It was post #187 on my phone. http://sportstwo.com/threads/233226-Science-and-Religion-questions?p=2981651&viewfull=1#post2981651 It's 199 on my desktop
The "a" doesn't stand for "anti", and it doesn't imply active opposition -- it simply means "without". Asymmetry is a perfect example -- if I am asymmetrical, it doesn't mean I am somehow opposed to symmetry, it just means that I, myself, am lopsided. You may interpret atheism as a "flat out denial", but now you are flat out denying the common interpretation of actual atheists (http://www.atheists.org/content/about-atheism).
I've been here a long time, and other than perhaps Maris I have not seen anyone make the statement that no gods exist. the atheists here don't have anything to prove. also again, if anything is ridiculed it is the bad arguments being used to support belief - not the belief itself.
Yes, that is a reflection of people attempting to change the definition. The more common definition, as seen in more definitions, defines it as a doctrine, or belief in the affirmative that no deity exists. Atheist.com even admits that the longer-term definitions have stated as such.
Without is fine. In any case, the link you give me is atheists denying the definition of atheism as presented in the dictionaries. They even criticize the dictionaries. And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be. It'd be like me claiming to be a Libertarian and that I define Libertarian to mean statist and big government and rigid government control of industry. It just flies in the face of reason
Nobody has anything to prove. But if anybody does, atheists have just as much to prove as theists. I'm pretty sure I've seen many more posters ridiculing the belief. Maybe I'm mistaken.
Ah -- got it. So, when Huxley says that agnosticism is "not a creed, but a method", you don't see any conflict in placing it somehow in-between theism and atheism? By this original definition, "atheism" and "agnosticism" aren't even answering the same question! Later on he expounds further: Where, in that statement, is there anything related directly to belief or disbelief in god?
the trouble is, however you justify it insisting on the definition of atheism as strictly 'strong' isn't of any practical use. non-believers think of the god hypothesis in terms of probability, and the level of probability is very fluid both in general and depending on the definition of god. what view of the probability of the existence of god constitutes atheism? 10%? 1%? .000001%? where do you draw a dividing line that doesn't naturally exist and why? it makes much more sense to use atheism defined as lack of belief in god, which is why it has come to practical use in that way.
"And both positions are based on the belief of something they can't prove." Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Proof, strictly speaking, is limited to formal systems. But have you ever heard of a convergent proof? Rather than speak of proof, which is mostly irrelevant to this topic, better to speak of reasons we have for justifying the holding of the beliefs we have. You're really just repeating your faith in a few old saws that many consider to be rusted relics -- no longer fit for the job of informing us about actual human experience.
I'm not placing agnosticism somehow between theism and atheism. It's neither an irrational belief or disbelief. It's a system, a method, as you say. Objectivism. If there's evidence one way or the other, it suggests you believe what the evidence shows. Currently, there's no evidence that deities exist outside the reality distortion fields between peoples' ears. So you "follow your reason as far as it can carry you" to the point where you can't believe in deities. But the rest is true, too. There's no pretention the conclusion is absolute, nor is there an assertion of some objective truth (e.g. absolute proof of no deity). I consider myself an agnostic. I simply don't see any objective evidence of a deity or deities. No Reason to believe. As someone posted, if a deity came down on a chariot of fire doing godly things (beyond science), then I'd consider it objective evidence of a deity and Reason to believe.
Agnosticism is a lack of belief in god. Why do we need two words to describe the same thing when it comes to philosophy? Like I said and you said, MARIS61 is the only actual atheist who posts here (that I can think of, there may be others I'm overlooking). He simply violently opposes any notion of deity and religion and doesn't offer any Reason for it.
This is the semantic aspect if the argument that is nonproductive. Even if there was some grand, organized movement to shift people to atheism by redefining the word, why in the world shouldn't we allow atheists to define what they stand for? As you point out, dictionary definitions are variable over time and subject to popular usage. Why accept definition A as gospel, but reject definition B as a modern bastardization? If the original usage is the correct one, why do you seem to espouse the modern, popularized definition of "agnostic"?
Well said! I fucking hate that! In fact a true Christian shouldn't be religious at all. Jesus teaches the man without sin cast the first stone. That means that no man on this planet can pass judgement or blame on another; unless of course you are Denny!
Denny.... If humanity had means to travel to the next galaxy that supports life. We land on this planet and meet the indigenous people there. What would you think if we discovered that these people looked exactly like we do? What if these people had identical DNA? Would you believe that our planet's life was designed by a creator?
This is where you are diverging from Huxley's definition. Agnosticism can LEAD to a lack of belief in a god, but it is a method, not a creed!
It's no empirical evidence of a creator. There is some commonality that would need to be investigated. Maybe all intelligent life is human and evolution works that out everywhere the same. So much of animal life here has two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, four limbs, etc. That might be a clue that is the optimal form that life would take anywhere.
Fair enough. Agnostics don't believe in god. I should have stated it better (like I just did). Why don't agnostics believe in god? Because the process doesn't lead them to believe in one.
