/sci/ - Science & Math

Finaly some one that understands Atheism.

It can also be defined as the belief in the lack of a god, or a rejection of theism.

90% of sci is agnostic so stop bothering trolling

Christianity

The belief in a god and a jesus

>>1265126
There are probably a lot of christians, seeing as how the religion threads are rarely an atheist circlejerk

>>1265126
90% of /sci/ is retarded?

>>1265122
That would be gnostic atheism.

>>1265132

>doesn't know the difference between legitimate christians and trolls

>>1265122
or angry puberty

>>1265122
Anything can be defined as anything. Doesn't mean it actually reflects reality.

>>1265134
There is no such thing as gnostic atheism. Gnosticism is the belief in an imperfect creator

>>1265147
gnos·tic
–adjective
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

You are wrong.

>>1265161
The 'strong/weak' atheist terms are better. Gnostic isn't a word that makes sense combined with atheism

THE WORD LACK HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATION. THAT IMAGE IS MISLEADING AND BIASED.

>>1265186

no

>>1265176
You are wrong.
Gnostic (lowercase) is the claim of certainty. Gnostic theists know there is a god. Gnostic atheists know there is no god. Both of those positions are irrational, on the theist's side because there is no evidence for any gods, and on the atheist's side because you can't prove a negative except by contradiction. Gnostic theists make a positive claim that god does not exist. Gnostic atheists make a positive claim that no gods exist.
Agnosticism (lowercase again) is a statement of uncertainty. Science is agnostic about its theories. An agnostic theist believes in god and admits they may be mistaken. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god, and admits he might be mistaken. The theist is again making a positive statement, but in his case he might now have sufficient personal justification that his belief for the moment isn't irrational. The atheist is making no claim, and remains unconvinced by positive theistic claims.

Gnostic when capitalized is the name of a religion. Don't let the homonyms confuse you. The words mean different things.

>>1265176
You are wrong.
Gnostic (lowercase) is the claim of certainty. Gnostic theists know there is a god. Gnostic atheists know there is no god. Both of those positions are irrational, on the theist's side because there is no evidence for any gods, and on the atheist's side because you can't prove a negative except by contradiction. Gnostic theists make a positive claim that god exists. Gnostic atheists make a positive claim that no gods exist.
Agnosticism (lowercase again) is a statement of uncertainty. Science is agnostic about its theories. An agnostic theist believes in god and admits they may be mistaken. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god, and admits he might be mistaken. The theist is again making a positive statement, but in his case he might now have sufficient personal justification that his belief for the moment isn't irrational. The atheist is making no claim, and remains unconvinced by positive theistic claims.

Gnostic when capitalized is the name of a religion. Don't let the homonyms confuse you. The words mean different things.

>>1265200
Agnostic isn't the opposite of gnostic. Gnostic doesn't just mean 'knowledge', if it did it would be in contexts outside of religion.

Gnostic refers to mystical knowledge, divine knowledge imparted to a mystic. Agnostic can be used to refer to a neutral approach to a subject, but gnostic isn't used to indicate a partisan or biased view. Just because they have similar constructions doesn't mean they can be applied the same way.

>>1265209
see
>>1265161
from THE DICTIONARY.
You are wrong.

>>1265212
Yeah, I read the dictionary definition and took it into account.

Don't diss agnostics.

I don't defend agnosticism because I harbor a belief in a deity, in fact I downright do NOT.. some people would rope me in as a specific sub-type of atheist actually. Agnostics pretty much are actually from most standpoints. Whatever the case of definition, my defining explanation would be that I think that we cannot (currently) scientifically prove if a deity exists or not. Since I see no evidence for one, I don't believe in one. BUT, and that's a big but, that doesn't mean that a deity cannot theoretically exist just because we cannot currently detect it or explain how it would work. Even though I really, really fucking doubt that there's any kind of god, just to be technically/argumentatively sound, one needs to cover one's ass verbally with rational logic in order to differentiate oneself from having any kind of blind belief/conclusion. THAT is the root of agnosticism, because argumentatively/rationally that is more technically sound. Not by much, but still, it is a far more elegant statement of opinion than the usual simplicity we're used to hearing. I know most people think to themselves "I don't really need to articulate why god can't exist, that alone is almost an insult to my intelligence", however true that is it still is not technically sound logic. Yeah I'm kind of anal about the logic thing, but whatever, you should be too.

Maybe in the future, if we have a unified physics theory and a complete picture of our past, I bet that we can pretty much rule out any kind of deity from being possible (as if we haven't totally done that today.. I'd say that we practically have). But, complete disproof (as in good enough to get religion to stop existing in our race, what an awesome thought) hasn't come upon us, not yet. So, don't jump the gun and skip to conclusions, after all, that's what religious people do.

>>1265209
There is also Agnostic (capitalized noun) the religious non-affiliation which makes a positive claim that the question of god is unanswerable. Again, don't confuse it with agnostic (lowercase adjective).

>>1265219
This is the position of the agnostic atheist.

>>1265217
Read it again until you find the first definition.

>>1265224
I don't think there's such a thing as an agnostic atheist.

If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter if you're not 100% sure or can't prove it.
If you choose not to or are unable to decide whether god exists or not, you're agnostic

>>1265227
So tell me how "pertaining to knowledge" leads to "making a positive claim".

When we talk about knowledge in general we use the words 'knowledge' or 'know'. Gnostic/agnostic have the same root, but are used in a religious context. Agnostic has entered the general lexicon in recent times, but the word 'gnostic' refers only to spiritual knowledge, something that is incompatible with atheism.

>>1265230
If you don't know, then you don't know. I don't know if there's a god or not. But I don't believe there is. So I'm atheist. I'm not convinced there isn't, so I'm agnostic.

>>1265241
The claim is that you know god doesn't exist. This is different from mere lack of belief. It's a belief in itself.

>>1265242
If you know what you believe, the 'agnostic' is meaningless. Nobody can be 100% sure of the existence of god, but they have beliefs regardless.

>>1265257
I don't have a belief. Theists claim there is a god. Their arguments are flawed and unsupported by evidence, so I don't accept them. There might in fact be a god, but until there's evidence, I have no belief in one. There's also no evidence that there isn't one. On the basis of rejecting the theistic claim, I am atheist. On the basis of not making a claim of knowledge, I am agnostic.

>>1265270
Holding the opinion that there is no god/supernatural power is a belief.

>>1265277
I don't hold that opinion. Atheists merely lack the belief in god. Actively believing there isn't one is the gnostic claim.

>>1265282
Belief doesn't have to be supernatural or unverifiable.

>>1265288
Your source for definitions became non-credible just now for suggesting that something untestable can be a theory.

>>1265294
The -ism suffix indicates a belief or theory. Being an atheist implies that you believe religious claims to be invalid.

>>1265288
>>1265294
a·the·ist
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010

a·the·ist
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2009

>>1265299

a·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

a·the·ism
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2009

Both gnostic and agnostic definitions are included.

>>1265308
And neither conflict with the notion that atheism is a belief.

>>1265322
>And neither conflict with the notion that atheism is a belief.
Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

>>1265322
And bald is a hair color.

atheism is a religeous position, not a belief

>>1265324
Not really. Anarchism is a political viewpoint. Atheism is a religious one. An anarchist believes that a government or state is unworthy and unnecessary; an atheist believes the same about religion and faith.

>>1265336
An anarchist has no desire for government.
An atheist has no belief in gods.

>>1265331
'Belief' does not refer solely to religious belief. A religious/political/philosophical position is a belief.

>>1265341
My position is that I don't believe. That can't be a belief.

>>1265345
You believe the theistic position to be untrue.

>>1265355
No, I don't. It might be true.

>>1265357
Then you're lending the same credence to atheism and theism

>>1265362
Absolutely not. It might also be that pigs have been flying out of your ass for the last 15 minutes, but that's not very likely. I can't prove that either. But I don't have to because I'm not saying pigs flew out your ass.

>>1265364
Proving it has nothing to do with it.

>>1265368
If you want me to have a belief, it does.

