Is Atheism Unscientific?

Lixluke,

Here you go. Don't take my word for it. Taken from Wikipedia.

"Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard agnosticism," "closed agnosticism," "strict agnosticism," or "absolute agnosticism") refers the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deity is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether God exists or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.[citation needed]

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism, spiritual agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of a deity, and do not believe in any.[7]

Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against."

Here they have it as Agnostic Atheism. I have seen it both ways.

I choose atheist agnostic because the question usually is.

Do you believe in god ? No.
Can you prove it ? No.

Done deal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By the way,

My wife is more of a theist agnostic. She does not believe in any one religions view or definition of god, but believes in a spirit, especially the idea that we have souls.

Are you going to tell her she is wrong. Good luck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lixluke,
I still would like to know if you are an atheist. I have been told by one atheist here that your position would make you NOT an atheist but an anti-theist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What does she mean by a spirit?

 

Simon,

Well interesting that you ask because I have tried to understand and learn what she specifically believes. I understand her position as this, she has no definitive idea, and that is her point.

She can't say what it is and doesn't try to claim a specific answer, just believes we have souls and that there must be something more to it all.

Fair enough I say because I can't argue with that and I can't prove her wrong.

Gotta go, wifes calling.

 

What causes magnetism, spidergoat? One could argue that the cause of magnetism is undefined. Applying your rationale, magnetism is unscientific.

 

Yes I remember that thread.

Your definition for atheism seems to be founded upon claims such as amoral being the belief that morals don't exist and the confident claim that atheism means that because that is what it means.....

 

You do not know what atheism means because you do not know the how to context words properly. All of your claims about context have no basis.

 

Ah so even though all my examples and your own ones proved you wrong, and even though the etymology of the word proves you wrong you must be right because of the magical 'context' of the word. Right.

 

I think he was the second person to make my ignore list.

 

Right.

 

The spin of the electron.

 

Good grief. It was already explained thoroughly and excessively pointed out in the other thread exactly why his facts were incorrect.

I clearly explained the proper connotation of prefixes and suffixes. He disagreed, and explained what he thought of them. Simple as that. However, he considers his explanation as proof. Completely circular. Ever since then, all he has been doing is proceeding with circular rants about how his examples proved me wrong. Take a look at the other thread yourself.

 

Your explanations were wrong. You backed them up with examples which also proved you wrong.

I am not the one using circular arguments. You are claiming that the etymology of the word is irrelevant because of the context - and by context you mean your own definition of the word.

Actually as soon as it was clear that you were not being reasonable I stopped posting in that thread. I can understand why Repo Man has you on ignore.

 

Circular. Your assertions on etymology proved you wrong. Your whole argument is completely circular and invalid as proven in the other thread.

 

Never mind. This isn't even the linguistics forum. I'm sure you don't find anything wrong with his use of English language. He entered this thread with absurd comments already discussed in another thread. His whole argument is irrational and circular, and he keeps pressing on about how his examples "proved" me wrong. I have explained the proper use of speficic suffixes, prefixes, connotations, and what proof means. He continues to try to prove something in liguistics, and it simply cannot be done. Language is not mathemtatics. He makes silly comments about connotation of suffixes/prefixes, and constiutes that as "proof". It's a total joke. He's only trolling.

 

No but during arguments regarding the definition of a word the etymology is a valid consideration.

To summarize, 'atheist' comes from the Greek atheos meaning godless. The suffix a meaning without and theos meaning god. In more recent times the word has had other connotations added.

No I am not trolling. You made specific claims regarding the definition and posted a link to our discussion. Seen here -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83943&page=9

I may certainly be wrong and will concede if I am. However your vitriol and constant assurances that I don’t know anything are not very convincing.

 

We have already shown the Wikipedia artilce to be complete nonsense, and you respond by showing me Wikipedia. For what purpose?

 

All of your assertions about proper etymology of the word are incorrect. Your proof lacks logical validity. It is not any form of logical proof whatsoever. All of the claims you make are incorrect. You do not even use the terms "proof" and "etymology" correctly. I provided the correct etymology and proper use of the terms. If you do not know what etymology means, stop using the term.