servoled: 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.

Neither of those definitions supports the statement that everyone not believing in God (or god) is atheist. Your definition even says an atheist has to believe there is no god, which is clarified.

While Atheist and Agnostic overlap, so does Agnostic and Theist.

Keep backpedaling, at some point you might become right.

Sodium Benzoate: IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

I'm agnostic and I don't care...

I'm pretty open-minded. :(

/the lobotomy helped

Lord_Baull: Deucednuisance 2009-07-02 01:05:32 PM
Lord_Baull: This (new window) was her explanation.

Krakatoa?
You sure you gave the right link?


Yes, she posited that the animals on Australia could have populated the planet Krakatoa-style.

Like a koala could violently explode and the resulting scattered koala-nuggets would grow into other koalas?

Wow what a bunch of crap. It's always the bible nuts that shut out all opposing views. Who did this study? China?

SobrietyFighter: Sodium Benzoate: IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

they just never shut up!

StaleCoffee: 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.

"I don't know if there are supernatural entities, nor do I know that there is proof either way"

It is possible to have neither the opinion that there is a god, nor the opinion that there is no god.

amanogowa: StaleCoffee: 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.

"I don't know if there are supernatural entities, nor do I know that there is proof either way"

It is possible to have neither the opinion that there is a god, nor the opinion that there is no god.

That makes you an agnostic atheist.

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.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

You were wrong, and can back pedal all you want, it changes nothing.

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

No I didn't. You injected "theism" into the definition of "agnosticism" to distort a fact.

When applied to the concept of theism, an agnostic simply believes the existence of god is unknowable. it does not take a position on either side.

The only reason it's ever equated with atheism is because theists - who operate not on knowledge but on faith - believe the injection of knowledge into the discussion can only be done by someone who is opposed to the concept of faith.

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

No, our definition of increments of time is a human construct. Time is a linear dimension, and is as much a part of the universe as the three dimensions of space. Causality is the proof time is a real thing.

Time began at the Big Bang, along with the rest of the universe. We can say roughly how many of our arbitrarily selected units of measurement have passed since that event. Simply because our understanding of time relies on human constructs to explain does not mean time itself is a human construct.

If we all agree that it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God/Allah/Zeus/FSM/etc and proof of existence is a logical construct, doesn't that mean we are are all technically agnostics?

Agnostics ask the question "is there a god" and settle not on an answer but that the answer isn't knowable at present (be it time/life/death/dimension/whatever). People want answers to everything to make the world around them make sense. Agnostics simply postulate that we cannot know the answer.

/Atheist
//Technical Agnostic
///Recovering Christian

servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.

My own personal definition of "atheist" is this: Seeing no evidence of the existence of any sort of deity, I choose not to believe in them.
I hold this opinion strongly enough to see all of those who do believe in some deity as somewhat irrational.

Sodium Benzoate: SobrietyFighter: Sodium Benzoate: IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

they just never shut up!

better to shutup than to express your(not your, benzo) ignorance...

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.


How do you make that fantastic leap? I never said any such thing.

All I can do is judge based on myself and my experiences. If you want to play what if? or what about?, than that's fine. I have no beef with you.

servoled: crab66: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong.

Sorry, but by the philosophical definition it is correct. Its only wrong if you are trying to avoid the question by warping the definition to bring in some kind of false middle position, or don't understand the question to begin with.

I would go along with that. A theist believes in one or more gods. An athiest doesn't believe in any gods. Agnostic is different proposition. You can be an Agnostic Athiest - you don't believe in any gods, and you don't think the exist/non-existance of gods is provable by the nature of the definition of a god. You can be a non-Agnostic Athiest - you don't believe in any gods, and you are of the opinion that our knowledge of science already makes the existence of a god impossible (also called a Strong Athiest I think?).

I imagine you could be an Agnostic Theist - you believe in the existence of a god, but don't think it can be proven. Presumably this category would effectively include many of the more inclusive/tolerant religious types (Deists, unitarians, universalists, many anglicans, united reform, quakers, some types of Buddhists, etc.) - not being able to "know" god, it would be silly to demand any specific religious rules or conceptions of gods will are followed, as long as the religion was pointed in the right general direction.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know
--donny

amanogowa: Neither of those definitions supports the statement that everyone not believing in God (or god) is atheist. Your definition even says an atheist has to believe there is no god, which is clarified.

Sigh... "somebody who does not believe in God or deities" is not the same as somebody who "believe[s] there is no god".

give me doughnuts: servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.


In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.

/Being one, I know.
//I've seen a few atheists in my time.

God doesn't believe in me.

Jubeebee: No, our definition of increments of time is a human construct. Time is a linear dimension, and is as much a part of the universe as the three dimensions of space. Causality is the proof time is a real thing.

The Tralfamadorians disagree.

/hello, goodbye, hello, goodbye

TFerWannaBe: Brainsick: Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

As a WoW player with a weak body I *sniff . . sniff*

Nevermind.

Hey! I resemble that!

Atheists are the real fundies.

