Is Atheism Unscientific?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lix,

"We have already shown the Wikipedia artilce to be complete nonsense, and you respond by showing me Wikipedia."

So you want to just disregard the evidence that you are wrong because you in your mind think that it doesn't exist so therefore it doesn't, you are delusional. You haven't proven that there is no such thing as an atheist/agnostic to me. I have provided evidence that you are wrong.

" For what purpose?"

To provide evidence that you are wrong. Unlike you I provide evidence.

Shaman,

Lix is in his own world, nothing that casts doubt on his beliefs can be entertained.
 
lixluke said:
Wrong. Atheism is the position that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. I'm an atheist, so do not dare tell me what I think!

There is no such thing as atheist agnostic.
Click to expand...

Pascal's wager proves you wrong here.

An agnostic is the position that man cannot know whether or not God exists.
Click to expand...

That's one of the Agnostic positions. The other is that the person themselves has not made their mind up either way.

You don't know what atheist means. It is the typical erroneous delusion that atheism is a lack of belief.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm an atheist, don't presume to tell me what I think. I guess you are a theist, Lixluke? Because it's always theists telling atheists what they are, oddly.

There is no such thing as any "ism" that implies a lack of a position
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Atheism.
 
3 of you,
Unless you take up the position that God does not exist, you are not an atheist. You post evidence, but do not specify what the evidence supports. I guess you also want to misinterpret the meaning of evidence. There is only one type of agnosticism. Somebody who has not made up there mind about any subject does not fall under any ism.
 
Lix,

ism !

I am an atheist/agnostic. I don't believe in god, I don't believe a god exists, but I can't prove it, I don't claim that kind of knowledge.

I just don't understand where your confusion is.

I am done with this point because again you have in your mind what you think is real or valid against all evidence to the contrary.

It's like talking to someone who thinks the world is flat. When they don't accept the evidence, what else can one do.
 
jpappl said:
Lix,

ism !

I am an atheist/agnostic. I don't believe in god, I don't believe a god exists, but I can't prove it, I don't claim that kind of knowledge.

I just don't understand where your confusion is.

I am done with this point because again you have in your mind what you think is real or valid against all evidence to the contrary.

It's like talking to someone who thinks the world is flat. When they don't accept the evidence, what else can one do.
Click to expand...
You can call call yourself an astronaut if you go diving underwater. Feel free to call yourself whatever you want. You can even be a disc jocky, and call yourself doctor like many do. Language is whatever you wish to claim it to be. I am referring to original intended meaning of the words.
1. Atheism - Position that there is no God.
2. Agnosticism - Position that no man can know wheter or not God exists.

According to you, call yourself whatever you want. But do not claim that what you wish to call yourself is the properly original intended meanings of the words that everybody abides by. Not a sigle individual with a rational mind uses a term such as "atheist-agnostic". The absurdity of it has made a fool of many many people. Nobody in their right mind would take such a term seriously, and there is no serious individual that acknowledges such nonsesnical illegitimate terminology.

According to the proper meanings, you CANNOT be both at the same time. And you certainly cannot be either of them unless you hold one of those positions. Call yourself what you like. In the other thread, I have clearly laid out all the etymology, description of the hoax that distort these meanings, and provided numerous examples to support my findings.
 
Lix,

"You can call call yourself an astronaut if you go diving underwater"

Yes you can. You can be an astronaut who likes to go scuba diving.

You are going to tell me the meaning of words. I remember you thought that racism had to do with the hatred of women. That is misogyny. Your answer to me after 3 attempts to correct you and having to go to Wikipedia and elsewhere to show you are incorrect was.

"Whatever"

Here, I will use your words.

"1. Atheism - Position that there is no God.
2. Agnosticism - Position that no man can know wheter or not God exists."

1 I don't believe in god.
2 I can not prove there is a god. I am not claiming knowledge there is no god. I can not know.

But I don't believe. How hard is this to understand.

You want to make me something I am not, words can have many meanings within them as has been clearly pointed out in this case.
 
jpappl said:
L
1 I don't believe in god.
2 I can not prove there is a god. I am not claiming knowledge there is no god. I can not know.
You want to make me something I am not, words can have many meanings within them as has been clearly pointed out in this case.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Did you not just read my last post that I'm not trying to make anybody anything. If you want to define yourself as a flying spaghetti, go ahead. The fact is, those definitions are not the original intended definitions. Please explain how I'm trying to make you anything. I'm simply posting the commonly accepted intended definitions for those terms.
 
Lix,

"I'm not trying to make anybody anything."

Good.

"I'm simply posting the commonly accepted intended definitions for those terms."

Atheism yes.

But there is a reason that agnosticism has such a broad definition. Because there are so many variables within the idea.

You just have to accept agnosticism itself to understand this.

Otherwise you are trying to pigeon hole someone into believing or not believing in god. You think that someone taking solely the atheist position is vulnerable to the next question. Can you prove it ?

Agnostics are all over the place on the question because they understand that they can't claim knowledge of this kind. That does not mean they can't take a position on the first question. Do you believe in god ?

