uber reality

Originally posted by humy
What has my “experiences” got to do with this? That's irrelevant.
I have just shown EVIDENCE that he is an agnostic and NOT, as you claim, an atheist.

Reminder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

"...But Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, ..."

How is that evidence just my personal “experience”? It is NOT my “experience ...[text shortened]... hich you have yet to answer.
Well? What is your answer? What personal observations are they?

Actually he's an atheist unless he actually believes that a god or gods actually exist.

He might also be agnostic.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually he's an atheist unless he actually believes that a god or gods actually exist.

He might also be agnostic.

Not according to any definition of atheist I know of:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

“One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. “

He didn't say he disbelieves that there is a god.
If I thought that there might be no god but also that there might be a god, I would not call myself an atheist.

Originally posted by humy
Not according to any definition of atheist I know of:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

“One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. “

He didn't say he disbelieves that there is a god.
If I thought that there might be no god but also that there might be a god, I would not call myself an atheist.

Then you would be wrong.

Well you can call yourself what you like but the definition of atheist is simply
to have a "Lack of belief in god or gods"

I can provide plenty of dictionary's that define it that way.

But far more importantly that is the definition used by every major atheist
organisation world wide. (or words to that effect)


If you do not actually believe that a god or gods exist then you are an atheist.

Regardless of what label you prefer to use yourself.

Agnosticism is about the question of KNOWING if a god exists or not.
Which is a related but different question to believing if one exists or not.

An agnostic (by popular definition) is someone who doesn't believe a god or
gods exist but either claims that you can't know either way or simply that they
don't know either way.

Thus all agnostics (by that definition) are also atheists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Replying to this part alone:
An agnostic (by popular definition) is someone who doesn't believe a god or
gods exist but either claims that you can't know either way or simply that they
don't know either way.

Thus all agnostics (by that definition) are also atheists.

Agnostic does not imply atheist, for one thing there is such a thing as an agnostic theist, who would be someone who believes that absolute proof, at least in this world and assuming the relevant god doesn't make a personal appearance, is impossible but never-the-less is inclined to believe in their god anyway.

Speaking as an agnostic, and specifically not an atheist, I find it annoying to be labeled as having a belief that I don't. I neither believe in the thesis that god exists nor in its antithesis. I regard the problem as being essentially undecidable. So having atheists trying to claim me as one of theirs is somewhat irritating.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Agnostic does not imply atheist, for one thing there is such a thing as an agnostic theist, who would be someone who believes that absolute proof, at least in this world and assuming the relevant god doesn't make a personal appearance, is impossible but never-the-less is inclined to believe in their god anyway.

Speaking as an agnostic, and specificall ...[text shortened]... y undecidable. So having atheists trying to claim me as one of theirs is somewhat irritating.

Sigh.

If you claim to know that a god or gods exist...
Then you are a gnostic theist

If you believe that a god or gods exist but don't claim to know whether that god or those gods exist...
Then you are an agnostic theist.

If you do not have a belief that a god or gods exist (or have no opinion on gods existence either way, or don't care) and you don't claim to know either way (whether a god or gods exist)...
Then you are a weak agnostic atheist.
(what most people mean when they say that they are an agnostic or apathetic)

If you believe that gods don't exist but don't claim to know whether gods exists...
Then you are a strong agnostic atheist.

If you claim to know that gods don't exist...
Then you are a gnostic atheist.




Those options are exhaustive. There are no other options.

The theist-atheist divide is between those that DO have a belief in the existence of god (theists) and those who DO NOT have a belief in the existence of god (atheists). (those options are exclusive and exhaustive)

Atheist simply means someone who is NOT a theist.
As a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods then an atheist is simply anyone who doesn't have such a belief. It's really that simple.


Now you are free to use whatever label you want. If the thing that you want to emphasis is your lack of knowledge on the subject then by all means call yourself an agnostic.


But if you don't actually have a belief in the existence of a god or gods then you are an atheist.

It is not a requirement for being an atheist that you must disbelieve in gods or claim to know that they don't exist.

That's a lie made up by theists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh.

If you claim to know that a god or gods exist...
Then you are a [b]gnostic theist

If you believe that a god or gods exist but don't claim to know whether that god or those gods exist...
Then you are an agnostic theist.

If you do not have a belief that a god or gods exist (or have no opinion on gods existence either way, or d ...[text shortened]... e in gods or claim to know that they don't exist.

That's a lie made up by theists.[/b]

It used to be the truth until some atheists decided to redefine what it meant to be an atheist. Just like they redefine evolution to be different from evilution.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It used to be the truth until some atheists decided to redefine what it meant to be an atheist. Just like they redefine evolution to be different from evilution.

The Instructor

So with you, there is only black and white. You believe there is a god or you believe there is no god.

The thing about that, just like sexual orientation, there are shades of gray in all that. For instance, I don't call myself an atheist but perhaps YOU think I am an atheist because I don't believe in YOUR god. I am agnostic, really could care less one way or the other except I would love to live in a world without theists and ESPECIALLY without Abrahamic theists. The world would be MUCH better off without those three religions killing each other and even within versions of the same part of the trio, baptists killing methodist, Shia killing Sunni and so forth.

The world of humans will NEVER grow into maturity till the Abrahamic religions are gone from the planet IM not so HO.

But I can't deny the POSSIBILITY there might be real gods out there. So am I atheist in your eyes?

Originally posted by humy
What has my “experiences” got to do with this? That's irrelevant.
I have just shown EVIDENCE that he is an agnostic and NOT, as you claim, an atheist.

Reminder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

"...But Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, ..."

How is that evidence just my personal “experience”? It is NOT my “experience ...[text shortened]... hich you have yet to answer.
Well? What is your answer? What personal observations are they?

If he does not (publically) rule out the existence of a creator, it's because he knows better than to make a statement that opens him up to criticism.

He concluded that PBS broadcast I referred to by saying we don't need a god to make our universe. It was bizarre hearing him say that at the end of a lecture on universe theories. He seemed to be very clear on that point, as though it was somehow the main point of his lecture. I don't know what that means to you, but to me it clearly means he rules out the existence of a Creator.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh.

If you claim to know that a god or gods exist...
Then you are a [b]gnostic theist

If you believe that a god or gods exist but don't claim to know whether that god or those gods exist...
Then you are an agnostic theist.

If you do not have a belief that a god or gods exist (or have no opinion on gods existence either way, or d ...[text shortened]... e in gods or claim to know that they don't exist.

That's a lie made up by theists.[/b]

Binary logic doesn't apply here. If you define atheist to include anyone who doesn't actively belong to some religion or other then clearly you are going to find a lot of atheists. There are a number of writers who agree with you, but others don't - for example Dawkins tries to give a spectrum based on what percentage probability people assign to the existence of god (42), which is an interesting idea, but I don't think really works.

Since you gave a dictionary definition earlier, I checked what the Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed.) had to say. They have a definition of agnosticism which is essentially the opposite of gnostic. They give the definition of atheist they have is what you called a strong atheist. The absence of belief in either direction is part of the complement of this set.

Most of us who are not "strong atheists" and are inclined not to take a position regarding existence would rather be distinguished from them by being called an agnostic, which is a fundamentally different position as it asserts an impossibility of reaching a conclusion about the existence of gods and doesn't try to answer it. Atheists believe, agnostics don't.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If he does not (publically) rule out the existence of a creator, it's because he knows better than to make a statement that opens him up to criticism.

He concluded that PBS broadcast I referred to by saying we don't need a god to make our universe. It was bizarre hearing him say that at the end of a lecture on universe theories. He seemed to be ...[text shortened]... w what that means to you, but to me it clearly means he rules out the existence of a Creator.

If he does not (publically) rule out the existence of a creator, it's because he knows better than to make a statement that opens him up to criticism.

I am sure that there is no indication whatsoever that he is so stupidly afraid of stupid criticism from you theists for not believing that there definitely exists a god that he would lie about not ruling out the existence of a god. Why would he be any MORE afraid of criticism from you theists than from us atheists? Are theists armed to the teeth with vicious spiky Bible books? I mean, if he says he is an agnostic because he is afraid of criticism, how do you know he is not secretly a theist that is afraid of criticism from as atheists!? And how on earth would you know if he was afraid of criticism of his beliefs anyway? Would you say all people that say they are agnostic are deliberately lying because they are so afraid of criticism from you theists that they are unwilling to admit that they are secretly atheists? If so, you are being totally delusional for believing that. If they are that afraid of criticism from theists that they are willing to lie, why don't they go the whole hog and say they are theists!? That way they would stop ALL criticism from you theists!

He concluded that PBS broadcast I referred to by saying we don't need a god to make our universe

and him thinking that we don't 'need' a god to make our universe doesn't mean he would think there couldn’t be a god -if that is what you are implying?
He also explicitly said he did not rule out the existence of a creator -what does that mean to you?

Originally posted by humy

If he does not (publically) rule out the existence of a creator, it's because he knows better than to make a statement that opens him up to criticism.

I am sure that there is no indication whatsoever that he is so stupidly afraid of stupid criticism from you theists for not believing that there definitely exists a god that he would lie ab ...[text shortened]... plicitly said he did not rule out the existence of a creator -what does that mean to you?

That's hilarious! So now I'm a theist am I? But you do have a point about fear of theism, because I saw this fear when the big bang was a new theory, and then again when the idea of fractals first appeared. Both times it was resisted by scientists who fear theism.

In the case of BB theory they said it resembled the creation story. At that time if you compared BB to the established eternally static universe theory, it did point more toward a biblical description of the beginning. Then when the idea of fractals showed up they were suspicious about that, because they believed it played into the hands of ID theorists... they said it was more art than science, and no one should take it seriously.

Which brings us up to today. Today I don't see BB theory or fractal geometry being opposed by anyone, and no one is implying these ideas are creationist plots to subvert the minds of young future scientists. But who knows, maybe there really are creationists lurking behind corners and hiding behind every tree and bush, waiting for you to walk by so they can pounce on you!

Originally posted by lemon lime
That's hilarious! So now I'm a theist am I? But you do have a point about fear of theism, because I saw this fear when the big bang was a new theory, and then again when the idea of fractals first appeared. Both times it was resisted by scientists who fear theism.

In the case of BB theory they said it resembled the creation story. At that time if you c ...[text shortened]... hind every tree and bush, waiting for you to walk by so they can [b]pounce on you![/b]

So now I'm a theist am I?

I got the impression from your posts that you were. Are you?

Originally posted by humy

So now I'm a theist am I?

I got the impression from your posts that you were. Are you?

Relevance?

By the way, I was expecting you to challenge what I said about fractal geometry because I didn't immediately recognise the name Mandelbrot over at another thread. The personal attacks are meaningless, so I'm a bit disappointed you didn't attack me from a more scientific angle.

Originally posted by googlefudge...
Well you can call yourself what you like but the definition of atheist is simply
to have a "Lack of belief in god or gods"
...

Rocks are atheists, in googlefudge's world. Kinda sucks any meaning out of the term.