fogbat
The Talibum
I''ve borrowed God Delusion but have to finish a Stephen King novel first.
Which says something about my priorities
Imagine you're an evangelical christian.
Now Dawkins's book is a horror, too
Dawkins is no atheist - he's agnostic
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
Imagine you're an evangelical christian.
Now Dawkins's book is a horror, too
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Imagine you're an evangelical christian.
Now Dawkins's book is a horror, too
/Whistling happily
Before i go out and tell the sinners how they are going to hell but i can save them *rosy self satisfied glow* i'll just read a bit of this book i found on the bus.
Oh my god no!
The humanity! I think I'm going to be sick!Just another page... You sick puppy Dawkins!
smmudge
i know the smudge is true
Hmm...but there is a difference between believing there isn't a god and not having a belief about whether there is or isn't. I was taught that 'athiest' literally meant '(the idea of) no god', as in someone who believes there is no god. Whereas you can also be 'not a theist' and be agnostic - someone who neither believes there is nor there isn't a god, someone who is undecided as it were. I always had a suspicion that, as a scientist, Dawkins was agnostic really.
Agnosticism is like pascal's wager [if you reject his final proposition], it involves the assumption that there might be a god [agnostics are quite able to reason as if there is god]. Atheism is simply non-belief in god, not 'lack of' (which corresponds to agnosticism), nor is it necessary to outright claim the non-existence of god... impossible intellectually, but god gets pushed further into the distance.
OTOH Is anyone else agnostic about whether this actually computer simulation?
OTOH Is anyone else agnostic about whether this actually computer simulation?
Wow... didn't know our beliefs could be split up into 2 or 4 or 8 ways so easily!!
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Look, why are you all finding this so difficult? Two dimensions: knowledge and belief. Use this handy chart to locate your position.
dont agree with that.
agnostic atheist is as strong as gnostic theist in my book!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I'm confused as to why the word athesit even exists today, since anyone who even admits to a .000000001% that god *might* exist are labelled agnostic...I mean WTF?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
And I thought it was the other way round ..
Atheist : there probably is not - but there just may be a god
Agnostic : there is no god!
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Is there a z-axis?
please let there be a z-axis
Crispy - dis-believing in 3D
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
OK, I accept your proposal. If you can model it and have the animation online by next Thursday 12 noon, please.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Why did someone teach you that, though? It's wrong. A = not. Theist = believer in God/Gods. It's really one of the simplest words in the world.
Agnostic means 'doesn't know the form of God.' Hence a strong atheist being a gnostic atheist - doesn't believe in God, and has a firm definition of what form of God they don't believe in!
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Dawkins exactly.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Yup!
Riklet
procrastinación
I think Richard Dawkins is a pretty crap philosopher, with an ego the size of a sperm wales' cock (still interesting though!), but surely yes... most atheists are technically agnostic. To identify oneself as lacking any belief in God, regardless of the possibility of any evidence emerging to the contrary etc would be stupid. You're be.... running on faith, which is perhaps not the best place to reject unsubstantiated spiritual stuff from? 
...I guess it does bring into question of "proof" of God. A good "breaking news" on CNN would suffice though, i'm sure?
...I guess it does bring into question of "proof" of God. A good "breaking news" on CNN would suffice though, i'm sure?
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
I think Richard Dawkins is a pretty crap philosopher, with an ego the size of a sperm wales' cock (still interesting though!), but surely yes... most atheists are technically agnostic. To identify oneself as lacking any belief in God, regardless of the possibility of any evidence emerging to the contrary etc would be stupid. You're be.... running on faith, which is perhaps not the best place to reject unsubstantiated spiritual stuff from?
...I guess it does bring into question of "proof" of God. A good "breaking news" on CNN would suffice though, i'm sure?
How does being an atheist - just 'not believing in God/Gods' - mean that you don't believe in God 'regardless of the possibility of any evidence emerging to the contrary'? It just means you don't believe in God/Gods.
Could you please look up the meanings of the words atheist and agnostic before debating about them? Seriously. You could, of course, have read my definition earlier in the thread, but that would entail reading a thread before responding, which you obviously haven't.
Sorry for the angry tone, but really, it's like someone debating the relative merits of apples and oranges and asserting that apples are better because they're purple and squishy. And it's not just you doing that.
I don't know if he always or about every issue lacks this skill, but he surely does when he talks about religion(s).
I fail to get it why some people are so obsessed with and taken by this person, but that's just me. One could of course blame the current (mainly Anglophone) obsession of people with "celebreties" no matter their type, origin or content. However, even the idea to call that person a "celebrety" is in my view going a bridge too far.
salaam.
Similar threads
