jso2897: Jean-Paul Sartre

Yeah, my survivalist pedigree thought doesn't make me very motivated to further the rest of humanity though, so maybe humanist is not the appropriate term. Is there a term for purest of apathy on the subject? Nihilism doesn't seem to fit.

servoled: amanogowa: Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists)


noun
Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)


noun
Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens.

Dictionary shopping is fun.

Please cite the dictionary you are using. Oxford > Websters

and creating a nuisance: SobrietyFighter: here's the test: grab some baby from an unwanted pregnancy. stick him/her in room, isolated from the world. feed him/her and everything without ever letting him/her see the providers. wait 20,30,40? years. release him/her to the world. teach him/her how to communicate. then ask him/her if there is a god.

Uh.... whether the kid is religious or not, he's guaranteed to be a sociopath. Human interaction exists for a reason.

so religion is a learned behavior? so belief in god is a learned behavior? so if no one taught god it wouldn't exist?

rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

servoled: I'm taking belief as "holding x to be true" where x is a proposition. How are you defining "belief" and "faith"?

a belief can be backed up by facts. Faith exists outside the realm of facts.

What does the H stand for ?

Jubeebee: And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

time began when people started keeping track of it.

crab66: I believe in raptor jesus. Therefore he must exist.

So is this something like Jesus was a dinosaur, and modern Christianity mythology was all rewritten/updated at some later date to make him human - similar to how Jesus is white in most of Europe/NA and black in Ethiopia and so on?

Good thing I am totally convinced about my agnosticism.

SobrietyFighter: so religion is a learned behavior? so belief in god is a learned behavior? so if no one taught god it wouldn't exist?

I didn't say it is or isn't. I don't see that it particularly matters - most things we do beyond basic biological functions are learned behaviors... which is what makes the design of your experiment so, well... creepy. Just saying.

Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

Who are you calling a sack of mostly water? What, and I'm ugly?

SobrietyFighter: and creating a nuisance: SobrietyFighter: here's the test: grab some baby from an unwanted pregnancy. stick him/her in room, isolated from the world. feed him/her and everything without ever letting him/her see the providers. wait 20,30,40? years. release him/her to the world. teach him/her how to communicate. then ask him/her if there is a god.

Uh.... whether the kid is religious or not, he's guaranteed to be a sociopath. Human interaction exists for a reason.

so religion is a learned behavior? so belief in god is a learned behavior? so if no one taught god it wouldn't exist?

No, people are really good at convincing themselves that things work all sorts of ways without being told, even more so when they don't have enough information on the topic they're think about. Mabey the kid would think there was some super being outside the room that fed him.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics

This is logically impossible. If you are SURE of your beliefs, you are by default close minded to other beliefs. If you are open minded, at all, to other beliefs, you are by default unsure of any particular belief.

People tend to be illogical.

servoled: amanogowa: Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists)


noun
Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)


noun
Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens.

Dictionary shopping is fun.

So now we have 2 dictionaries showing that you are wrong. Care to look for a third?

Bartleby the Scrivener: Jubeebee: And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

time began when people started keeping track of it.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars; the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

\edited for less sloppiness

Clan Xpy: jso2897: Jean-Paul Sartre

Yeah, my survivalist pedigree thought doesn't make me very motivated to further the rest of humanity though, so maybe humanist is not the appropriate term. Is there a term for purest of apathy on the subject? Nihilism doesn't seem to fit.


Dudeness.

/Nihilists! fark me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Bartleby the Scrivener: Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

Nice try. Measurement of time is a human construct; the passage of time isn't.

amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes


Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

Jadedgrl: Get oral. Hands down.

Gigitty.

Where were you when I was in Buffalo?

(Checks profile again. Cute? Check! 23? uh-oh...)

You were literally in a cradle when I was in Buffalo. You weren't even born the first two years I was there! I'll just have a seat over here...

t3knomanser

What makes you think the universe is large?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Tartha De Tear: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

Who are you calling a sack of mostly water? What, and I'm ugly?

Well, my knee sucks, whoever designed it was an asshole with no design skill. I can understand why it would be this way if there was some kind of process where it was adapted from a different knee used for a slightly different purpose, but that's crazy. This knee is SO COMPLICATED!

Tartha De Tear: amanogowa: Actually, that is *exactly* what it is. See the dictionary definition I provided above.

Psst.

Dictionaries are only a starting point. Definitions for complex terms depend on the context of the time, the society, the culture, and the individual conversation. I know, it's not as easy, but man, it's just that way.

I agree, but none of those factors change the fact that atheists and agnostics are only intersecting spaces on a Venn diagram -- not the same space called two names.

DeanMoriarty: Nice try. Measurement of time is a human construct; the passage of time isn't.

please distinguish between the passage of time and the measurement of time.

if you can do it in 25 words or less, i'll give you a pack of Razzles.

\first it's a candy, then it's a gum.

Blind_Io: Please cite the dictionary you are using. Oxford > Websters

True. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/_.html

However as summed up below, dictionaries are not an absolute reference for terms. Definitions can be very fluid.

Tartha De Tear:
Dictionaries are only a starting point. Definitions for complex terms depend on the context of the time, the society, the culture, and the individual conversation. I know, it's not as easy, but man, it's just that way.

t3knomanser: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

biatching at stamp collectors isn't a hobby either.

Bartleby the Scrivener: Bartleby the Scrivener: Jubeebee: And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

time began when people started keeping track of it.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars; the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

\edited for less sloppiness

Actually, time isn't a social construct. It's just really abstract and confusing. Keeping track of time is a social construct.

Hey gang!



/my lawn ... blah blah blah

devildog123: ///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

Could I do anything to convince you otherwise?

crab66: After reading the article I think it actually says that the reason religious nutjobs are so nutty is because they aren't really sure about what they believe in.

Nah, they are sure about what they believe in. What they can't conceive of is how you can **not** believe the same thing when it is so blindingly obvious to them.

/Lived with a born-again Southern Baptist.
//Couldn't conceieve of how I could **not** believe in God.
///Blown away that I agreed to let him pray for me; didn't hurt me any and it was on his time.

StaleCoffee: Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept.

What a ridiculous sentence.

"Agnosticism requires you to be talking about god when you're using it to talk about god."

"Mechanics requires a qualifier of "bicycle" when applied to the velo-mobility concept."

if you pray then you're prey

Being "open minded" isn't a virtue.

The real choices are to be active-minded or passive-minded.

Bartleby the Scrivener: Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars; the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

Eh. Our calendar is based on how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun. That's why different objects in space have different day and year lengths. The rate of the passage of time we consider a constant in the universe, but calendars vary from object to object.

There is no science.... only Zuul!

PumpUpDaFark: t3knomanser: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

biatching at stamp collectors isn't a hobby either.

Except for their wives...

/[ducks]

StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes


Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

religion is a ponzi scheme

DeanMoriarty: StaleCoffee: Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept.

What a ridiculous sentence.

"Agnosticism requires you to be talking about god when you're using it to talk about god."

"Mechanics requires a qualifier of "bicycle" when applied to the velo-mobility concept."

I think you missed the point of "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" debunk.

SobrietyFighter: religion is a ponzi scheme

also a pyramid scheme. with hats.

amanogowa: So now we have 2 dictionaries showing that you are wrong. Care to look for a third?

I suggest you actually read those definitions, then compare them with the definitions you gave... they state very different things (assuming you understand the difference between believe !x and !believing x). The only common definition they have is the first one for agnosticism, which is the traditional definition.

amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes


Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Please explain the middle ground between "There are supernatural entities" and "There are no supernatural entities."

The premise that you are theist or atheist in some capacity is true. Agnosticism is an extension of that, in this case.

Ant: rastjr: I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in.

Maybe, according to the one true god, you were supposed to be an asshole.

Maybe. But maybe not. Which one works better for you and the world?

definitions:

edmo: This is why so many hard core anti-gay types turn out to be gay. Duh.

Accusations of repressed homosexuality as a root cause - le raison d'être - of homophobic behaviour do nothing but further provide evidence of the twisted mental condition that accompanies homosexuality.

Let's rephrase the headline and see if it doesn't strike you as obvious.

"People who are unsure about their beliefs are more skeptical when presented with the beliefs of others."

Is this bad? I mean, should someone who is unsure automatically assume that the nice evangelist asking him for money for jesus is really sending that money to heaven?

amanogowa: servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Actually no, I originally used "God" to be consistent with others, however I in no way intended that to be limited to only the Christian god. If you took it that way I apologize, but that was never my intended premise.

Bartleby the Scrivener: DeanMoriarty: Nice try. Measurement of time is a human construct; the passage of time isn't.

please distinguish between the passage of time and the measurement of time.

if you can do it in 25 words or less, i'll give you a pack of Razzles.

\first it's a candy, then it's a gum.

Passage of time is a sequence. Measurement is the division of that sequence into equal parts unrelated to events within that sequence.

/gimme
//yay Twitter for teaching me how to write briefly.

wylkyn: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

And that supreme being, he is tiny and simple? If not, then what or who was he created by? The whole "complexity points to a creator" argument leads to an endless chain of creators, unless you posit that the creator has always existed, and in that case, why couldn't you say the same about the universe? If it's okay for the creator to be eternal in all his complexity, but you don't hold the same to be true for the universe without a creator, then you are just being arbitrary.

It's okay for you to believe these things. Just don't try to pretend they are based on logic.

Okay. I won't. Thanks.

servoled: amanogowa: servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Actually no, I originally used "God" to be consistent with others, however I in no way intended that to be limited to only the Christian god. If you took it that way I apologize, but that was never my intended premise.

But you're premise is still "theist" or "atheist." so it's still wrong.