By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Obama talks Atheism in the US and Science

WolfpackN64 on 09 November 2016
Nem said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I still don't agree with your defiition of agnosticism.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic?jss=0

"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."


I don't know what your definition is, but it is clear its not the same as that one.

It's nearly similar, but most people see Agnosticism as a temporary situation, not something permanent (even though that exists too). It means being temporary in the unknown, and that doesn't place you in any camp.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 09 November 2016
AbbathTheGrim said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I still don't agree with your defiition of agnosticism.

An Agnostic is an Atheist by default, on the meantime, open to change in the hypthetical case that evidence in the existance of some sort of god or gods is found.

An Agnost is by default agnostic, stop trying to put us one way or another.



AbbathTheGrim on 09 November 2016
WolfpackN64 said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

An Agnostic is an Atheist by default, on the meantime, open to change in the hypthetical case that evidence in the existance of some sort of god or gods is found.

An Agnost is by default agnostic, stop trying to put us one way or another.

You telling me to stop doing something, how cute. :)



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Nem on 09 November 2016
SpokenTruth said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I believe in an afterlife and I think there are higher powers between all living things.

That's close to agnostic theism.  A pure agnostic doesn't hold a position on an afterlife or higher power. 

Agnosticism is a factor of knowledge.
Theism is a factor of belief.

Therefore an agnostic theist doesn't claim to explicity know if a god or afterlife exists or not but believes they do.

That is completely contradictory.

Agnoticism is the lack of belief. You can't have a lack of belief and a belief at the same time. That is impossible. He is not Agnostic. As much as he or you would like to twist the term.

AbbathTheGrim said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I still don't agree with your defiition of agnosticism.

An Agnostic is an Atheist by default, on the meantime, open to change in the hypthetical case that evidence in the existance of some sort of god or gods is found.

Have been trying to get that point across for a while now. ^^

There is obviously alot of problems with the definition of the terms around here. I think they pick Agnostic just because they think its like "neutral choice" where you can pick and choose what you want. Wich is not exactly what it is.



Nem on 09 November 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Nem said:

That is completely contradictory.

Agnoticism is the lack of belief. You can't have a lack of belief and a belief at the same time. That is impossible. He is not Agnostic. As much as he or you would like to twist the term.

Agnosticism/gnosticism isn't belief, it's knowledge.   Theism/atheism is belief.   I'm not twisting the terms.  Look them up.

An agnostic doesn't know if a god exists.
A gnostic knows a god exists.

An atheist doesn't believe a god exists.
A theist believes a god exists.

The differences may seem trivial or just semantics but they actually have very different and profound meanings.

I linked the term above... i don't need to look it up because i already did. Because it is knowledge is has no place for belief. Oh now we have gnostic aswell? How cute.

I did look it up for you though: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gnostic?s=t

noun

4.
(initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

Hmm... not exactly what you say it is. Actually it seems to be more commonly used as an adjective (first 3 points).
How is this based on knowledge? It is completely contradictory. This is NOT knowledge. This is belief. A Gnostic and a Theist are the same exact thing. Just like Agnostic and Atheist are the same thing aswell.

Let me add this because you obviously have issues on this definition aswell:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/knowledge

noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:

As in... just cause you claim to know something out of thin air, it doesn't mean you actually have knowledge.

Either way, he is not an agnostic. Even with you definitions he would be Gnostic... wich in the end it means he is a theist. He just doesn't want to pick a religion, wich is totally understandable because it opens his belief to criticism and contradiction.

For the sake of arguement, there is knowledge of human nature, wich is basically the "feelings". Its not real knowledge. In case you wanted to bring that up.


Around the Network
Nem on 09 November 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Nem said:

I linked the term above... i don't need to look it up because i already did. Because it is knowledge is has no place for belief. Oh now we have gnostic aswell? How cute.

I did look it up for you though: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gnostic?s=t

noun

4.
(initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

Hmm... not exactly what you say it is. Actually it seems to be more commonly used as an adjective (first 3 points).
How is this based on knowledge? It is completely contradictory. This is NOT knowledge. This is belief. A Gnostic and a Theist are the same exact thing. Just like Agnostic and Atheist are the same thing aswell.

Let me add this because you obviously have issues on this definition aswell:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/knowledge

noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:

As in... just cause you claim to know something out of thin air, it doesn't mean you actually have knowledge.