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

No I didn't. You injected "theism" into the definition of "agnosticism" to distort a fact.

When applied to the concept of theism, an agnostic simply believes the existence of god is unknowable. it does not take a position on either side.

The only reason it's ever equated with atheism is because theists - who operate not on knowledge but on faith - believe the injection of knowledge into the discussion can only be done by someone who is opposed to the concept of faith.

Given the term "agnosticism" is being applied to the belief or lack thereof in the supernatural, it would be logical to assume the reverse, here.

That's weird. Everything in my cubicle has been replaced with an exact replica. I mean, its absolutely indistinguishable from the stuff that was here when I left for lunch.

The Lord certainly does move in mysterious ways!

People who are unsure of stuck in their own beliefs are less open minded.

StaleCoffee: amanogowa: StaleCoffee: 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.

"I don't know if there are supernatural entities, nor do I know that there is proof either way"

It is possible to have neither the opinion that there is a god, nor the opinion that there is no god.

That makes you an agnostic atheist.

No. Atheist by definition have a belief on the existence of non-existence of a deity.

Second Try: Atheists are the real fundies.



What real Fundies may look like

Second Try: Atheists are the real fundies.

/been putting the fun in fundies since 1987.

servoled: amanogowa: Neither of those definitions supports the statement that everyone not believing in God (or god) is atheist. Your definition even says an atheist has to believe there is no god, which is clarified.

Sigh... "somebody who does not believe in God or deities" is not the same as somebody who "believe[s] there is no god".

Sigh... "agnostic" is not the same as "atheist".

rastjr: 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.


How do you make that fantastic leap? I never said any such thing.

All I can do is judge based on myself and my experiences. If you want to play what if? or what about?, than that's fine. I have no beef with you.

Whatever, neither of us is making a point about anything.

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

No I didn't. You injected "theism" into the definition of "agnosticism" to distort a fact.

When applied to the concept of theism, an agnostic simply believes the existence of god is unknowable. it does not take a position on either side.

The only reason it's ever equated with atheism is because theists - who operate not on knowledge but on faith - believe the injection of knowledge into the discussion can only be done by someone who is opposed to the concept of faith.

Given the term "agnosticism" is being applied to the belief or lack thereof in the supernatural, it would be logical to assume the reverse, here.

To clarify that, if you make the claim "God is unknowable" then you are a theist, because for something to be unknowable, it has to exist in the first place.

You're making a logical claim that we cannot know the value of X.

rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats

Das Meister: give me doughnuts: servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.


In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.

/Being one, I know.
//I've seen a few atheists in my time.

I was merely offering my own view of what I consider to be "atheism" in response to someone else's definition. Perhaps what you are expressing is anti-theism.

Das Meister: In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.

That is an atheistic position, however it is not the only atheistic position.

Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

Brain ASSPLODES!

amanogowa:

No. Atheist by definition have a belief on the existence of non-existence of a deity.

That's about the most half assed attempted deflection I've ever seen.

I'm guessing you have a belief about the existence of the non existence of an ice cream shop on the sun, then?

/dismiss

amanogowa: Sigh... "agnostic" is not the same as "atheist".

Not its not... agnosticism relates to a completely different question.

I would say I'm unsure of my own beliefs, I have an idea of what I believe but that doesn't stop me from being incredibly open minded. I try to learn from other people all the time when discussing their point of view regarding religion, death and the afterlife. So even though I DNRTFA I'm calling shenanigans.

Do they have mint chocolate chip?

SobrietyFighter: religion is a ponzi scheme

Talk like that and God will raise your tithe. Since he's not here there's this nice Pastor driving a Cadillac who's happy to take your money - and remember - God loves you (as long as you pay)

All bandwagons lead to stupidity. The Truth can only be found by learning about every side of an issue thoroughly. Labeling yourself such as a atheist/creationist/agnostic/etc... makes you buy into everyone else's take on life. No one labeled group has the complete Truth and even the groups that seem wrong to You always have some Truth because the people in them are only calling it like they see it.

Be understanding of why people believe what they do and you will go far.

i've been asking god to strike me down for a while now. Guess i'm just too tough for him.

StaleCoffee: Given the term "agnosticism" is being applied to the belief or lack thereof in the supernatural, it would be logical to assume the reverse, here.

Wow. That's just...wow.

agnostic = unknowable.

Belief doesn't enter into it.

an agnostic doesn't hold a belief in the supernatural, either way. an agnostic simply thinks you can't know one way or the other other.

I am presently agnostic about whether there are two dinosaurs fighting on a planet 90 million miles from Saturn. That is not to say I have a belief one way or the other; I'm saying I can't know.

give me doughnuts: In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.
I was merely offering my own view of what I consider to be "atheism" in response to someone else's definition. Perhaps what you are expressing is anti-theism.

No. If I am "amoral" I am "without morals". However if I am anti-moral, I would be against the notion of morals. Thus would follow:

Atheism would be equivalent to "absense of god(s)".

Anti-theism would be the opposition to the belief in god(s).

Two completely different things.