You say: "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space". Which I suppose is an alright usage, but I have already mentioned "multi-universes". Therefore, something could lie outside the universe as an unreachable (?) parallel universe, multiverse, or primordial universe soup, depending upon which theory you prescribe to.
 
Solus said:
Are you little insecure in this forum? Do you need a hug? :rub:
Are you feeling better, now go astound us with your logically feats of inability. ;)

must request stick hitting smiley...
Click to expand...

No, I'm fine, I just try and inject humor into my little rants.
 
pgwenthold said:
Who's popular usage? Popular usage of atheists themselves? Or popular usage by the religious?

Look in the dictionary and you can often find "wicked" (or some such term) listed as one of the definitions of atheist. If I refer to THAT usage, then I am not atheist, either, and neither are none of the atheists I have ever met.

You can call yourself what you want. But if the list of gods that you believe exist is empty, then I still consider you an atheist, without the belief in god.
Click to expand...

And I consider you a Christian, since you live in a Christian nation. (American, right?)
 
Keneke said:
You say: "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space". Which I suppose is an alright usage, but I have already mentioned "multi-universes". Therefore, something could lie outside the universe as an unreachable (?) parallel universe, multiverse, or primordial universe soup, depending upon which theory you prescribe to.
Click to expand...
Sure. I have no problem with the idea of "multi-universes". There may well be oddles of the little bastards floating around. However, if they are taken to be closed systems, neither affecting nor affected by the other universes (and in my experience discussing them, their proponents usually say just this), then their existence--for all intents and purposes--is null.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
then their existence--for all intents and purposes--is null.
Click to expand...

Once again because we don't experience them. I'm just saying what would we call them if we could somehow traverse between the two? I would still think of them as separate 'universes' , it would just seem messy that every time we knocked down a wall to another universe that we wouldn't want a way to differentiate between them. What else would we call them?
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Sure. I have no problem with the idea of "multi-universes". There may well be oddles of the little bastards floating around. However, if they are taken to be closed systems, neither affecting nor affected by the other universes (and in my experience discussing them, their proponents usually say just this), then their existence--for all intents and purposes--is null.
Click to expand...

I do not take them to automatically mean closed systems. They may not effect each other naturally, true, but this doesn't that something from one universe - say, a dimension hopping futuristic human - cannot interact with another. To say that any interaction at all automatically means open system and no current interaction means closed system is a simplification I do not think can be made, except in the most mathematical of terms, and that's not really what we're discussing.

So, getting back to my original statement, I said, in essence, that our universe may not be the same as the totality of existence. Our universe is what we, as beings of 4 or so dimensions can reach. If there is a similar universe elsewhere we cannot reach by normal means, then it is another universe. It could be 3 dimensional, it could be flatland, it could be a pocket universe 1 mm across, it could Heaven for all I know.

So Irony said that he didn't know any atheist who believed there was nothing outside of our universe. I disagree, in that I have met some atheists that believe the universe is all there is. Maybe their view is shallow, maybe if I probed them they'd cough up their deeper beliefs, and maybe they just never thought too much about it.
 
J. Arthur Hastur said:
Once again because we don't experience them. I'm just saying what would we call them if we could somehow traverse between the two? I would still think of them as separate 'universes'...
Click to expand...
I would not.

As for what they would be called, they would be called alternate universes if more people thought as you than as I. If the other way, I am certain we would come up with something. Nothing seems to stay nameless long in the presence of Homo sapiens.
 
Keneke said:
I do not take them to automatically mean closed systems. They may not effect each other naturally, true, but this doesn't that something from one universe - say, a dimension hopping futuristic human - cannot interact with another.
Click to expand...
If interaction is possible in principle, I do not find the thing interacted with worthy of the term universe; I do not see it as separate. So, it's boiled down to a semantic difference, as I thought it might. That's that.

As to God, I feel no need to even ponder the existence of things outside the universe. God could be smoking a doob on Pluto right now, for all I know, but without evidence, I don't believe; I am an atheist.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
If interaction is possible in principle, I do not find the thing interacted with worthy of the term universe; I do not see it as separate. So, it's boiled down to a semantic difference, as I thought it might. That's that.
Click to expand...

M-Theory postulates that the graviton particle might be the only thing that can pass freely between "branes". So until we have produced graviton highways, these higher dimensions will remain separate from us.
 
Macoy said:
There are theories that the big bang was caused by the collision of at least two "membranes" or "branes" in higher dimensions.
Click to expand...

You're talking about string theory which hasn't got a shred of proof. Also, "caused" is a very peculiar word to chose for an event that took place without time.
 
pgwenthold said:
Who's popular usage? Popular usage of atheists themselves? Or popular usage by the religious?

Look in the dictionary and you can often find "wicked" (or some such term) listed as one of the definitions of atheist. If I refer to THAT usage, then I am not atheist, either, and neither are none of the atheists I have ever met.

You can call yourself what you want. But if the list of gods that you believe exist is empty, then I still consider you an atheist, without the belief in god.
Click to expand...

Just as people here mock those who try to get out of a faulty God premise by changing the definition of God, I am going to call you out because you want to get out of the original subject of the post by using a different defintion of "atheist". You should know by the title and original post, or at least by now, in what sense I am using the words. Don't play dumb.
 
Keneke said:
Your defintion of universe or my definition of universe? Outside of existence, perhaps, but outside of our 3.5D universe, perhaps not.
Click to expand...
Actually, by either definition, I don't feel the need or even the desire to ponder. You may feel differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom