12/22/2008 04:48:34 PM EST

Atheist and agnostic are two different things.

posted by ytfan17

Saying "I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic." is like saying "I am not tall, I am a carpenter."

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Theist or atheist is a statement about what you believe.  Gnostic or agnostic is a statement about what you claim to know.  One answers the question, "What do you believe is true?" the other answers the question, "What do you know is true?"

If you believe that there are no gods or if you do not know if you believe that there is at least one god; then, you do not believe that there is at least one god and you are an atheist.

If, in addition, you can not say, "There definitly are no gods." then you are an agnostic atheist. 

< Do Political Views Effect Which Entertainers You Like? | Getting to Know Your Fellow Turks >
 Display:
Atheist and agnostic are two different things. | 79 comments (79 topical, 0 hidden)
By your definition... (none / 0)

I am an Agnostic Atheist.  I definitely don't believe in God, Gods, or any other "religious" B.S.  But I'm not so bold as to think I can explain the many mysteries of the universe.  The only thing that I am sure of is that the answers are not in the bible, Koran, or any other religious text!

 

by tim00001 on 12/22/2008 06:19:54 PM EST

no (none / 0)
You're not an agnostic atheist, you're a militant agnostic.

Let me explain.  It's not that you don't believe that there is or isn't a supreme being.  You say yourself: "I'm not so bold as to think I can explain the many mysteries of the universe."

You believe that you can't know the mysteries underlying the universe.  Not only that, you believe that NOBODY can know the mysteries underlying the universe.  That's why you have a beef with religious texts: not because they have a theistic point of view, but because they say anything at all.

Any time anybody says they know the many mysteries of the universe, you will say they're full of shit.  Because you believe, fundamentally, that it's not possible to know.  Am I right?

by marlonm on 12/22/2008 10:50:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good Call (none / 0)

I'm glad to see this clarified. I usually refer to myself as an atheist, but technically I am an agnostic atheist. I think that the problem with these words is that the average person does not appreciate the technical definitions. There are colloquial uses of the labels which imply something different.

To most people, atheists are people who believe that no god exists. Agnostics are seen as a less arrogant breed who claim "I just don't know." Because of this reality, I find it counterproductive to call myself an atheist with people who aren't aware of the distinction. I don't blame people for not grasping the difference, but it does lead to confusion.

The reality is that all 'atheism' asserts is a rejection of deities put forward by other religions. It is a rejection of a claim and technically asserts nothing. Most thoughtful 'nonreligious' people recognize that it is impossible to prove a negative, so a claim that no god exists is impossible.  


by LadyFriend on 12/22/2008 07:30:52 PM EST

One of my favorite comments (none / 0)
One of the best comments I've read was when someone recently dismissed the notion that atheism was itself a belief.

He wrote something like "atheism is no more a belief than not collecting stamps is a hobby".

by ihavenobias on 12/22/2008 07:34:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
GOD DOESN'T EXIST (none / 0)
I know

by Perry on 12/22/2008 07:53:12 PM EST

Question for anti-science atheists. (none / 0)
Since the Universe was once smaller than a single atom, and it is now infinitely large, what caused The Big Bang?

After you're through chewing on that, we'll discuss infinite forces and events occuring in the many dimensions we can't even perceive.

Then we'll discuss the infinite complexity of a single cell.

Your limited, uneducated mind is holding you back.

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 08:20:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Occam's razor, buddy (none / 0)

If you're asking what created the complexities of the universe, then I say I don't know. But saying a God did it just unnecessarily complicates the process for no reason. A god would have to be as, if not more, complex than the thing it creates.....thus the question is what created the God

 

I don't know what created the Universe. But until you give me some proof that a God is plausible, then I'll fall back to saying there is no God. It's the same policy I have towards Unicorns, Leprechauns, and whatever other fanciful creatures you can dream up: false until proven plausible

by Perry on 12/22/2008 09:14:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
expand your mind (none / 0)
"But until you give me some proof that a God is plausible, then I'll fall back to saying there is no God."

An infinite Universe offers infinite possibilities. Therefore, God (or whatever you want to call the prime mover) exists.

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 09:33:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"God" (none / 0)
I'm open to the possibility of powerful forces in the universe we can't (yet) comprehend. But to make the (absurd IMO) assumption that these forces/this force is  benevolent and looking out for our best interests is another matter altogether.

The idea that the horrors of life are a "test" is a truly disgusting concept much more fitting for the latest Saw movie as opposed to the worldview and setup of a friendly all knowing Creator.

We all know about painful diseases and natural disasters, but we really only need one perfect example to debunk the insane idea that this is all a "test" and that "God doesn't give you anything you can't handle":

Three children freed from a cellar in which their mother had been imprisoned and raped by her own father for 24 years had never seen daylight.

Also, don't give me the "God gave us free will" bullshit. If that's true we shouldn't be constantly praying for God to intervene (be it to cure the dying mother, feed the starving children or to ensure that our favorite sports team wins). And believe me, NO ONE would think that we were cheated in life if God prevented us from torturing molesting/raping people.

If God exists he could put a cap on suffering. You know, enough so that life is appreciated but not so much that innocent people suffer unimaginable (and completely unnecessary) horrors, like the girl molested by her father in the basement for 24 years.

PS---Why is God a "He". Does he have a cock and balls? Shouldn't "He" really be an "It"?

by ihavenobias on 12/22/2008 09:51:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know anything about God. (none / 0)
I just know it's hard to grow the Universe from a subatomic quantum of energy to an infinite mass. Dave doesn't think about stuff like that, even though with a masters in geology, he had to have some physics and math.

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 11:37:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that is an interesting statement (none / 0)
An infinite universe offers infinite possibilities... unfortunately it has no meaning whatsoever.

by Tin Hat Mafia on 12/23/2008 07:58:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My invitation to atheists and other liberals. (none / 0)
Forget about religion, because it's a waste of time. Learn some science.
Break on through to the other side.

After you learn that the entire Universe was once smaller than a single atom, you realize how limited your brain is.

After you learn that the cell is the basic building block of all life, yet it is infinitely complex, you must question how a cell sprang forth from primordial mud.

After you learn there are infinite forces and actions occurring around your very being that cannot be perceived or measured, it will make you understand that you don't have the first clue what is going on.

You are afraid of difficult questions. You are afraid of admitting to a weak, infinitely limited, infinitely feeble mind. 

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 08:32:56 PM EST

Blah, blah, blah (none / 0)
It's absurd to suggest that the simplest most logical explanation for all of this is a magical, eternal and benevolent creator. At the VERY least that's not any easier to believe than "it just happened".

Now, you can *believe* that, but to argue that it's obvious and logical is laughable.

A much more reasonable position is that the things we don't understand will end up being explained (eventually) much in the way that lightning was. By your logic, we should believe that lightning comes from Zeus. By your logic, we should believe that Poseidon controls the sea as well.

Except that we have that wonderful thing called science which, over time, helps us uncover these mysteries. And once it does, we realize how foolish it was to believe that Zeus was throwing his bolts of fury down on us.

The problem is that people are incredibly impatient, and scared. We don't live forever so for many people simply knowing that research will likely uncover many things we currently consider to be supreme mysteries (hell, the human genome was cracked) is just not that comforting.

It doesn't make them feel any better about aging, having a purpose for much of the brutal and nasty things life can bring, and of course, it doesn't bring back our dead loved ones (I could add a "yet" on that last point but who knows).

PS---My favorite is when people insist that God must exist because of the complex and "perfect" human design. Perfect my ass! How many of you reading this have contacts and or eyeglasses? An actual perfect design wouldn't lead half the population to require corrective lenses. And for that matter, our backs and knees are VERY poorly designed and break down quite regularly.

There are countless examples just like this (BPH for men over 50 anyone? Breathing and consuming liquids and food through the same hole?) but you get the idea.

by ihavenobias on 12/22/2008 08:49:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fear of the unknown (none / 0)
The infinite potential of the Universe yields infinite possibilities. If there are eleven (or more) dimensions, it means there are forces and events occurring around us that cannot be perceived, but are just as real as the limited Universe we can measure.

Religions are purely man-made mythological inventions to explain where we came from and where we're going. Science, by contrast, will ultimately answer all of these questions.

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 09:10:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
how many people write under your name? (none / 0)

"You are afraid of admitting to a weak, infinitely limited, infinitely feeble mind."

followed closely by 

" Science, by contrast, will ultimately answer all of these questions."

So do you have a real view here or just pure trollin on the atheists/agnostics?

 

 

Don't talk about religion or politics, my ass!

by TheRob91 on 12/22/2008 09:57:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He googles his logic (none / 0)

Republicans portray the government as the enemy. Then when they take over, they prove it.

by Chinese Democracy on 12/23/2008 01:08:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
wonderful logic (none / 0)

Thats the exact logic that led men like Newton to stop being great :(

"Well, I don't know how process X works...god did it!" -> all useful thought ends.

The fact that all people are stupid doesn't prove there is a god. Rocks have no brains, does that mean that there are 2 gods?

Don't talk about religion or politics, my ass!

by TheRob91 on 12/22/2008 09:48:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dumb things (none / 0)
A cell is not "infinitely complex."  What the hell does that even mean?  That's one of the dumbest things. What the hell is "infinitely complex?"  That is just an expression.

I must admit that I thought before that I knew the difference between atheist and agnostic, but I now think I don't know. I didn't understand the original post in this thread.  Please re-write.

I don't believe that anything like God exists, except in peoples' minds. Do I claim to know anything with 100% certainty? No, of course not, that is theoretically impossible.  What am I?  Whatever I am, not try to tell me that I think maybe God exists. It doesn't.

David

by yturks on 12/22/2008 09:59:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm curious (none / 0)
If you don't believe it's possible to know anything with 100% certainty (agnostic viewpoint), how can you say with such force, "It doesn't," (gnostic viewpoint) in regard to whether or not anything like God exists?

Maybe it's important to keep on expressing highly probable beliefs with the force of fact, but I think that undercuts any sort of agnostic viewpoint.

The most important question for me isn't the search for the truth - it's what certain assumptions about the truth mean for a person.  What does a person without 100% certainty in anything look like?  What does a person with a strong belief that nothing like God exists look like?  And what kind of person do you want to be?  And (most interesting), what does the internal conflict between these two types of beliefs look like in a person?  These questions seem far more relevant and interesting to me...but that's just me.

by marlonm on 12/22/2008 11:09:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dave, you gotta expand your mind. (none / 0)
"A cell is not "infinitely complex."  What the hell does that even mean?  That's one of the dumbest things. What the hell is "infinitely complex?"  That is just an expression."

Its too difficult for me to explain fractal geometry, so I'll just show you this brief clip.

The infinte Universe sprang forth from a subatomic point. And a cell is infinitely complex.

by KenTX on 12/23/2008 01:21:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
another pointless video link (none / 0)
KenTX, you crack me up. OK, I watched the YouTube clip about the cell. Yes, a cell is extremely complex. This video does nothing to explain what "infinitely complex" means, because it means nothing.

David

by yturks on 12/23/2008 06:39:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How about this (none / 0)
a Cell is finitely complex...

by Tin Hat Mafia on 12/23/2008 08:02:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Infinite Complexity (none / 0)
Once upon a time, a very long time ago, science and philosophy were roughly synonymous. But then they parted ways when “scientists” started focusing on the reality of the Universe, while “philosophers” were left to discuss non-scientific bullshit, such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Philosophers are inherently unscientific, because if they had any science aptitude whatsoever, they would be focusing their energy on questions that matter, rather than worthless bullshit of no consequence.

Infinite complexity can be described mathematically, but it’s a difficult concept to explain to non-scientific philosophical bullshit artists. So I will employ another brief clip as a teaching aid. This one courtesy of the PBS NOVA series.

Dave, I can understand why philosophers like Tin Hat and “Mr Science” (that name makes me laugh) will never understand fundamental scientific concepts, but you’re way more than smart enough to get it. Therefore, I’ve concluded that you’re just messin’ with me.

by KenTX on 12/24/2008 06:07:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you have them mixed up (none / 0)
"If you believe that there are no gods or if you do not know if you believe that there is at least one god"

isn't that the basic difference between the two?

atheism: you know there are no gods
agnostic: you don't know whether there are god

http://wordnetweb.princeton .edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism :
  • the doctrine or belief that there is no God
  • a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

    • http://wordnetweb.princeton .edu/perl/webwn?s=agnostici sm :
    a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God. "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

    or like I always say: an agnost is an atheist without balls :-)

    now, if you ate your vitamins you too can be an antitheist: active opposition to theism.

    by callisto on 12/22/2008 09:18:42 PM EST

    ytfan17 got it right (none / 0)

    Atheism means non-belief in a god or gods. Yes, there is a subset of atheists that will claim that they know there is no god, but its the simple absence of belief that is the defining thing.

    Think of it like this... Theism means: belief in a god or gods. The prefix "A" means "without". A-theism therefore means to be "without belief in a god or gods". If you don't live your life under the assumption that god exists, you are an atheist.

    I see agnosticism as a wishy washy term that's so broad in its definition its hardly worth mentioning. How many people say they are agnostic about Zeus? No one right? So on what basis do they dismiss Zeus but remain agnostic about some other conception of god? There is no end to the absurd claims one can make that are unfalsifiable. Other things you can substitue "Zeus" for: fairies, vampires, Thor, invisible pink unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster... you get the point.

    Agnostics, I think, want to avoid calling themselves atheist mostly because of the misconception ytfan17 is dispelling and because of the social stigma associated with the term.

    by mr science on 12/22/2008 10:08:36 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0)
    Because as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, when someone says "atheist", far too many people see this.

    by ihavenobias on 12/22/2008 10:12:18 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Don't buy the religious PR (none / 0)
    it's not my fault people would have that image, it just means they're ignorant or idiots :-)

    on the other hand I think every religious person is a closet gay or a paedophile :-)

    by callisto on 12/23/2008 06:26:33 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    He basically redefined the words (none / 0)
    my problem is the "are no gods or if you do not know"
    as an atheist I don't make the distinction between belief and know, since I don't have supernatural beliefs. So unless you come with proof of a god or gods, I have no reason to belief "gods" exist.

    and to my defence: if you look it up in dictionaries, encyclopedia and general consensus they support my definition

    he makes the difference between know and belief, something that doesn't come to mind with most people

    atheist will say he doesn't belief or knows there is no god or gods
    agnosts says he doesn't know or belief, probably not, but there's a chance or they don't know

    by callisto on 12/23/2008 06:37:01 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    the words (none / 0)
    "Agnostic atheist" sounds really dumb to me.  If you believe there is no God (therefore atheist) yet you admit that you cannot "know" this (agnostic) then you are just agnostic and you can drop atheist.

    David

    by yturks on 12/22/2008 10:04:00 PM EST

    The semantics (none / 0)
    get to be pretty annoying.

    That's why I go with "non-theist", but I'm sure someone would disagree with that as well.

    I avoid the phrase "atheist" because far too many otherwise reasonable people have completely unreasonable and ridiculous notions about what that means.

    by ihavenobias on 12/22/2008 10:08:52 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    non-theist (none / 0)
    The Secular Coalition of America uses non-theist as a catchall because I believe it was determined that it wasn't so repellent to the general public. It makes sense for them, they're an advocacy group. I use "atheist" because I don't want to appear like I'm running from the term and I stand in solidarity with those that dare to use it.

    by mr science on 12/22/2008 10:30:16 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    etymology (none / 0)
    I think he's trying to point out that the two roots "theist" and "gnostic" look at two different phenomena.

    "theist" looks at whether or not a god exists.

    "gnostic" looks at whether or not it's possible to know (popular usage focuses on whether or not it's possible to know that god, or any sort of divine, fundamental energy/being/system ex ists).

    If you're "gnostic," you believe that it is possible to know the ultimate truth underlying the universe.

    If you're "agnostic," you believe that it is not possible to know the ultimate truth underlying the universe.  You don't believe it's possible to know if gods exist or not, if some sort of invisible spiritual forces exist or not, etc. etc.

    Theistic vs. atheistic is a narrower judgment: do you believe in the existence of a _being_ or beings that is/are supremely powerful in our universe, or don't you?

    If you're "theistic" you do, and if you're "atheistic" you don't.  If you're "agnostic" that absolves you from having to answer the question of theistic vs. atheistic, because you don't believe it's possible to know (from the greek root gnostos - to know).

    by marlonm on 12/22/2008 10:27:22 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    re: dave (none / 0)
    I agree with you that the term "agnostic atheist" is silly and half-assed.

    Both atheism and theism (the belief in god) are strictly gnostic arguments - you make them under the logical assumption, the axiom, that it is possible to know the fundamental truth of the universe.  Without this assumption, any argument an "agnostic atheist" makes about God or Gods is necessarily half-assed, because your assumption (knowledge is not possible) undercuts your argument (there is no God).

    by marlonm on 12/22/2008 10:44:12 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the electricity, Apollo! (none / 0)

    To Kentx, and others:

    Respectfully, you didn't address any of the valid points that NoBias guy made, but I'd like to make an observation about your own argument.

    What stands out about your argument is the certainty of your statements, the finality of your terms: subatomic quantum of energy, infinite mass, and such. This process you describe (a massive one at that!) is not something we Earthlings fully understand. In fact it's only been the kind of thing we can reasonably speculate about for the last... what? 150 years? Forgive my ignorance, I know not when the telescope was invented.

    See, here's the thing: Science is about questions. Religion is about answers.

    Let me rephrase. Not having an answer to a question is perfectly acceptable in this day and age, or it should be. This is why 85% (or more. I think it's more) of the members of the national academy of sciences are athiests.

    "I don't know." is just fine. It really is.

    Say it out loud. Go ahead. I DON'T KNOW. Feels weird, right? Not to us athiests/agnostics it doesn't. It just feels like the natural state of things. Sure, there are knowns but the unknowns always outweigh the knowns. (Donald Rumsfeld must be spinning in his grave.)

    One must not walk far into the thorn brush that is semantics to get pierced and stabbed by prefixes a- or ag-, caught up on brambles of for or against, possible or not, but the crux of it all comes down to how comfortable a person is with not having an answer to a question. Us, me, us athe-nostics (my term), we don't need answers.

    We want to die old, happy and quickly.

     

    PS, I know Rumsfeld isn't dead. I just assume he sleeps in a grave.  

     

    by Badass4Peace on 12/23/2008 02:24:35 AM EST

    athe-nostic (none / 0)

    KenTX's argument comes from ignorance. It's commonly called the "God of the gaps" argument. Find a gap in knowledge and say "ha! see, science can't answer everything" and default to God as the explanation without offering any evidence to back the conclusion.