Do you believe in Aliens ?
Can you prove that aliens don't exist or exist ?

The answer to the first question is yes or no. You can't answer the second question yes.
 
jpappl said:
Lix,

"I'm not trying to make anybody anything."

Good.

"I'm simply posting the commonly accepted intended definitions for those terms."

Atheism yes.

But there is a reason that agnosticism has such a broad definition. Because there are so many variables within the idea.

You just have to accept agnosticism itself to understand this.

Otherwise you are trying to pigeon hole someone into believing or not believing in god. You think that someone taking solely the atheist position is vulnerable to the next question. Can you prove it ?

Agnostics are all over the place on the question because they understand that they can't claim knowledge of this kind. That does not mean they can't take a position on the first question. Do you believe in god ?

Do you believe in Aliens ?
Can you prove that aliens don't exist or exist ?

The answer to the first question is yes or no. You can't answer the second question yes.
Click to expand...
Being able to prove anything has never been in question for any position. The positions people take are based on their personal belief. Whichever way you wish to describe atheism or agnosticism is based on what makes you happy. Not based on what they have been defined as in the real world.

However you wish to define agnosticism, the fact is, by real world standard agnosticism does not have a broad definition. I posted the accepted definition for agnstocism. If you disagree with the way it should be defined, it does not mean it is not originally intended to be defined as such. I am simply posting original intended definitions.
 
Lix,

Ok to your point about the definition. Here is yet another.

"agnosticism

Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God.

The term 'agnostic' was created by T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who took his cue from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Huxley says that he invented the term to describe what he thought made him unique among his fellow thinkers:"
 
Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural.
Click to expand...
This is totally correct.

Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist.
Click to expand...
This is COMPLETELY incorrect.

An agnostic CANNOT:
1. Hold 100% certainty that God exists.
2. Hold 100% certainty that God does not exist.

Agnostics hold that such knowledge is impossible, and therefore CANNOT take those positions.
 
Agnosticism is the more powerfull position because nobody can prove or dis-prove whether god exists.

Atheism and theism fit into agnosticism, but agnosticism does not fit into atheism or theism. They are only a response to the question of belief not of proof.

So in other words they are not three of the same thing. Atheism and theism deal with the belief, agnosticism deals with the inability to claim such knowledge that can prove to the other side their position is the only valid one.
 
Lix,

"An agnostic CANNOT:
1. Hold 100% certainty that God exists.
2. Hold 100% certainty that God does not exist."

Yeah you got it.

That is why both atheists and theists use the word BELIEVE.

Agnosticism was the logical step from both positions to accommodate the issue of not being able to prove it.
 
jpappl said:
Lix,

"An agnostic CANNOT:
1. Hold 100% certainty that God exists.
2. Hold 100% certainty that God does not exist."

Yeah you got it.

That is why both atheists and theists use the word BELIEVE.

Agnosticism was the logical step from both positions to accommodate the issue of not being able to prove it.
Click to expand...
You are misinterpreting the concept of belief. The word "believe" is even more often misinterpreted than the the word "atheism".

It is not the next synthetical step. It is simply skepticism towards atheism and theism. As stated, agnostic cannot be an atheist or theist simply because their point of view is that of uncertainty, and certainty about man's uncertainty.
 
Lixluke,

"As stated, agnostic cannot be an atheist or theist simply because their point of view is that of uncertainty, and certainty about man's uncertainty."

You are trying to simplify agnosticism to make it understood as don't know. That would imply that I have not taken a position. Which is wrong.

This is back to my original point that you are trying to tell me that I have to hold a left, middle or right position. The reality is that very few people on earth hold the don't know position. Those that do have not apparently considered the idea of God.

We are splitting many hairs here. Ideas like the ones we are talking about evolve and definitions of such become more defined and complex over time.

I would agree that agnostics can't be atheists or theists, but would argue and have that atheists or theists can and most are agnostic.
 
lixluke said:
All of your assertions about proper etymology of the word are incorrect.
Click to expand...
They are not my assertions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism&x=9&y=16
http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

"
NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.
"

lixluke said:
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"
Click to expand...
I have yet to use the word “proof” in this thread.

lixluke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could demonstrate where I am wrong instead of just droning that I am.
 
James R said:
What if you take the position that God probably doesn't exist?

Are you an atheist then?
Click to expand...
Probability is not certainty. If you wish to call yourself one, it is fine, but atheism, as originally intended and commonly accepted, is a certain position that there is definitely no God.

jpappl said:
This is back to my original point that you are trying to tell me that I have to hold a left, middle or right position.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to tell you that you have to do anything. You can take whatever position you want. You are misinterpreting what I have clearly spelled out. What makes you think I am trying to tell you that you HAVE to hold any left right middle particular position?

Rules of logic that I did not make up. You have ONLY three choices, and you can take ONLY one:
1. 100% certainly True
2. 100% certainly False
3. Uncertain/Unknown
 
What if you feel there is a ninety nine percent chance that the god of the bible does not exist, but that there is probably no way of knowing if there is some underlying purpose to the cosmos (which could be defined as a sort of "god" for the simpleminded)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top