egran078 - 14 January 2011 05:00 PM

Well it looks like we all win then.  There’s a word for agnostic atheists.  Who would have thought they’re called “agnostic atheists”? I suppose the difference then is between “believing” and “knowing.”  The two terms agnostic and atheists can be combined because they don’t exclude each other.

The problem is people think semantic bullshit is intelligent and logical.

psik

Agreed, psikeyhackr, but you have to differentiate between those who wallow in it because they see it as important, and those who recognize it for what it is, but like to spread it just for the fun of it.

Occam

Occam. - 15 January 2011 07:23 PM

Agreed, psikeyhackr, but you have to differentiate between those who wallow in it because they see it as important, and those who recognize it for what it is, but like to spread it just for the fun of it.

Occam

I think some people spread it not for fun but to keep the first group confused.

Kill ‘em all.  Let God sort ‘em out.

If she cares. 

And if there is no God to sort ‘em out.  Oh well.

psik

Occam. - 15 January 2011 01:04 PM

Well. . .  the derivation of the word “agnostic” is without knowledge.  I don’t see that as being the same as “unknowable”.  I’m agnostic about the seventy-nineth prime number, but it’s certainly not unknowable.  I could easily start listing them to learn that. 

Occam

It’s easy enough to find the 79th prime because we have a description of what we are looking for.  The statement “I do not know whether or not a deity exists” is pointless because it has no definite resolution.  Unless you define what a deity is, you do not know what to look for.

egran078 - 15 January 2011 08:14 PM

The statement “I do not know whether or not a deity exists” is pointless because it has no definite resolution.

At this time.

Whether or not here is intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy has no definite resolution at this time either.  It probably won’t in the next 1000 years.  Maybe even 100,000 years.  I don’t hear too many people arguing one way or the other though.

There was a time when the statement, “I do not know whether or not electrons exist” would have made no sense because the structure of the atom was TOTALLY UNKNOWN.

The neutron was not discovered until 1932.

Electrons were discovered in 1897.  The proton in 1919.

So if someone had guessed about the neutron in 1925 but had no evidence whatsoever would that cause them to cease to exist so they could not be discovered in 1932?

The problem is that “religion” has spent too many centuries creating emotional and psychological issues over this God concept.  So atheists need to beat on the God concept regardless of whether or not there is one.  And if there is one why should he, she or it give a damn about us or religion.  My problem with religion is that their Gods are too moronic and egotistical.  So I figure if there is a god he, she or it has a lower opinion of religion than I do. 

psik

pgpb - 18 December 2010 07:40 PM

What percentage are you?

I find that in this type of discussion, the God that atheists seem to want to disprove is the God up in the sky who has a Book of who has been naughty or nice, the type of God that will smite ones enemies and grant favors to who ever prays the hardest.
This view of God is very childlike, and this is why I say that disproving this type of God is like picking on the smallest kid in the school ground.

In discussion with my favorite atheist (my son) he tells me that my definition of god is not the standard definition of god.

We can not know what god is without first understanding what we ourselves are.

“What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! “. (Willy S)

Are we just intelligent apes…..or are we something more?

Is there possibly something within us….some spark that is more than just animal.

The statement ...“I am a strong atheist”...makes me wonder…..are you 100% atheist…...99%......maybe 97%...(of course what anyone believes does not really affect how things are)
...so we can all believe things to be this way or that way….but how things **are**......is up for debate.

Of course I hope that none of us has to face any terrible, terrible thing…..but if you did…...would you maybe call out for help.

Perhaps a better question would be how rational are you….....I would say for myself…...I am 90% rational….but there is still 10% where I wonder…..why is life unfolding this way…....why when I hear a peice of music do I shudder with a pleasure beyond understanding, why is it that there in not one snow flake that is the same, why did my wife, my mother and myself all have the same dream last night.

No Atheist I know is interested in disproving god. It is a fruitless exercise. What they ARE interested in is not having religion affect their lives, oppress anyone else, or enter the public arena in a negative way. Also, as far as I am concerned, we want to promote rational thought in many arenas, not just Atheism.

Your life has unfolded this way because of choices that were made and random chance.
You shudder for good music because of this: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/music-thrills-trigger-chemical-montreal-study-20110109-111803-921.html
Snowflakes are different shapes because http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+are+snowflakes+different+shapes
Being Atheist doesn’t mean there’s any less wonder in the world, it just means there are a lot of answers to why.

Of course I hope that none of us has to face any terrible, terrible thing…..but if you did…...would you maybe call out for help.

My father was very abusive and I left home at fifteen. I watched my best friend die at my feet from a heroin overdose. The same year that my daughter was born, very sick with an inutero stroke, my ex girlfriend also died from heroin, as did another friend a month later, AND my grandfather died, and my father died.  I did not call for help other than from doctors, friends, and family. But had I, that wouldn’t have indicated a lack of atheism on my part. People in extremis do crazy things.

I have no need of a god.

And, no, I did not do heroin as well, I had a healthy pregnancy, my daughter’s stroke had no determinable cause.

I think most of us have had tragedies in our lives, some just a few, and others, many.  However, from what I’ve seen how one reacts to them makes all the difference.  If one can move forward in the real world rather than reliving the past, focusing on what might have been, or stay with assigning blame either of self or to others,  and one can develop a positive attitude, one has a very good chance of surviving and even thriving. 

I think all of the negative approaches listed above along with believing in a god are crutches, and one can’t climb out of the pit when hampered by that crutch.

And developing a healthy sense of the ridiculous and a sense of humor helps, too.

Occam

Occam. - 24 January 2011 03:27 PM

And developing a healthy sense of the ridiculous and a sense of humor helps, too.

Occam

AMEN, brother!

There are those that want to claim to believe no god exist and to claim no knowledge that no god exist, and they like to call themselves “agnostic atheist”.  I find that when the logical inferences required to get to such a position are applied to everything else we might claim to know with equal verve as they are applied to gods, the only inevitable conclusion is that we know nothing of physical existence (or lack thereof) and only believe things exist.  But, this seems like an impractical statement.  It always seems more prudent to me to define the set of known things that I am sure are reasonably qualified as “known to exist or not exist” and make a list of what properties they have.    When I did so, I came to the conclusion that I know there is no god.

qutsemnie - 24 January 2011 06:24 PM

There are those that want to claim to believe no god exist and to claim no knowledge that no god exist, and they like to call themselves “agnostic atheist”.  I find that when the logical inferences required to get to such a position are applied to everything else we might claim to know with equal verve as they are applied to gods, the only inevitable conclusion is that we know nothing of physical existence (or lack thereof) and only believe things exist.  But, this seems like an impractical statement.

I take the same approach, but do not come to the conclusion that it is impractical; the question of whether or not something outside of experience exists itself is impractical!  Let me give an example of what I mean:

You see what you perceive to be a soccer ball flying straight at your face.  You think to yourself: “How do I know that soccer ball is really there?  I could be a brain in a vat being fed sensory experiences.  But it may be real, made of the same physical particles I am.  Wow, I’ve got to think about this for awhi…”  BAM!  Right between the eyes!  And you still don’t even know if there really was a soccer ball, or if your brain was just injected with the perception of pain in its vat!

Really, the question we should be focusing on is not “does (insert object here) really exist?”, but instead, “if (insert experience here) is observed, what will be observed later?”; “If the experience of a circle is getting larger and larger in my field of vision at the rate of X, then I will feel a sharp pain in Y seconds if I continue to view it.”  And what do you know, that’s exactly what science (or inductive reasoning, to be specific) is all about: make prediction, test prediction, revise prediction.  It has worked pretty darn well over the past few centuries, and will continue to as long as there are patterns (laws) that the observable universal follows.  If those ever break apart, we are screwed no matter what method of reasoning we use, so induction is justified on a practical basis.

Great Mingy! So what prediction would you like to make?

VYAZMA - 26 January 2011 05:26 PM

Great Mingy! So what prediction would you like to make?

About what?

Mingy Jongo - 26 January 2011 05:29 PM

VYAZMA - 26 January 2011 05:26 PM

Great Mingy! So what prediction would you like to make?

About what?

Well I hear what your saying about the scientific process, but in the context of this thread what predictions can be made?
Can we make any predictions concerning god’s existence?

VYAZMA - 26 January 2011 05:31 PM

Mingy Jongo - 26 January 2011 05:29 PM

VYAZMA - 26 January 2011 05:26 PM

Great Mingy! So what prediction would you like to make?

About what?

Well I hear what your saying about the scientific process, but in the context of this thread what predictions can be made?
Can we make any predictions concerning god’s existence?

My point is that it doesn’t matter in a practical sense whether or not a god or gods exists; what matters is the ability to make accurate, observable predictions.

Basically I liked qutsemnie’s remarks. I don’t make your connection to modifying qutsemnie’s post.
You said you come to a different conclusion than qutsemnie’s remarks but I don’t see how-given what you stated.
I think the brain in the vat bit takes this discussion out of bounds for practical purposes. But that’s me. Please carry on.