Either way, he is not an agnostic. Even with you definitions he would be Gnostic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/Agnostic-Dictionary/g/Agnostic-Theism-Dictionary-Definition.htm

http://www.stanleycolors.com/2013/07/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-simple-guide-to-know-what-the-hell-you-are/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/distinguishing-the-atheist-agnostic-the-theist-gnostic-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/

Absolute nonsense. When an article claims that an atheist is someone who doesnt believe in gods it is not accurate in the least. Atheism has no beliefs. It is a ridiculous concept to say it has. Those definitions are incorrect.

You should start by finding neutral links instead of going through religious or atheist sites who make claims and can be complete hoaxes.



Paperboy_J on 09 November 2016
Nem said:
WolfpackN64 said:

There is a difference between being agnostic and atheistic. Your oversimplification isn't very correct.

I didnt say there wasnt. But it really is ridiculous. If you are Agnostic you know there is not reason to believe there is a god. The Atheist just goes a step further and concludes that the absense of proof actually can conclude a probable absense of a God. Because as an agnostic knows, there is no reason to believe he exists.

Disproving something that doesn't exist is impossible. So sure, if you want to pretend there is a middle ground go ahead. But its just a position where you refuse to draw a conclusion.

The same postition can be said about a teapot orbiting Mars. Is there a teapot orbiting mars? We don't know until we have proof. But you know there isnt one.

So, yes my conclusion, wich isnt a simplication, is an observation on the obvious conclusion that the agnostic refuses to take a stand on to try and keep a semblance of some "neutrality". But quite honestly, i find it a bit disonest.

I've never been a fan of this way of thinking.  Life isn't so black and white.  For one thing, a teapot is small, simple.  You're comparing something small like a teapot to the divine creator of all that exists, which is silly.  And that's the difference: nobody CARES if there's a teapot orbiting Mars.  It's a friggin' teapot!  We can't see it with our eyes, so that's reason enough to believe it's not there.  And that goes for unicorns, elves, or whatever else you want to throw into the mix.  They're small, insignificant, and ultimately don't matter.  But God is a different story.

And second, I believe you CAN disprove God's existance.  You just have to explain how a universe can create itself.  How is something born out of absolute nothingness?  Explain the process.  Explain how that works, how that can happen.  When you can explain how a universe creates itself without any outside cause whatsoever, you will have disproven God!



AbbathTheGrim on 09 November 2016
Paperboy_J said:

I've never been a fan of this way of thinking.  Life isn't so black and white.  For one thing, a teapot is small, simple.  You're comparing something small like a teapot to the divine creator of all that exists, which is silly.  And that's the difference: nobody CARES if there's a teapot orbiting Mars.  It's a friggin' teapot!  We can't see it with our eyes, so that's reason enough to believe it's not there.  And that goes for unicorns, elves, or whatever else you want to throw into the mix.  They're small, insignificant, and ultimately don't matter.  But God is a different story.

And second, I believe you CAN disprove God's existance.  You just have to explain how a universe can create itself.  How is something born out of absolute nothingness?  Explain the process.  Explain how that works, how that can happen.  When you can explain how a universe creates itself without any outside cause whatsoever, you will have disproven God!

Prove that your god came out of nothing. You can explain how your god didn't need a creator. How is your god born out of nothingness? Explain the process. Explain how that works, how that can happen. When you can explain and prove how a god creates itself without any outside cause whatsoever and how that is not possible for the Universe, then you can say the Universe and what may lie beyond can't be the result of forces of nature happening.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

m_csquare on 09 November 2016
AbbathTheGrim said:
!

Prove that your god came out of nothing. You can explain how your god didn't need a creator. How is your god born out of nothingness? Explain the process. Explain how that works, how that can happen. When you can explain and prove how a god creates itself without any outside cause whatsoever and how that is not possible for the Universe, then you can say the Universe and what may lie beyond can't be the result of forces of nature happening.

So are you gon explain how force of nature come to exist in the first place?

 

Ironically, the most famous theory abt the origin of the universe, the big bang theory, actually came from a priest. Seriously, this debate of creationism is not gon take both parties anywhere.



Locknuts on 09 November 2016

I agree 100% with Obama in this interview.