Support NeoGAF

[Pollux]

And skepticism?

Not mutually exclusive.

 

[Hartt951]

Critical thinking and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive, despite what fundamentalists and evangelicals would have you believe.

I agree with this fully.

 

[GrizzNKev]

The image you posted has invalidated everything you said. Back to reddit with you.

 

[BocoDragon]

That can still be a problem, but I've found it to be a lot more rare.

The big problem is with how innocuous the a- prefix is. When someone hears that you are something, they instantly group you together with others who claim they are the same thing and proceed to project certain values onto you.

However, when someone hears that you are not something, such as "Not a believer", their reaction is to simply separate you from the believers, rather than to connect you with the non-believers. I find this much more acceptable.

Yeah I agree. Stating a point that is essentially "I don't believe something" is to begin the argument stuck in quicksand, that you have to fight your way out of, combatting a million established belief structures. (as an aside, I've noticed "I believe something" is much less problematic for whatever reason ) I try to avoid that.

In GAF threads, or if someone outright asks "are you atheist", I will answer yes. But in general discourse, if I have the option, I will subversively argue the points without donning a "hat". That's what Tyson was getting at... before he unfortunately (for the sake of quiet ) conceded that he would don the agnostic "hat" if he had to choose

 

[HK-47]

i admittedly did not read the god delusion, but - is this true? i thought Dawkins took a hard atheist stance on there being no gods. anecdotally, the fans i know of him all do.

I'm sure he'd say that many of the existing god concepts are disprovable or not worth considering. But the concept of a deity or creator isnt impossible, is just has no evidence. He doesnt discount it as a possibility, in the same way he doesnt discount that life on earth may have been seeded by aliens.

 

[sangreal]

OK . . . then that Merriam-Webster dictionary listing got it wrong.

I think we can all agree that Richard Dawkins is one of the most outspoken "Atheists" out there. But by his own words in "The God Delusion", he does NOT claim that no god exists. He doesn't believe in a god and he has a strong suspicion that there is no god, but even the most famous atheist in the world will not say "I believe no god exists."

So if the most famous "atheist" doesn't fit the definition, clearly their definition is wrong.

Dawkins believes there is no god. Certainty and belief are not the same thing. Even to that end, he rates himself as 6.9/7 certain that there is no god. He is not a "50-50 likely or unlikely" agnostic, in his own words.

 

[soul creator]

Critical thinking and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive, despite what fundamentalists and evangelicals would have you believe.

I would say they tend to be mutually exclusive. At least, when it comes to that specific topic.

They may very well be vastly more intelligent and amazing critical thinkers in any other area (often enough, when it comes to every *other* god definition), but I've noticed that even the most "intelligent" theologians fall back to woefully bad reasoning when it comes to the specific god they happen to believe in.

Of course, that would make sense, since the initial acquisition of god belief usually has very little to do with "reason" in the first place.

 

[Socreges]

And that is EXACTLY why people want NDT to admit he is an atheist. If the only people to 'come out' as atheists are the brash outspoken politically active ones then that is the FALSE image that gets perpetuated. That is like thinking all gay people are ACT-UP activists if those are the only gay people you've ever heard of.

Is there not an important (and consensus) distinction between an 'agnostic' and an 'atheist'? Is there any use in him identifying as an "agnostic atheist" but to confuse 95% of his audience?

Again, I think he makes two separate points in the video, but doesn't make it particularly clear that they are different (because they are intimately related and because it's a 3-minute video).

 

[speculawyer]

i admittedly did not read the god delusion, but - is this true? i thought Dawkins took a hard atheist stance on there being no gods. anecdotally, the fans i know of him all do.

In the book, he describes himself as a 6.9 out of scale of 7. (1 = believe in god, 7 = believe no god exists)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...awkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

 

[orientalNoodle]

As an atheist, I don't look down, pity, or ridicule religious people, unless they become extremist about their belief. I just accept that their way of seeing the world is different from mine, no matter how I think it is wrong. As for educating younger generations, I will just start with keeping creationism out of school.

 

[NullPointer]

If we're still stuck on semantics can we at least agree that there is a difference between an atheist and an antitheist?

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

Dawkins and Hitchens are anti-theists.

 

[Volimar]

The image you posted has invalidated everything you said. Back to reddit with you.

B-but I got it from GAF...

 

[Pollux]

As an atheist, I don't look down, pity, or ridicule religious people, unless they become extremist about their belief. I just accept that their way of seeing the world is different from mine, no matter how I think it is wrong. As for educating younger generations, I will just start with keeping creationism out of school.

Hey, look, I believe in God...and I agree with you!!!! I can get behind this.

 

[HK-47]

I would say they tend to be mutually exclusive. At least, when it comes to that specific topic.

They may very well be vastly more intelligent and amazing critical thinkers in any other area (often enough, when it comes to every *other* god definition), but I've noticed that even the most "intelligent" theologians fall back to woefully bad reasoning when it comes to the specific god they happen to believe in.

Of course, that would make sense, since the initial acquisition of god belief usually has very little to do with "reason" in the first place.

Careful. Brilliant men like Francis Collins have religious belief. I probably should read his book on his reasoning for holding such a belief.

 

[HK-47]

Dawkins believes there is no god. Certainty and belief are not the same thing. Even to that end, he rates himself as 6.9/7 certain that there is no god. He is not a "50-50 likely or unlikely" agnostic, in his own words.

So he isnt completely certain. He just find it highly unlikely.

 

[GrizzNKev]

B-but I got it from GAF...

Who got it from reddit. OUT!

lol

Black and white vector images with red text are generally an instant sign of annoyance to me. Worse than obnoxious atheists.

 

[soul creator]

Careful. Brilliant men like Francis Collins have religious belief. I probably should read his book on his reasoning for holding such a belief.

Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.

Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.

He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on the day a beautiful nature sighting caused him to convert to Christianity.

 

[speculawyer]

Dawkins believes there is no god. Certainty and belief are not the same thing. Even to that end, he rates himself as 6.9/7 certain that there is no god.

If you are not certain then you don't believe something. It is a binary concept.

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real:


That is the whole point here . . . atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Not a belief that no god exists. Just because he has a high degree probabalistic view in his lack of belief that doesn't mean you can just round it up to 7 for him because that is the way YOU want to pigeonhole him. He doesn't believe that no god exists . . . if he did, he would have said "7". He just really strongly doubts the existence of a god.

 

[sangreal]

So he isnt completely certain. He just find it highly unlikely.

Yes, or put another way, he believes there is no god. Leaving open the possibility he is wrong doesn't change that. Otherwise, you might as well just start calling most churchgoers atheist. That's why they have faith

 

[HK-47]

Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.



He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on that day.

Well...thats something.

 

[BocoDragon]

Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.

Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.

He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on that day.

So anecdote time: I have had similar "religious experiences".

I didn't think it was at all responsible to leap to theistic conclusions just because I had warm fuzzy, all-is-one feelings about the universe being a work of art, or whatever.

If I had been of a different critical mind, or a different cultural context, that would have been a gateway to God-belief for sure. I know what seeing the burning bush, or hearing god in a cave, might feel like But that doesn't give it objective truth.

As an aside, It's pretty easy to short cut to such experiences through meditation or drugs. Sometimes even a nice sunny day...

 

[staticneuron]

But that isn't the meaning of the base term the man added an a prefix to when he coined the term agnostic. He wasn't referring to a lack of ancient religious beliefs, but a lack of knowledge.

Aha, but yes, we get to the crux of the matter. When Huxely coined the term he did so very well knowing the meaning of Gnosis and gnosticism as a religious practice.

Thomas Henry Huxley

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled.

I am very well aware, as I suppose most thoughtful people are in these times, that the process of breaking away from old beliefs is extremely unpleasant; and I am much disposed to think that the encouragement, the consolation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in even the worst forms of Christianity are of great practical advantage to them. What deductions must be made from this gain on the score of the harm done to the citizen by the ascetic other-worldliness of logical Christianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of sectarian bigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit of exclusiveness and domination of those that count themselves pillars of orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by the restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching which every Church exercises, when it is strong enough; to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theological error, and the overpowering terror of possible damnation, which have accompanied the Churches like their shadow, I need not now consider; but they are assuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one side, they gain a good deal on the other. People who talk about the comforts of belief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact that the Christianity of the Churches is something more than faith in the ideal personality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, plus so much as can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society, of the maxims of the Sermon on the Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retractation, or fail to get properly baptized before you die, and a plébiscite of the Christians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds, would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense majority.

Still speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in [311] the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty. And, in so far as these ecclesiastical persons can be justified in their old-established custom (which many nowadays think more honoured in the breach than the observance) of using opprobrious names to those who differ from them, I fully admit their right to call me and those who think with me "Infidels"; all I have ventured to urge is that they must not expect us to speak of ourselves by that title.

Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that [6] existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

Specifically he seemed to coin the term to thumb his nose at gnostic Christians, because to them they do not believe.... they "know" and I guess it got on his nerves. It seemingly amused him when the term took as well.

Anything you cannot know for certain is a belief. You can believe there is a God or you can believe there is no God. Not believing in God is not an absence of belief, it is a different belief.

I can know the world is round(ish) because that can be measured. You cannot measure the lack of a deity, so although you may be certain that there is no God, you are only certain in your belief that there is no God.

Another one who completely turns the simply understanding of "lack of belief of a deity" into a belief system.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Not believing in god IS NOT A DIFFERENT BELIEF it is a lack of one. A different belief implies that there is a competing belief. To make this simple, let us imagine a baby, pure born, learning how to walk. That baby.... is an atheist. The concept for or against faith in a diety has not occurred yet so he may not have a belief structure to begin with. When an idea or proposition hasn't occurred yet, it makes no sense to call the ignorance a belief.

That is just one example. Some may form a stance that a deity doesn't exists, and that is fine because athiesim again means a lack of a belief in a very specific subject, it doesn't mean that atheist don't believe anything at all.

 

[speculawyer]

So anecdote time: I have had similar "religious experiences".

I had a religious experience with a pinball machine when I was on acid. I had become one with the machine. But it really didn't mean anything.

 

[sangreal]

If you are not certain then you don't believe something. It is a binary concept.

False

That is the whole point here . . . atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Not a belief that no god exists.

As demonstrated, this is extremely debatable.

Just because he has a high degree probabalistic view on his lack of belief you can't just round it up to 7 for him because that is the way YOU want to pigeonhole him.

I'm not rounding. Your view that belief requires certainty lacks any basis. If he were certain, he would not need to believe. He would know. That's his point. He does not claim to know that there is no god. He does profess a belief that there is no god

 

[IrishNinja]

Do they? Or is that an assumption?

a fair question, but when i say "fans" I mean people who go where he speaks, read all his books etc - my last roomate was a big member of the miami secular humanists (atheists) group, a few nights of tagging along for free wine made it emphatically clear these specific individuals proudly would identify themselves as a hard 7 on the scale. I don't presuppose that of other atheists i meet for the same reason i think Tyson was on about in the OP's video: their views might be far more nuanced, and that .1 could mean a great deal to said views.

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

good link, SC, can't argue with much of that...though a 6.9 sounds like a gamespot controversy waiting to happen

Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.

He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on the day a beautiful nature sighting caused him to convert to Christianity.

that bit about reason & logic not making many converts is pretty sound, though - spirituality, ideally, would be felt as well, no? i don't really fault the guy (in that i can't, his experience with said waterfall is entirely subjective and it's a philosophical mess for me to critique it), but converting to a very specific ideology from said experience does seem a bit strange.

 

[Hartt951]

Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.


He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on the day a beautiful nature sighting caused him to convert to Christianity.

I did really like what he said about the radical theists and the radical atheists, though. Both are wrong and we shouldn't let them be representative of theists and atheists.

He put it really well I feel.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, or put another way, he believes there is no god. Leaving open the possibility he is wrong doesn't change that. Otherwise, you might as well just start calling most churchgoers atheist. That's why they have faith

No . . . he does not 'believe' there is no god. He strongly doubts the existence of a god because he has seen mountains of evidence that contradicts religious teachings. To believe there is no god would require that 'faith' you speak of which he clearly does not have and thus leaves it at 6.9 out of 7 and not 7.

 

[BocoDragon]

I had a religious experience with a pinball machine when I was on acid. I had become one with the machine. But it really didn't mean anything.

Yup. I think those experiences might impart some sliver of wisdom... like "the universe is a beautiful machine that we are a connected part of" (a statement of poetry)... But to jump to the conclusion that the universe has conscious thinking like a human, or confirms religious traditions, etc etc? It does not. It doesn't change any facts.

 

[sangreal]

No . . . he does not 'believe' there is no god. He strongly doubts the existence of a god because he has seen mountains of evidence that contradicts religious teachings. To believe there is no god would require that 'faith' you speak of which he clearly does not have and thus leaves it at 6.9 out of 7 and not 7.

7 on the scale is "I know god does not exist" knowledge and belief are not the same thing. He operates under the assumption that there is no god (because he thinks there is an extremely small likelihood one exists). That is a belief

 

[Blondie]

This seems to happen from time to time when a scientist attempts to wade into philosophical terrain and gets mud all over their shoes. As to the issue of agnosticism vs. atheism, weak vs. strong and the like, all assume too much. Ignosticism & Theological noncognitivism is where it's at...

 

[HK-47]

This seems to happen from time to time when a scientist attempts to wade into philosophical terrain and gets mud all over their shoes. As to the issue of agnosticism vs. atheism, weak vs. strong and the like, all assume too much. Ignosticism & Theological noncognitivism is where it's at...

awww yeah, getting philosophical up in here

 

[Tonza]

I do agree him with his main point that labels can be really prejudiced. We have a tendency to need labels to classify other people before we know them. This isn't limited to our belief or disbelief in god. Just look at all the terms we have to describe people without really knowing anything about them. (but of course I don't mean that all describing 'labels' are useless)

 

[speculawyer]

False

As demonstrated, this is extremely debatable.

I'm not rounding. Your view that belief requires certainty lacks any basis. If he were certain, he would not need to believe. He would know. That's his point. He does not claim to know that there is no god. He does profess a belief that there is no god

Really?

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real:

True is a pretty simple word. And it does not mean 95% true.


You can't 'know' in this case because it is impossible to disprove! Duh. It is only possible to 'believe' on that 7 out of 7.

 

[sangreal]

Really?

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real:

True is a pretty simple word. And it does not mean 95% true.


You can't 'know' in this case because it is impossible to disprove! Duh. It is only possible to 'believe' on that 7 out of 7.

You skipped the word accept

 

[speculawyer]

7 on the scale is "I know god does not exist" knowledge and belief are not the same thing. He operates under the assumption that there is no god (because he thinks there is an extremely small likelihood one exists). That is a belief

You just keep trying to round up 6.9 to 7 as much as you can.

You want to assign faith to him but he doesn't have it as much as you want to shove it down his throat.

Your "know" bit fell apart because you Russell's teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon, etc.

 

[speculawyer]

You skipped the word accept

And he doesn't accept it . . . just another attempt by you to push it down his throat.

 

[sangreal]

You just keep trying to round up 6.9 to 7 as much as you can.

You want to assign faith to him but he doesn't have it as much as you want to shove it down his throat.

Your "know" bit fell apart because you Russell's teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon, etc.

I'm not rounding, those are his words. 7 means "I know there is no god". I'm not suggesting he is a 7. You seem to be having trouble with the word belief. I can accept something as true (the definition of belief) with any degree of certainty. It's an assumption. Knowledge is a justified belief. I'm not suggesting that he knows there is no god, nobody how many times you say I am.

 

[Future]

All this shit is too complicated. Even the Wikipedia definition of atheism is complicated:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5]

Broad, narrow, inclusive? Wtf?? This is Tysons whole point. The term can range from rejection of a god, to simply lacking the belief. It is too unclear of a term to willingly take it, as it carries too much baggage. So while tons can debate what the hell it really means, he accepts the term agnostic as that is a little more straight forward. He just doesn't know, and hasnt the desire to support either side. When evidence supports something worth talking about, he'll change his mind.

Personally, I believe that most people think of atheism as the rejection of the belief of god, regardless of what anyone wishes they would think.

 

[Socreges]

For the record, Dawkins considers himself to be an agnostic.

I see it as an intellectually necessary stance. He probably has avoided promoting it since he wants to keep the appearance of being strongly against the idea that God exists. Sure enough the moment he said it publicly, Christian sites picked it up and ran with it as if he had been cast with some sudden doubt.

 

[sangreal]

For the record, Dawkins considers himself to be an agnostic.

While at the same time he says he doesn't fit the traditional definition of agnostic. The same thing people are grilling Tyson over in this thread.

I believe that when you talk about agnosticism, it is very important to make a distinction between 'I don't know whether x is true or not therefore it is 50-50 likely or unlikely' and that is the kind of agnostic which I definitely am not.

 

[HK-47]

For the record, Dawkins considers himself to be an agnostic.

I see it as an intellectually necessary stance. He probably has avoided promoting it since he wants to keep the appearance of being strongly against the idea that God exists. Sure enough the moment he said it publicly, Christian sites picked it up and ran with it as if he had been cast with some sudden doubt.

They do that all the time. Like the bullshit about Hitchens or even Darwin renouncing their views upon their deathbed.

 

[RagnarokX]

So Neil DeGrasse Tyson confused terms that aren't mutually exclusive. Gnostic and agnostic refer to knowing or not knowing. Theist and atheist refer to belief in a god or lack of belief in a god. He's an atheist because he does not currently believe in a god due to lack of evidence, and he's agnostic because he does not claim to know that it is fact that there is no god. He's an agnostic atheist. He's bothered by gnostic atheists. I'm bothered by gnostics on both sides

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not rounding, those are his words. 7 means "I know there is no god". I'm not suggesting he is a 7. You seem to be having trouble with the word belief. I can accept something as true (the definition of belief) with any degree of certainty. It's an assumption. Knowledge is a justified belief. I'm not suggesting that he knows there is no god, nobody how many times you say I am.

Well you are just making it into a stupid word game then. You could just as easily say that Richard Dawkins believes god exists because if he "believes" there is a 10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability of that being true then he believes in god. Dawkins believes in god!

BTW, I never said you suggested he knows there is no god. I told you that it is impossible to know such a thing so how could I suggest that? Duh. 7/7 = Believes no god exists.

Did you bother to watch the video?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...m-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

 

[IrishNinja]

This seems to happen from time to time when a scientist attempts to wade into philosophical terrain and gets mud all over their shoes. As to the issue of agnosticism vs. atheism, weak vs. strong and the like, all assume too much. Ignosticism & Theological noncognitivism is where it's at...

i've never heard of either of these before, good links man. reading Ignosticism...it's so plainly obvious that the concept of god has to be resolved before the question of existence, too. that should be the first rule, but we assume so much.

years back when i first discovered the problem of evil, i was sharing it with a friend (he's more theist than anything else) and he got into the notion of: what if a creator being only had enough power to get the ball of evolution rolling, but nothing beyond that? i think xenogears kinda hinted at it as well. anyway, we spent the rest of the time (and years since) getting into the concept of a personal relationship with god, and how it's a pretty western thing to assume any being devoid of that (empathy for my plight, etc) isn't really worth discussing, much less "worshiping". anyway, you know what's good? weed.

 

[sangreal]

Well you are just making it into a stupid word game then. You could just as easily say that Richard Dawkins believes god exists because if he "believes" there is a 10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability of that being true then he believes in god. Dawkins believes in god!

No, because he does not live his life under the assumption that there is a god. Or that there might be. He lives his life under the assumption that there is no god. Assuming something to be true without certainty is the definition of belief. I'm not putting words in his mouth, this is literally what a 6 means on his scale:

I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

BTW, I never said you suggested he knows there is no god. I told you that it is impossible to know such a thing so how could I suggest that? Duh. 7/7 = Believes no god exists.

But that's not what 7 means, in Dawkin's words. It means "I know there is no God" even if it is impossible to achieve that level

Did you bother to watch the video?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...m-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

Yes, that would be why I keep quoting it

 

[AAequal]

I'm not knocking him, I just wish people would start with him, and expand themselves and realize there are plenty of great guys in the Physics community like him.

Late reply: Who? There are fellas like Krauss, Rees, Greene, Kaku and Brian Cox but only one comes even close to Neil when we are talking about public speaking and that's Brian Cox. I admit that Neil is bit melodramatic(not sure if that's the word i'm looking) for my taste but he is still far the best in game. Also Brian's mop hair bugs the shit out of me. I guess Michio Kaku is also ok but him talking about Fukushima was just awful. Neil isn't very thought-provoking popular-science writer but out in public he is the numero uno at this point.

 

[Mumei]

Can we agree that Dawkins is a douchebag?

Nope.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm a non-supernaturalist.

 

[ultim8p00]

Just so people understand, agnosticism is not a declaration of religion. It always irks me when people say "I'm Agnostic" as if that's a thing to be. It shouldn't be used as a noun.

If I'm at work and my wife tells me she'll be home at 3pm, I will probably believe her. But I don't "know" that she is actually at home at that time since I am not actually seeing her. At this point, I am agnostic about her being at home. I believe she is home because she told me so, but I do not know. If I was suspecting her of cheating, I could also believe that she is not at home, but rather at some other guy's place. Regardless, I would still be agnostic about her whereabouts since I am at work and I cannot see her.

So when Christians say things like "the things of God are unknowable/do not make sense," they are claiming that they believe in God, but do not know how to prove what they believe. That is, they cannot see God, or they cannot prove that a miracle is indeed a miracle. They are being Agnostic. Though they don't realize it, the majority of Christians are actually Agnostic, except the more outlandish ones who claim to have seen God/spoken to him etc.

The same applies to Atheists. If I believe that God does not exist, and I think I have no way of proving it, then I am Agnostic. Again, most Atheist are Agnostic, except the outlandish ones who claim that God will never exists/we will never have evidence of God's existence/we know everything about reality and the universe.

Basically, most rational people are agnostic because most rational people are open to evidence that proves or disproves either religious stance. However, in the absence of evidence, they will fall into one stance depending on environmental factors.

 

[Timedog]

I like this NullPointer fellow. I enjoy his posts.