    Knowledge and belief are two separate things and shouldn't be confused or conflated, that's the point of the diary. Pardon my semantics.

    by mr science on 12/23/2008 03:24:39 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Science provides all answers. (none / 1)
    Religion is useless.

    Philosophy is worse than useless.

    If you can't follow rudimentary astrophysics, you need to move along. You can't understand what I'm talking about.

    by KenTX on 12/23/2008 05:44:51 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    KenTool (none / 0)
    What is laughable is the fact that you e dont know  the difference between belief and knowledge.

    If you cant distinguish the two

    you need to move along

    Republicans portray the government as the enemy. Then when they take over, they prove it.

    by Chinese Democracy on 12/23/2008 11:12:13 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    logic (none / 0)
    It's not philosophy, it's logic. Look into it.

    by mr science on 12/23/2008 12:05:13 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    But what do they call the (none / 0)
    highest science degree? anyone?? a doctorate of philosophy? Because philosophy is the determination of truths that follow from a logical premise. Philosophy is the science of argument, and logic was born from it.

    by Tin Hat Mafia on 12/23/2008 08:08:01 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    backwards? (none / 0)
    Your last sentence seems backwards. Shouldn't it read, "Logic is the science of argument and philosophy was born from it."?

    by mr science on 12/23/2008 08:59:14 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Logic is a philosophy (none / 0)
    Trust me on that one dude.

    by z1p101 on 12/25/2008 04:22:32 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Whew, thought Terry McAuliffe snuck in here, (none / 0)

    kind of deja vu with the Big Russ comment.

    Not that you didn't stir up some wishful thinking though. 

    by rolodex on 12/24/2008 12:41:42 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    apples and oranges (none / 0)
    “Respectfully, you didn't address any of the valid points that NoBias guy made, but I'd like to make an observation about your own argument. See, here's the thing: Science is about questions. Religion is about answers.”
    The reason I’m intentionally not responding to ihavenogod is because he’s talking about a religion with a “Benevolent God”, and I’m talking about science proving that an infinite force controls a Universe so vast and complex, that a tiny, liberal, atheist brain can’t even conceive of it.

    “What stands out about your argument is the certainty of your statements, the finality of your terms: subatomic quantum of energy, infinite mass, and such.”
    That’s because when I employ the certainty of science, my argument wins and your argument loses. I have proof on my side, but you don’t have any. I enjoy defeating liberals.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 08:21:44 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    You're right, (none / 0)

    There is a distinction between the classic "Santa Claus in a bathrobe god" that Christians worship and a vast, complex "infinite" force that somehow controls the Universe. Thank you for making that clear

    No one here would disagree that the forces underlying the universe are vast and complex, and of course there are mysteries and questions that will never be answered, mainly because of perceptual limitations rather than an inability to understand complicated concepts, although it's important to understand that no matter how much understanding we achieve there will always be more questions.

    The point of argument is whether there is intention or purpose driving that "infinite" force you speak of. I say there isn't. You say there is. Pass the beer nuts.

    The most interesting thing I've ever heard about science and religion came from a catholic priest during an interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. I don't remember his name but he was head of the Vatican's astronomy department. Paraphrasing: "Every time we learn something new about the Universe we have to adjust our definition of God."  To me, that sums it all up.

    by Badass4Peace on 12/24/2008 09:51:27 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Very well said (none / 0)
    Great quote at the end too.

    by ihavenobias on 12/24/2008 12:26:03 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Well written (none / 0)
    Very good arguments on both sides...

    The Catholic church is not the same as it used to be. It understands that science and religion can and do work hand in hand to help explain truths in the universe. The two don't have to cancle each other out.

    Yes, there can be a God, and

    Yes, God's previous actions can be explained by science.

    by locknkey on 12/23/2008 06:13:06 AM EST

    If there is a God, (none / 0)
    we will meet him through science, not religion or philosophy.

    But I must admit this fact with much embarrassment and humility and astonishment. The guy who found God through astrophysics was a Catholic priest! That makes me laugh every time I think about it.

    by KenTX on 12/23/2008 06:24:30 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    It's important to me (none / 0)
    to make a distinction between the possibility and likelihood of a generic creator and the commonly held belief that this creator is some Giant Big Brother In The Sky who looks out for our best interests.

    I don't believe in either but I think the former is MUCH more plausible than the latter. I find the latter to be laughably convenient and ridiculous (see my other posts in this thread for a brief explanation of why).

    And sorry if I misspelled anything, no spell check and I have to type fast!

    by ihavenobias on 12/23/2008 10:49:23 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    belief by convenience (none / 0)

    It's important to understand that religion didn't evolve and change on its own. It's been through the outside forces of science, reason, secular politics, and common sense hammering away at religion over the centuries that forced it to fit to realities it once condemned. It took until 1992 for the Catholic church to officially absolve Galileo of blasphemy for saying that the solar system was heliocentric instead of geocentric. Science will continue to drag religion into the modern age, kicking and screaming as always.

    by mr science on 12/23/2008 11:51:29 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    The smartest man who ever lived (none / 0)
    was certain of the existence of God. The second smartest man who ever lived, was similarly inclined.

    Since these two guys were much smarter than any of the liberal-atheist wiener dogs in this forum, and I don't know anything about the subject, I'm going with Einstein and Newton.

    There is a God.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 07:06:50 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    funny (none / 0)

    KenTX, because you have given us so much comedy gold just in this thread alone I almost don't want do this. But is tis the season so... here's a list of 20 common logical fallacies that you really need to study up on if you hope to win an argument. In addition to general inconsistency on what your position on God's existence is (you vacillate from questioning it to knowing it), of this list you have committed logical fallacies: 1, 2, 3, and 12 that I can detect in this discussion.

    Your assignment is to find those fallacies in your comments and list them here.

    Happy Holidays!

    by mr science on 12/24/2008 11:48:05 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    link (none / 0)

    List of top 20 Logical Fallacies

    by mr science on 12/24/2008 11:49:39 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    fallacial abundance (none / 0)
    Add #16 to the list.

    by mr science on 12/24/2008 12:09:18 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    I'm here to entertain and educate. (none / 0)
    "In addition to general inconsistency on what your position on God's existence is (you vacillate from questioning it to knowing it)"

    I'm consistent in my assertion of the existence of an infinite force prime mover that created and controls the Universe.

    I'm also consistent in my total confusion over the name "God", because it holds unique meaning to each person. I simply use the name to describe my infinite force prime mover, as Einstein and Newton did. But my "God" is probably different from the "God" of the snake handler who speaks in tongues, or the Islamic jihadist who blows himself up in order to screw 72 virgins for the rest of eternity.

    I'm also consistent in my use of science to vanquish the arguments of atheists. For example, in this thread it  could be argued that I have come much closer to proving the existence of "God" than you have come to proving that "God" does not exist.

    I must admit curiosity about the name "Mr Science". In all the time you've participated in this forum, I've never seen any evidence that you have any knowledge in the field of science. Care to elaborate?

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 03:22:21 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    You might want to educate yourself first (none / 0)

    As Mr Science has already pointed out, your reliance on Newton and Einstein as "proof" of God is the fallacy of "appeal to authority", but I'll address their views anyway.

    Considering that Newton believed in some form of Christianity and that you regard religion as "useless" and that "if there is a God, we will meet him through science, not religion or philosophy", it is pretty clear that Newton doesn't exactly back up your way of thinking.

    As far as Einstein is concerned, that article you linked to had a fair bit of editorialising, maybe justified or maybe not, but the Einstein quote that is most definitive about what Einstein believed was “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists". As the article states "Spinoza was a pantheist, who regarded God and the Universe as identical, all encompassing abstractions with neither volition nor purpose."

    So it would be 0 from 2 as far as Ken being backed up by the giants of physics. But in the end, this extract from the article is probably a reasonable statement:

    "I’m also of the opinion that the significance of Einstein’s religious views has been overrated. As I’ve demonstrated, although he never wavered in his rejection of conventional ideas of the supernatural, he was inconsistent in his public statements about God. On one occasion he even voiced his admiration for Buddhism as the best religion to “cope with modern scientific needs.” It’s as if he didn’t devote a great deal of thought to these matters. He certainly didn’t apply the same intellectual rigor to them that he did to his scientific work. This is understandable. His real passion was exploring the laws of Nature. Religion, as a human concern, was peripheral to the cosmic questions that occupied his mind."

    You make this statement to Mr Science:

    "[It] could be argued that I have come much closer to proving the existence of "God" than you have come to proving that "God" does not exist."

    I think you'll find that most atheists don't claim to "know" with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, or try to prove that there is no God, because quite simply, it is impossible to prove there is no God, even if this is a true statement. Your argument basically boils down to "the Universe is really, really complex, therefore God". However, as Perry stated:

    "If you're asking what created the complexities of the universe, then I say I don't know. But saying a God did it just unnecessarily complicates the process for no reason. A god would have to be as, if not more, complex than the thing it creates.....thus the question is what created the God"

    Finally Ken, as far as an understanding of science goes, nothing Mr Science has written in this thread strikes me as unscientific. You on the other hand seem to not have a good understanding of what science is (even if you have seen a number of popular science documentaries and have a basic grasp of certain scientific concepts). For instance, you talk about how you "employ the certainty of science" to "prove" your case. But as any scientist knows, science is not about certainty, in fact a large part of it is about the acceptance of uncertainty.

    Oh, and by the way, I am a postgraduate physics student, considering you seem so intent on questioning everyone's scientific credibility (except your own, of course).

    by jutewe on 12/24/2008 04:59:18 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    KenTX appeals to authority. (none / 0)
    I will now appeal to the world’s foremost authority on evolutionary biology and atheism, Richard Dawkins.

    Let’s see how he performs in a six minute exchange on the subject of God and Intelligent Design.

    Note that I was able to reply to your challenge in just a few minutes, because I’m simply the best.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 05:23:05 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Ken (none / 0)

    Every time you put up one of these butchered you tube videos, everyone takes you a little less seriously.

    by z1p101 on 12/25/2008 04:35:08 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    kentroll's stubornness (none / 0)
    trumps all  

    and now

    he/she/it looks like the total asshole that he/she it is  in spades.

    Republicans portray the government as the enemy. Then when they take over, they prove it.

    by Chinese Democracy on 12/25/2008 08:13:38 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    tedium (none / 0)
    "As far as Einstein is concerned, that article you linked to had a fair bit of editorialising"

    The article was written by an atheist who readily admitted that Einstein believed in God. So did Newton. What more do you want? What is there left to discuss?

    Seems like you wasted a few paragraphs on that topic.


    "Mr. Science" has never demonstrated any scientific aptitude. That's why I laugh at his name. It would be like me assuming the nic "Mr Loveable" or "Mr Sweetie Pie".

    You scoff at my understanding of scientific concepts? Well now. Them's some mighty tough words Mr Physicist. For all you know, that might be the equivalent of approaching the silhouette of Cassius Clay in a darkened ally, and challenging the young man to a fist fight, before adequately sizing him up.

    Why don't you prove to the forum how ignorant I am on the subject of science. You can go get some help from your post grad buddies.

    I'll wait.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 05:43:58 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry Ken, not biting (none / 0)

    "The article was written by an atheist"

    So what? Irrelevant.

    "who readily admitted that Einstein believed in God. So did Newton."

    But like you already suggested, "God" is a word that can mean all sorts of things to different people. For example, Einstein said (yes I know I am repeating):

    "“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"

    I have already pointed out that your religious beliefs don't match up with Newton's, but all this is appeal to authority anyway.

    Regarding mr science and my "mighty tough words", I don't know what level of knowledge/qualifications mr science has, but what he has said on this thread has been reasonable. You are the one saying things like "[mr science] will never understand fundamental scientific concepts".

    Regarding your ignorance, you demonstrated a fundamental misconception of what science is about - if you were Cassius Clay you wouldn't have made that mistake. Also, I'm sure you would have already let the world know you were Cassius Clay. But anyway, I'm not about "fist fights". My goal in life (and on this forum) isn't to prove how ignorant of science you are.

    I'm also not going to make any stupid statements like "I know everything about science", "I am an expert in all fields of science" or "I know more about you on every scientific topic". Only a moron would say or think any of these things.

    by jutewe on 12/24/2008 06:26:15 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    We've already measured your intelligence (none / 0)
    back in this thread.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 06:33:00 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    In case you didn't know, (none / 0)
    the guy who tied Richard Dawkins up in knots is an actor. Here he is in one of his more famous roles.

    Richard Dawkins is supposed to be one of the smartest guys in the world, and Ben Stein is supposed to be a guy of average intelligence.

    I love it when dumb guys make smart guys look stupid.

    Oh yeah. How you commin' with that science test Mr Genius?

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 06:02:12 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Fun with atheists (none / 0)
    "it is impossible to prove there is no God"
    Proving a negative is always impossible. That's why I love tormenting atheists.  I have never met an atheist who didn't think he was the smartest person in the world. That's another reason I enjoy picking on atheists.

    "Your argument basically boils down to "the Universe is really, really complex, therefore God".
    Not quite. My argument is that an infinite Universe with infinite energy and infinite potential and infinite forces yields infinite possibility. Therefore God.

    You're the physicist. It's your turn. Tear down the logic.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 06:18:42 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Proving a negative (none / 0)
    might not be impossible, but it's hard work.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 06:24:49 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    How does God (none / 0)
    solve the problem "who/what created God?"

    by jutewe on 12/24/2008 06:29:33 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    You're the physicist, (none / 0)
    so you know the Universe had a beginning and a Cause, since steady state (according to Hoyle) has been debunked.

    It does not neccesarily hold that the Cause had it's own beginning and cause.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 06:48:56 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Reply to Ken (none / 0)

    "so you know the Universe had a beginning"

    If you define the universe as existing since the big bang, then yes. Maybe there was something before the big bang. Who knows? Maybe the universe had a beginning and maybe not.

