Can we agree on this definition? Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists. And, what I consider the default position: Agnosticism is the view that the truth of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. I would equate "unknown and perhaps unknowable" with a recognition and acceptance of ignorance.
There's a category it overlooks: There are and can be no deities. That's a different position, at a very basic level, and it's in the middle of most discussions of the matter. The position that "None of these named Gods, as believed in by the people I'm talking to, exist" is atheistic - it's not a matter of "unknown and perhaps unknowable" but an outright denial. It is the position described by "You're atheist with regard to most Gods, I'm just atheist with regard to one more than you." It is not at all the same as the position that no spiritual realm, no divine aspect of the world, nothing that could take the role of a deity or the belief in a deity, exists.
The jury is out on whether Newton was slightly deranged, so his speculations in this area where he may have been haunted by guilt are not nearly cut from the same cloth as the brilliant mind that invented calculus to solve the cause of Kepler's Laws (planets follow elliptical orbits, sweeping arcs of equal area in e
The jury is out on whether Newton was ...um ...deranged, so his speculations in this area where he may have been haunted by guilt are not nearly cut from the same cloth as the brilliant mind that invented calculus to solve the cause of Kepler's Laws (planets follow elliptical orbits, sweeping arcs of equal area in equal time). Or, if you prefer, only such a brilliant mind is capable of formulating this conclusion, given the hopeless fallacy upon which religion is premised (myth and superstition form the basis of something logical). Of course Newton had no idea that the planets were set in motion by the energy of the supernova remnant which formed our stellar accretion disk, and looked to the same superstition and myth as the source of that energy. Further, most of the present day artifacts which link Judeo-Christian superstition and myth to predecessor myths (Egyptian, Levantine and Mesopotamian animism and polytheism) had not been discovered. Newton would have reacted strongly to such evidence and forced his beautiful mind to assimilate all the evidence. As I recall Newton did not publish either his alchemical or theological notes. He did publish all of his math and science writings used in teaching, in particular, because it was required by academic policy at Cambridge. Further, the unpublished writings of anyone should be considered drafts, subject to unlimited redaction. Also, in the event Newton was gay, it is possible he deliberately prepared some of this material, ostensibly to defend himself in the event of an inquisitor's indictments against him as someone possessed by a demon, a charge exacerbated by any strange behaviors observed in him in the event of episodes of insanity.
No. You can believe there are no deities, or you can simply lack a belief that there are deities. Agnosticism is compatible with atheism. I'm an agnostic atheist.
As in, if you do something hideous and atrocious of your own free will, you can claim atheism, but if you do the same thing in Gawd's name you must claim divine guidance? Bullshit, all laid down to absolve people of their sins. Wear your hip-waders: It's gonna get deep. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit: Not directed at any particular poster...
He spent most of his time figuring out when the world will end based on the dimensions of a temple in the Bible. So yeah, the jury is in on his derangement. Probably inhaled too much mercury vapor or something. He was mad as a hatter. But also brilliant in some ways I admit.
Don't be so sure? There are two possible contrasting responses to a proposition that something is true (1) a new proposition that the assertion is false, or (2) an absence of conviction either way. Atheism includes both those alternatives.
Agnosticism is part of the NONEs. I think he is VERY credible..however…Good point. As science from Galileo’s time on has progressed with taking in the ACCURATE knowledge of the Universe….or God… most scientists have been humbled and recognize there is an underlining conscious that you and I both have access to…that runs it. The universe IS consciousness.
But you can't, apparently, say why he's credible. As has been pointed out, on this particular subject he has no credentials that make him any more credible than anyone else. Most scientists "recognise" there's an underlining consciousness? I think you'll find that's wishful thinking on your part. Unsupported speculation.
First of all, I'd like you to define the concept of "atheism" . Then just a thought I've always kept in my mind: there are more than 5000 GODS known to human kind, what makes yours right above all else? And one more thought: there are multiple similarities amungst a lot of religions, anyone ever wonder how that could be if they originate from continents over thousands of kilometers apart? they didn't have internet or e-mail back then.... looking forward to your reply Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep. For about 3 seconds until I got the answer. What's your point? As if they were only methods of communication. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes indeed, as are atheists. I was clumsy with my wording. It seems there are two forms of NONE. One is being used by statisticians to include all those who do not follow a religion for any reason, and this group includes those who identify as atheist or agnostic. And the second form is strictly those who identify solely as NONE - which was what I had been referencing.
Nope. Since it's possible to be an agnostic theist then, of necessity, they're not. Agnosticism is a stance on what can be known about "god/s"[1]. The belief in it/ them (theism) isn't affected by this. Thus the possible positions are: Gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist[2], and agnostic atheist. A/gnosticism is orthogonal to belief. 1 Per Wiki: Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – snip – are unknown and perhaps unknowable 2 Although I find this hard to define, or even comprehend: unless it's a claim that we can know (for certain) that "god/s" don't exist.
So you wondered for 3 seconds... What is your answer? And no, these are not the only manners of communication. But we have affectivly lost the knowledge of using the others, why? how?
Atheism, like theism, is a belief concerning the existence or not of god(s) held without evidence, often just because you were born into a family with that POV. I think, without supporting data, that the switch from the theistic POV to one of agnosticism is much more common with increasing education that the converse.
Oh, my apologies! My point is that there are similarities between religions that could not possibly have been as similar as they are if they weren't talking about the same Deity. Hard to explain....
The argument that concepts of spirituality and/or gods have arisen independently by disconnected societies across the world has been used both to support that such things are real or that they are not. If of course there was a single god that inspired all these disconnected folks then it would be credible that they would all receive the same message - that would make the disconnection observation quite astonishing. But that isn't what we see, instead all these different groups have massively different variations on the theme. From concepts of reincarnation, variations on duality, monotheism, polytheism, authoritarian, loving and kind, etc, all very different belief systems which tend to indicate there isn't a single power that has inspired the world. And it neither makes sense that all such systems can be concurrently true since most are in direct conflict with each other. The only common theme between every religion or spiritual concept is death, and man's overwhelming desire to not die. Human imagination shared by all people becomes the originator of the vast variations, and which cares nothing for whether there is any evidence for such beliefs. The promise of immortality becomes the dominant driving common global concept and desire. A global false hope that an imagined religion will save them from death.
I'll let you have more time to actually think about it. Since it took me 3 seconds you may need slightly longer. Yeah, I thought that was what you were getting at. There's a far simpler answer that doesn't require such nebulous (and fictional) concepts as "god". (Clue: stop telling yourself that it isn't possible for there to be any other reason - lose the preconceptions and stick with known facts). Well I suppose "Why?" and "How?" would be valid questions requiring an answer if your claim were true. But, since it's blatantly false, they don't. I've used 3 other, different, methods today alone.
