Agnostic or Atheist?
- Thread starter Mosquito
- Start date
-
- Tags
- agnosticism atheism
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
It's also called "correct."
I don't really care what the general public thinks the definition of a scientific term is, either. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter if the general public thinks that homeopathy includes herbal medications, it doesn't make it true (unless those herbal medications are diluted away). Homeopathy has a specific, technical definition.
Most of the general public have no idea what the meanings of words used by specialists really are. And so they make up something that sounds good. It's like when psi heads make up interpretations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle to make them sound like they support psi. They are wrong.
Here's what atheists have to say:
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~spc/library/atheism-faq.html
The problem is, the "public usage" does not actually account for all the people who are atheists.
new drkitten said:
It's also called "correct."
I don't really care what the general public thinks the definition of a scientific term is, either. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter if the general public thinks that homeopathy includes herbal medications, it doesn't make it true (unless those herbal medications are diluted away). Homeopathy has a specific, technical definition.
Most of the general public have no idea what the meanings of words used by specialists really are. And so they make up something that sounds good. It's like when psi heads make up interpretations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle to make them sound like they support psi. They are wrong.
Here's what atheists have to say:
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~spc/library/atheism-faq.html
The problem is, the "public usage" does not actually account for all the people who are atheists.
LW said:
I like this idea of multidimensionality on these terms, they may be better understood if they are considered as a plane rather than as a line.
Kinda like truth - lies, and other concepts normally thought of in one-dimensionality which really are multidimensional.
Mosquito (gnostic about most gods encountered)
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
How about "scientist"? Does the general public usage of the word "scientist" actually cover all the people who are scientists?
Mosquito said:
How about "scientist"? Does the general public usage of the word "scientist" actually cover all the people who are scientists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
Um, no.
Try using a "technically correct but publically misleading" use in an advertisement, and see how fast you get indicted for fraud.
Well, that's good. Because I don't care what you think the definition of a scientific term is.
Because if you use a term in a way that you think is correct, but the general public does not, you will be the one being misunderstood.
And this is a good example :
Homeopathy does in fact, have a specific technical definition that does not require that the active substances are diluted away. The specific technical definition of homeopathy is more closely related to the principle that "like cures like," and that specifically a substance that produces a given set of effects can be used to cure those effects. That's one of the reasons that homeopaths are rather ambivalent, or in some cases downright supportive, of traditional vaccines, because those are a living example of how "like," in this case a weakened form of an organism, can cure "like."
If you're going to use words, learn what they actually mean!
pgwenthold said:
Um, no.
Try using a "technically correct but publically misleading" use in an advertisement, and see how fast you get indicted for fraud.
Well, that's good. Because I don't care what you think the definition of a scientific term is.
Because if you use a term in a way that you think is correct, but the general public does not, you will be the one being misunderstood.
And this is a good example :
Homeopathy does in fact, have a specific technical definition that does not require that the active substances are diluted away. The specific technical definition of homeopathy is more closely related to the principle that "like cures like," and that specifically a substance that produces a given set of effects can be used to cure those effects. That's one of the reasons that homeopaths are rather ambivalent, or in some cases downright supportive, of traditional vaccines, because those are a living example of how "like," in this case a weakened form of an organism, can cure "like."
If you're going to use words, learn what they actually mean!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
Or exclude those definately NOT scientists? (Creation Science comes to mind).
I think that we should try to have a reasonable correct definition and use of a term when talking technically, but it is a way too big a task to try to impose that on the "general public". There will always be a problem with the public not having the same understanding of a word/phrase as those who use it for a living.
Which brings up a question on AI, part of AI is to make computers understand human language, can it be done? Can *humans* actually do it?
Mosquito
pgwenthold said:
Or exclude those definately NOT scientists? (Creation Science comes to mind).
I think that we should try to have a reasonable correct definition and use of a term when talking technically, but it is a way too big a task to try to impose that on the "general public". There will always be a problem with the public not having the same understanding of a word/phrase as those who use it for a living.
Which brings up a question on AI, part of AI is to make computers understand human language, can it be done? Can *humans* actually do it?
Mosquito
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
Hey, I am just going by general usage.
new drkitten said:
Hey, I am just going by general usage.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
Not so much. The primary difference between deists and theists is that theists require a god (whichever one) to be more than simply a philisophical concept. Theistic gods reveal morality, create man, and rule the universe. A deistic god typically serves to push the button that starts the Universe Machine and then retires.
Mosquito said:
Not so much. The primary difference between deists and theists is that theists require a god (whichever one) to be more than simply a philisophical concept. Theistic gods reveal morality, create man, and rule the universe. A deistic god typically serves to push the button that starts the Universe Machine and then retires.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
But on topic - all this "hard atheist/soft atheist garbage sounds more like an attempt at verbal ledgerdemain to me. What does it matter whether you're "open to evidence proving you're wrong"? You know damn well you're never going to see any, so what's the point in even mentioning the fact? You either believe there is no god, or you don't.
And it really is that simple. Seriously - I've heard people say "atheists believe there is no god", at which point they're quickly "corrected" - "Atheists don't 'believe there is no god', they lack a belief in a god." What balderdash. If you ask somebody "Do you think I'm wrong?", are you going to buy an answer like "No, I simply lack a belief that you are right"? Gimme a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ break.
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Now, I find the argument that "atheism" could be used to apply to specific religions intriguing. I understand the concept behind the idea that a Christian could technically be considered "atheist" towards Islam, for instance. Only in that application does the "lack a belief in" explanation function. But if you "lack a belief" in every single concept of god you've been exposed to or can conceive, guess what - you believe there is no god. Be intellectually honest for Pete's sake; and leave this passive, namby-pamby mealy-mouthed word-mincing to the woo-woos who like to try and win arguments by pointing out spelling errors.
"I'm not saying I believe we're in motion, I simply lack a belief that we are standing still".
Please.
And it really is that simple. Seriously - I've heard people say "atheists believe there is no god", at which point they're quickly "corrected" - "Atheists don't 'believe there is no god', they lack a belief in a god." What balderdash. If you ask somebody "Do you think I'm wrong?", are you going to buy an answer like "No, I simply lack a belief that you are right"? Gimme a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ break.
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Now, I find the argument that "atheism" could be used to apply to specific religions intriguing. I understand the concept behind the idea that a Christian could technically be considered "atheist" towards Islam, for instance. Only in that application does the "lack a belief in" explanation function. But if you "lack a belief" in every single concept of god you've been exposed to or can conceive, guess what - you believe there is no god. Be intellectually honest for Pete's sake; and leave this passive, namby-pamby mealy-mouthed word-mincing to the woo-woos who like to try and win arguments by pointing out spelling errors.
"I'm not saying I believe we're in motion, I simply lack a belief that we are standing still".
Please.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Joshua Korosi said:
As far as I know, we have no evidence that there is any planet that orbits the center star of Orion's belt. Do you believe that there is a planet that orbits the center star in Orion's belt?
No? Then does that mean you believe there are no planets that orbit the center star in Orion's belt?
Note: I should add, dueling dictionarys will get really boring, really fast.
Mephisto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,064
I'm a devout Agnostic
Hello everyone,
It's my first time posting and I couldn't resist this particular string. I just wanted to say that I'm an Agnostic because I don't believe that the existence of God can be proven. Of course this especially takes into account all form of "holy" writings (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah).
I'm not an atheist because I personally hold the belief that there is "something" behind the order of the universe. Whether that can be construed as God, I'm not willing to say, but I personally like to believe that there is an intelligent force behind everything.
I've often been called a coward for being Agnostic, but I find that devout Atheists can be as didactic as devout Christians. I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven, and neither can the non-existence of God.
Mephisto
Hello everyone,
It's my first time posting and I couldn't resist this particular string. I just wanted to say that I'm an Agnostic because I don't believe that the existence of God can be proven. Of course this especially takes into account all form of "holy" writings (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah).
I'm not an atheist because I personally hold the belief that there is "something" behind the order of the universe. Whether that can be construed as God, I'm not willing to say, but I personally like to believe that there is an intelligent force behind everything.
I've often been called a coward for being Agnostic, but I find that devout Atheists can be as didactic as devout Christians. I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven, and neither can the non-existence of God.
Mephisto
Re: I'm a devout Agnostic
Greetings Mephisto.
Welcome, great post and welcome.
I respect your belief and personally agree with many if not most points. I look at the God idea 3 ways.
1- I respect anyone who believes in Gods and who does not believe in Gods
2- I believe it is irrelevant, it can not be the driving force behind my actions, to do what is good and right to be kind and not harm others or oneself must come from compassion and respect for others and oneself not a God, or seeking a reward.
3- I believe there is no logic behind the God idea and see no evidence of it
I respect your belief and saying
May I ask being that you believe life here and the universe are simply too complex not to have an intelligent force behind everything, would not that “intelligent force†be far more complex and need something even more complex behind it/creating it?
If the intelligent force needs no creation why not this complex universe and it’s order?
Mephisto said:
Greetings Mephisto.
Welcome, great post and welcome.
I respect your belief and personally agree with many if not most points. I look at the God idea 3 ways.
1- I respect anyone who believes in Gods and who does not believe in Gods
2- I believe it is irrelevant, it can not be the driving force behind my actions, to do what is good and right to be kind and not harm others or oneself must come from compassion and respect for others and oneself not a God, or seeking a reward.
3- I believe there is no logic behind the God idea and see no evidence of it
I respect your belief and saying
May I ask being that you believe life here and the universe are simply too complex not to have an intelligent force behind everything, would not that “intelligent force†be far more complex and need something even more complex behind it/creating it?
If the intelligent force needs no creation why not this complex universe and it’s order?
"I don't know. And you don't either." - Militant Agnostic
Seriously, what is your opinion of the various definitions found in this article? Is there one definition that fits you in particular?
Seriously, what is your opinion of the various definitions found in this article? Is there one definition that fits you in particular?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?
So the Deist doesn't believe in any particular god (with name, personality, preferences etc.), but a particular kind of god (one that does not interfere after creation).
That makes it a little clearer. A Deist thus is basically "a scientific minded believer that hasn't completely applied Occam". They are one step away from seeing the light
Mosquito
Joshua Korosi said:
So the Deist doesn't believe in any particular god (with name, personality, preferences etc.), but a particular kind of god (one that does not interfere after creation).
That makes it a little clearer. A Deist thus is basically "a scientific minded believer that hasn't completely applied Occam". They are one step away from seeing the light
Mosquito
Interesting debate. It seems to me that the major differences between the catagories are as follows:
1) Believes there are no deities
2) Believes there may or may not be deities, or if they exist, are not active in our reality
3) Believes there are deities who are active in our reality
I use the word "believe" because proof is impossible in all catagories. Therefore, each catagory is essentially faith-based, regardless of the supporting reasons behind it. (The first catagory places it's faith in the outcome of logic, in the absence of evidence showign that a deity is impossible, instead of just highly improbable.)
All the other stuff in the discussion seems like an attempt to define fanatic vs. moderate vs. liberal viewpoints within each catagory. Just my take on it, of course.
(Edited to add the bit about the first catagory)
1) Believes there are no deities
2) Believes there may or may not be deities, or if they exist, are not active in our reality
3) Believes there are deities who are active in our reality
I use the word "believe" because proof is impossible in all catagories. Therefore, each catagory is essentially faith-based, regardless of the supporting reasons behind it. (The first catagory places it's faith in the outcome of logic, in the absence of evidence showign that a deity is impossible, instead of just highly improbable.)
All the other stuff in the discussion seems like an attempt to define fanatic vs. moderate vs. liberal viewpoints within each catagory. Just my take on it, of course.
(Edited to add the bit about the first catagory)
Re: I'm a devout Agnostic
Hi, and welcome!
But only some gods can't be proven to (not) exist.
If your god is a special rock (like Allah, unless I've been duped) then you can prove it's existence (the rock exists), you probably have overrated the god's capabilities, but it's there...
If your god is a "beard in the sky" (like christian Jehova is to many people), this may be proven to be non-existent if no such "beard" is found or it's other properties makes it impossible.
If your god is Deistic in nature, no evidence can be found unless said god left some behind, and even then it may be difficult to accept it (it may just be some remnant of an advanced tecnology).
So whether or not god can be proven/disproven depends on which god we are talking about.
And your concept of god seems to make you sort of a Deist (from the definition in this thread).
Mosquito
ETA: I just realised that this may make me a theist... I believe there are gods out there with greatly overrated abilities, but if you can actually show their existence... Like Mars, it's there, but it's abilities are somewhat overrated. Anybody have any opinions on this?
Mephisto said:
Hi, and welcome!
But only some gods can't be proven to (not) exist.
If your god is a special rock (like Allah, unless I've been duped) then you can prove it's existence (the rock exists), you probably have overrated the god's capabilities, but it's there...
If your god is a "beard in the sky" (like christian Jehova is to many people), this may be proven to be non-existent if no such "beard" is found or it's other properties makes it impossible.
If your god is Deistic in nature, no evidence can be found unless said god left some behind, and even then it may be difficult to accept it (it may just be some remnant of an advanced tecnology).
So whether or not god can be proven/disproven depends on which god we are talking about.
And your concept of god seems to make you sort of a Deist (from the definition in this thread).
Mosquito
ETA: I just realised that this may make me a theist... I believe there are gods out there with greatly overrated abilities, but if you can actually show their existence... Like Mars, it's there, but it's abilities are somewhat overrated. Anybody have any opinions on this?
Re: Re: I'm a devout Agnostic
FYI, Mosquito - this has been debated endlessly.
God(s), Goddess(es), and deity in general cannot be disproven based on their nature, because the claim is that they are paranormal beings. The "paranormal" aspect excuses them from natural law limitations, etc. And since they are "beings", there is no way to compel them to manifest on command, so it's not like a test can be devised to prove or disprove their existence.
Annoying, isn't it?
Mosquito said:
FYI, Mosquito - this has been debated endlessly.
God(s), Goddess(es), and deity in general cannot be disproven based on their nature, because the claim is that they are paranormal beings. The "paranormal" aspect excuses them from natural law limitations, etc. And since they are "beings", there is no way to compel them to manifest on command, so it's not like a test can be devised to prove or disprove their existence.
Annoying, isn't it?