    "It does not neccesarily hold that the Cause had it's own beginning and cause."

    Very convenient. If the "cause" doesn't have to have a cause, then neither does the universe (in which case there is no cause).

     

    by jutewe on 12/24/2008 07:00:12 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    You're the physicist. (none / 0)
    I'm just a dumb guy. But I think I can prove the Universe had a beginning?


    I've never heard of an action without a cause, unless we're talking about those people on the cover of National Enquirer who burn up for no reason.

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 07:13:05 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think you're a dumb guy (none / 0)
    nor do I know everything, but how do you know there was nothing before the big bang? I don't think anyone really knows this. And when we are talking about causes, maybe the beginning of the entire universe is a special case - after all, you are referring to things occurring within the already-existing universe. And maybe there is a good reason for the universe spontaneously appearing, I just don't know what it is. As I have already said, God doesn't solve this conundrum, all it does is create a new mystery when "solving" the old mystery. Having said this, I'm not going to try to argue you into submission. Each of us is entitled to believe what we believe and I think we are going around in circles now. Have a good day.

    by jutewe on 12/24/2008 07:32:07 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    smartest man (none / 0)
    Einstein identified himself as an agnostic.  He was angry that people called him an atheist not that he didn't believe in God.

    He was also unable to let go of his belief in a finite universe even though all evidence (including a lot of his own work) suggested otherwise.

    by reba on 12/24/2008 01:02:03 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Did you know Einstein personally? (none / 0)
    No? Then why are you using yourself as an expert source on the subject? In other words, I don't believe you, and there are many credible sources that refute your assertion. Do you have some proof?

    by KenTX on 12/24/2008 01:46:05 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    r (none / 0)
    I wouldn't presume to change your beliefs.  They seem fairly static.  I just wanted to offer a differing point for other people as they read along this blog.  Then, if they were interested they could look up Einstein's beliefs themselves.&nb sp; I don't consider myself an expert source on the subject, I was just describing from what I've read.  I don't remember specific books but now that my interest is piqued, here are a couple of quotes from Einstein on wikipedia: 

    "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.  I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."<sup> </sup> 

    Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

    And here are a couple more quotes, which if you cherry picked would give one the impression Einstein either believed or didn't believe in God:

    "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    That was interesting, I'm glad I checked it out.

    by reba on 12/25/2008 09:14:37 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0)
    I meant "to try to change your beliefs" not "to change your beliefs".

    by reba on 12/25/2008 09:22:07 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    My beliefs? (none / 0)
    I don't have any beliefs. I'm not a religious person.

    My "God" is the same as "Einstein's God", which is the same as "Spinoza's God", which is God capable of growing an infinite Universe from a single primeval atom. That's a pretty muscular God.

    As a youngster, I used to refer to myself as an atheist, but then I studied a lot of math and science in college. I realized Einstein was correct. There is a God.

    Talk about cherry picking. That wikipedia article is worse than misleading. It needs some heavy editing.

    by KenTX on 12/25/2008 01:09:19 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    A great site (none / 0)

    I just thought I would throw out one of my favorite resources for this type of discussion. The Atheist Community of Austin (TX) broadcasts a live weekly call in show on a public access channel. They get calls from all sorts of people and have really interesting discussions. I highly recommend checking them out. I watch almost every week.

    http://www.atheist-experien ce.com/

    by Mams31383 on 12/23/2008 12:27:59 PM EST

    What the he**s wrong with you, (none / 0)

    What do you mean you watch ALMOST every week! What's wrong with EVERY week? And your not a true fan unless you also listen (via stream or podcast) to the Non-Prophets, which is done via 'internet radio' approx. every other week.
    http://www.nonprophetsradio .com/ 

    by rolodex on 12/24/2008 12:51:16 AM EST

    [ Parent ]
    You are SO right! (none / 0)
    I watch both shows 'religiously' (haha).

    by LadyFriend on 12/24/2008 12:24:47 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    People are losing it around Christmas time (none / 0)
    I am so confused by this thread. I don't know what half the posts even mean. I also want to add that there are no "truths" to the universe. "Truth" is some made up philosophy by human beings. So if you are trying to determine if the truths of the universe are knowable or not, or whether a god lies at the heart of them or not, you are way off on the wrong path, and you won't ever find a satisfying answer or solution.

    David

    by yturks on 12/23/2008 12:28:33 PM EST

    agnostic (none / 0)
    So that's what agnostic means.  That one doesn't believe in any central truths to the universe.  "Truth" implies that it's knowable.

    by marlonm on 12/24/2008 08:37:23 PM EST

    [ Parent ]
    Atheist and agnostic are two different things. | 79 comments (79 topical, 0 hidden)
     Display: