Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

I corrected him about one thing (twice), which did indeed happen more than once. Not understanding the word "just" is amazing.
There were two things he got wrong, though (making my total 2). My phrase, and the fact that he didn't realize I agreed with his position that I'm an atheist.
If you really want to get particular, three things (I was aware of but ignored this one while counting);
He doesn't know that being an agnostic anything in religion separates you from dogmatic belief. I admitted my "flub" by saying I should've added atheist to my assertion of agnosticism, but my point remains that agnostic doesn't mean atheist, despite Xyle muddying the whole thing up with his wonderful control of English.
In those regards, did I snap back too hard or just enough?

Yes, Buddhism used to be quite violent. Dalai Lamas were killed for acting in a way not conducive to leading their religious followers (i.e. embezzling, sleeping around, etc.), and the monks attending them tended to stab them to death. It's very interesting to turn the clock back and see how physically violent most things were.

That's why I say I'm agnostic, because I really don't. Considering the most a person can learn about the universe regards things they actually perceive and can be verified by consensus, adding "THERE'S STUFF YOU CAN'T SEE BUT IT'S THERE AND I KNOW WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO SAVE YOU...!" Is dumb. Quantify God and I'll be satisfied.

Nothing I read in The Teachings of the Buddha ever mentioned it was ok to do any of those violent things you mentioned. I don't think those "Buddhists" were actually what they claimed, but simply didn't want a competition of ideas. As awesome as Zen Buddhists were in Japan, they too were pretty violent. Samurai class + Religion = Murder during meditation. But, it looks pretty cool.

 

I admitted that I misunderstood your phrase. To be precise I mis-read "X isn't just possible" as "X just isn't possible" - which I think is a fairly excusable error to make while parsing a sentence, especially since your whole post was arguing that you're an agnostic so it makes more sense in context for you to say that the reason you are agnostic is that you don't believe it is possible to disprove the existence of God.

Anyway, as it turns out, you were saying you're an agnostic atheist, which is fine, but it means you're an atheist, which is what I originally said.

In fact, nobody who has seriously considered the matter says that there is 100% definitely no creator or God-like being, so ALL atheists are agnostic atheists. In the case of atheism, the qualifier "agnostic" doesn't really add any value. You might as well call yourself a "well duh" atheist. Even Richard Dawkins, portrayed as close-minded by people who don't like being told the truth, admits that he can't say for sure that some kind of God doesn't exist - he only maintains that none of the specific Gods described by religions exist, and therefore the concept is not worth wasting any time on.

Except on the internet, obviously, where everything is worth wasting time on.

 

Yes, it is. You kept driving that point home after I agreed with you, and you're still doing it now. Do you often beat dead horses?

On top of that, my point was that Xyle used an oversimplification of "You can't prove something doesn't exist" (which itself is false) and also erroneously called God a "negative," meaning the idea could be quantified and proven either true or false. What I ended up saying is what you read and misinterpreted, and I went further to say such a lofty concept can't be proven or disproven by a human mind. My whole post may have helped further my point of being agnostic, but even in that context, given the example I gave, wouldn't that give you enough motive to re-read the sentence you misinterpreted to make sure you knew what I was saying? You've obviously done it before in previous discussions with me and were right on the ball. I feel that past experience lead you to assume I'd be that way forever.

The majority of atheists you know happen to be agnostic as well? Good for you. The majority I know are dogmatic...I think it has to do with living in the US (the only safe position is to be diametrically opposed - with religious fervor). One in particular is a herpetologist, and whenever people even attempt to bring something spiritual into the equation he goes into a rage and says "WHEN PEOPLE DIE, THEY ROT IN THE GROUND! THERE IS NOTHING AFTER YOU DIE BUT GASSES RELEASED WHEN YOU DECOMPOSE!"
If someone interjects with a "But...!" He goes on a tangent of "NOTHING!"
Apparently, due my views on the matter, I give theists too much credit.

But, if saying "God does exist" sounds ridiculous to an atheist, then "God does not exist" should sound easily as ridiculous. Why? The definition of God is unknown. You can't say an unknown exists or does not exist, because you don't know. Now, this will change when a sufficient argument comes into play for either side, but for now...nothing.

There's no one definition of a person's atheist views, and generalizing anything is harmful both to the speaker and the group they're generalizing. Now, despite me saying that, I too make generalizations. Everybody does. Having said that, not all atheists are agnostic. There's weak and strong definitions of atheist, among other superfluous descriptors (noncognitivistic, et al). I fall into the weak variety, among those who are either;

Imbeciles

Infants

People who have never heard of God and can't readily adhere to any theistic views (which could also be infants or imbeciles)

People who actually look into the issue at hand and can say, with confidence, they can't know.

All of these don't deny the possibility because they just don't know.
Strong atheists are dogmatic and essentially religious in their devotion. Dogmatic atheism is just as much a religion as anything literally called such, hence "dogma."

 

Atheism cannot be equated to a religion in any sense. Just because someone has strong views, or gets worked up about it, you can't say "ahh, that's just like religion". Because it isn't. Atheism is the absence of religious belief, by definition. Just as "quiet" is not a sound, and "stationary" is not a movement, so "atheism" is not a religion.

Your herpetologist friend is correct, and I don't see what that has to do with God, which you say is undefined. He seems to be arguing against persistence of consciousness after death. If you think that makes him a "dogmatic atheist" as opposed to an "agnostic atheist" then, well, good for you, but if you probe his views further I expect you'll find he's using "NOTHING" as linguistic short-hand for "no evidence for whatever it is you're currently suggesting".

And sure, I don't know your friend, but the thing is - even if he isn't it's still an irrelevant difference anyway. It's like arguing about "0.9999 recurring" and "1". Yes, you might find something weird happens at the zillionth decimal place, but even if it does - who cares? It makes no difference if we call it "1", so let's just do that and get on with our lives.

 

Atheism is specifically defined in the dictionary and by weak atheists as the apparent lack of any gods, not as denial of religion. Based on this, an atheist may say theistic religions aren't based on anything, but the word means "No God" or "Without God." The organization of American Atheists will indeed refute me, but they're just as close minded as a bunch of zealots.

If you want to get really particular, "The belief in no gods" as pertaining to the word atheism, and "people who believe in no gods" as atheists.

I'm an atheist, but I follow the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism because neither require the existence of any number of revered gods, but the knowledge that there are things I will never understand about the universe. Both direct thoughts of morality inward and not towards some incomprehensible image of an ultimate being that surreptitiously controls all aspects of our lives, with an occasional "AHA! I saved that one dying child out of millions who die each day. That means I'm here."

My herpetologist friend was indeed referring to God, Heaven, and Hell. Also to the concept of ghosts/spirits. He's a person who believes eventually, science will answer every pertinent question. It can't. And he maintains that belief with religious adamance.

If a fifth of the planet is atheist, and a portion of those people aggressively attack theistic beliefs as people with theistic beliefs attack atheism in general, then yes. It's a religion, and the thought processes of dogmatic atheists are just as delusional as the belief in a conceivable God. In fact, there are atheists who follow Pastafarianism and there's the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but mainly to prove a point. It's a religion in that "There is no god/are no gods; logic and reason are the answer to everything" as opposed to "There is only one god/there are many gods, logic and reason don't apply." This is all personal bias, but "The proof of god(s) existing/not existing can't be known, things can happen without rhyme or reason."

But, you're right. With your constant adherence to the thought that all people within a group called the same broad term actually think exactly the same thing, this whole situation is indeed similar to the difference between .9 recurring and 1 (though nothing interesting does happen at the billionth place, because they're all nines - the point is negligible difference due to an infinite sequence of ever smaller nines). You know, since sweeping generalizations never hurt anybody.

 

Worldview ≠ religion, Gross.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pWdd6_ZxX8c?version=3&amp;hl=pl_PL&amp;rel=0&showinfo=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pWdd6_ZxX8c?version=3&amp;hl=pl_PL&amp;rel=0&showinfo=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Religion affects people's worldview pretty drastically. Wouldn't anything a person believes that strongly affect their worldview similarly to a religion? And then, wouldn't adherence to that belief in opposition to all others be considered a form of religion?

Would you say science/logic/otherwise inherent rationality is relied on by humans to aid in control of our destiny? That's another aspect of a religion, because we don't control the results. They control us. Notice how there are several atheist organizations all over the world? Having such an institution is indicative of religion, given the applicable definitions. I won't say I'm absolved of religious culpability, considering I follow the teachings of two and my worldview is colored by those two things as well as my constant skepticism.

Religion. Note that the first definition says it especially applies to creation by a superhuman or many superhumans; this is only because most religions contain revered gods. The only ones that don't apply are anything relating to monks/nuns. Question everything, or you're exercising faith in some regard.

"Where's the proof for that proof?" It's simply extremely easy to verify science, but that doesn't mean it can do everything - and like everything else, taking it for granted is foolhardy. If you don't ask questions regarding science, science has become your God. Now, while the origin of the word was used to directly describe named religions, it originated at around the 10th-11th centuries, and literally means "binding conscientiousness".

If you honestly believe it's possible to answer every question there is about the universe, know that's delusional. It isn't possible to know everything, to have perfect knowledge. There's an information paradox that directly applies
to this;

The more you learn, the more questions there are to be answered, and therefore, the less you know.

If you don't believe what I've said, do your own research (like I do every damn day, for hours). I'm not paid to teach you guys a thing, though it's now satisfying to disagree.

 

There are people out there who religiously worship cake. Doesn't automatically define cake as a religion.

I can see you have great faith that not every question about the universe can be answered. I question that belief.

 

It's not faith, you personally experience proof of this by learning as much as you can about one thing/multiple things and realizing there's more about that thing/those things you don't know. Sometimes it just comes in the form of another person telling you a different way to brew beer, other times it's when you're doing your own research into brewing beer and you get a book specifically about water's mineral content and what effects those minerals have on PH, what the minerals bind to when the water's combined with something, and so forth. You think very basic beer is just 3 basic ingredients, but there are hundreds of varieties of the first two, and the last seemingly simple one is more complex than anything about the first two combined by scores. There will be more ways to make beer in the future than today, and you won't survive to see how the craft evolves. Even then, the past will be lost and certain methods will disappear (hopefully the method to make Bud/Miller/Coors etc.) Information simultaneously is lost and advances, and even with that advance in breadth there's still more to know. Within the effective period of life living within this universe, no one sentient mind will know everything. What we know about ancient greece? It comes from a single volume of a gigantic encyclopedia lost to the river of time. That can't be recovered. You won't ever know it unless you make a trip through time and space. You won't know what people speaking 500 years ago sounded like, among various other knowledge deficiencies unrecoverable by science due to happening millions/billions of years ago.

You're also giving the human mind too much credit. There are limits to comprehension and memory storage, and even a human's ability to perceive such information. Do you believe all knowledge in the universe currently and within the future can be contained within the current estimate of memory storage within the brain?

 

Your firing your cannons at a straw man. The stated opinion is that all questions about the universe can be scientifically answered, not that scientists are or ever will be able to answer them all.

 

I probably should've worded that better when I initially said it. In saying that, I implied that it was impossible for scientists to answer every question, though given my impression of things and a near constant migraine, I think I may be able to defend my position as worded and not as implied. **You're.

Given I don't have a conception of alien scientists, I was specifically referring to human based science (which is my bad, considering I don't know what aliens look like or do). And, you know, conditions present in this current universe, not ideal conditions in a hypothetical universe that had always been populated solely by sentient observational creatures that wrote everything down and didn't have wars about religion, which would result in the information being lost forever.

Sure, it's possible to scientifically answer every question in the universe under those unrealistic conditions. But, even they would have trouble doing much writing during a time of such great energy density that subatomic particles couldn't form atoms, which means they'd have a gap of nothing for about 377,000 years, the current estimate of when atoms finally began forming. I don't think leptons, quarks, protons, neutrons, or electrons can write.

This would probably imply that not every question within this or that "ideal" universe can be answered scientifically, provided it has a similar beginning to ours, or that it is possible within a fantasy universe that has a completely different set of physics and sentient life that cared more about science than the primal need to survive before the whole thing starts. You know, intelligent life that exists beyond space and time and actually wants to answer questions.

Barring that, no. Every question can't be answered by science because there's a limit on how well questions can be answered without complex molecules that wouldn't form until after the deaths of massive stars, which would in turn allow life under its own ideal conditions, and would after billions of years lead to life that can create a scientific method. It's a mere technicality.

 

Rephrasing, the stated opinion was that each and every occurrence in the universe has a scientific explanation, whether or not there are any scientists around to put it in words.

 

If something occur in the universe and there are no scientists around to prove it, does it still happen?

 

To avoid being accused of double-posting, I'll only answer that question if there were any scientists around to prove that you wrote it.

 

You're floundering. I understood that much from your second assertion, but your point is moot. There would need to be someone/thing there to give the scientific explanation, and there are specific points in the past even in our best estimates where physics break down. This means the explanation would need to be given by a scientist outside of space and time who actually knew how to describe points in time with unrecognizable physical laws, and could literally work without sensory input from its subject.

This, in turn, qualifies wobbler's comment even further than your own post. Sure, falling observed trees make noise, so it would make sense for an unobserved tree to make it as well. However, the entire universe is much bigger and more complex than a falling tree, and we've only been observing it seriously within the past 500 years...in the face of 13.7 billion years within the past. Scientific explanation requires observation, and you're asking me to admit it's possible for a scientific explanation to exist without scientists.

Your position is ridiculous, as was my super-scientist big bang triggerer position earlier in the thread. The point gets weaker with additional conditions.

 

I agree with God.

I mean, Muro.

 

I think you failed to comprehend the idea of an agnostic theist that I mentioned before. Agnosticism deals the ability to prove that God exists, and not the question of whether or not God exists.

People who define Faith as "blind" believe that you cannot prove that God exists; therefore, you must have faith. Atheists are those that do not have faith while theists are those that do have faith. Therefore, all who define Faith as "blind" are agnostic in the question of whether or not you can prove God exists.

I do not believe that Faith is blind: First, you are blind. Second, you are granted faith. Then, Faith grants sight (i.e. experiences). I have experienced things that I cannot prove to others because they are unwilling to experience them, but that doesn't make the experiences invalid. (e.g. If I am unwilling to travel to Africa because I believe that it does not exist and that every trip to Africa is nothing more than confidence trick, then you cannot prove to me Africa exists because I can claim that every evidence that you provide is fake.) Therefore, my position is that I cannot prove to those without faith that God exists because of their unbelief.

I consider myself to be an agnostic theist (with qualifications) because I cannot prove to the unbeliever that God exists.

The ether (medium thru which light travels) was redefined as electromagnetic fields which proved that old understanding was incorrect. Therefore, in layman's terms it was proved to be nonexistent when in actually scientific understanding changed.

 

Sweet, the thread has already degenerated into arguing over semantics/definitions.

My only disappointment is that it took 3-4 pages to get here.

 

I find that a rather strange way to type "Clearing up when your interlocutor doesn't recognise what your point is".

That is all.