>>1265377
To be purely without religious beliefs one would have to be non-religious, and completely apathetic to religious claims.
Anyone who calls themself an atheist holds the belief that religious claims are untrue. It is a belief, even if it's arrived at by logic or inquiry.

>>1265383
No, your statement is false. The definition of atheism is lacking a belief in god. This does not mean also having a belief that there are no gods. It's just saying that theists haven't made their case yet. I don't believe that there are no gods. I can't reach that conclusion from the evidence that's been given.

>>1265383
The fallacy you are making is the excluded middle.
I do not have to choose between believing thing A exists and believing that thing A doesn't exist. As a third option, I can not know and thus believe neither.

>>1265393
Anyone who merely lacks belief calls themself an agnostic.

And you can't say "the definition", because atheism, especially of late, doesn't have a consensus definition.

>>1265399
That's what you call agnostic

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

>>1265403
Yes, I do call myself an agnostic.
And also because I don't believe in god, I'm atheist.

see
>>1265302
>>1265308

incorrect my fellow postees, atheism is in fact the belief in a God; richard dawkins

>>1265408
I do in fact believe that there is a Richard Dawkins. I'm not sure how that relates to atheism though.

I cannot claim to know that a god could not possibly exist. But I can claim with certainty that it is none of the claims of god to which I've been exposed. Therefor, I call myself an atheist because it's the easiest to explain. If some people hear you say "agnostic", they think they can still rope you into whatever fantasy they're currently entertaining.

God doesn't exist, and you all know it.

I don't care if you say it's an illogical, irrational position or it's a BELIEF. You know I am right.

>>1265420
It is a belief, but there's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe in tachyons

>>1265414
I can only claim with certainty that some of the many gods I've been told stories about don't exist. This requires the god in question to be self-contradictory. When that's met, I do believe that they don't exist, and become gnostic atheist in regards to that particular god.

>>1265425
Use 'positive atheist' instead of 'gnostic atheist'. It's more precise

>>1265425
Yes. But it's like that for them all, or so I can see at this point.

>>1265420
Your belief about what we know is both false and irrational. Seriously, there could be a god. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could have created the entire universe just this very instant complete with history and memories and fossils, just to see who would deduce correctly based on the no evidence for him that there is no reason to believe such a thing. Only those who correctly deny the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster without making the further unsupported leap that he mustn't exist will be allowed through the Alfredo Gates. All others will be condemned to boil in a lake of marinara in Double-Hell for Double-Eternity.
Granted, such a belief would be STUPID... but I can't rule it out. I have to be intellectually honest about what it would take to prove or disprove such a fanciful conjecture.

atheism: wen a boy commits grave sin and wishes dearly it not to be so

>>1265429
That's the first time I've heard that term. I suppose it fits.

>>1265439
Theism: When a priest commits a grave sin and the boy wishes desperately it were not so.

>>1265439
Learn2sentencestructure

Well, I'm going to bow out now.
Thank you for the spirited (HA-HA! It's funny because the thread is about there not being any spirits) discussion. I'm glad we could progress so far without resorting to calling each other faggots! Truly a work of wonder.

>>1265450
no my friend, it is a work of God

>>1265438
The old epistemological and/or ontological pro-theism debate. They always try to melt down rationality until it fits the box they've created.

>>1265454
Since you ruined it first, you win the fagprize. Congratulations! You're a faggot!

using large words does not hide the fact that there is no palpable evidence to prove your argument

>>1265464
To whom are you speaking?

>>1265457

>>1265471

>>1265464
If this is the about the FSM, I do believe. I do.

>>1265336
>An anarchist believes that a government or state is unworthy and unnecessary; an atheist believes the same about religion and faith.
No. An atheist rejects any notions of a deity. That's all there is to it.

Any form of gnostism is rediculous, be it gnostic theism or gnostic atheism. The fact that you seem to 'know' what is true is impossible as there is no empirical evidence for either sides. However, seeing that atheists(there is no 'atheism' movement) are usually more open-minded about reality, they are more likely to turn towards science for answers, for it is the only way to explain things in life, as it provides empirical evidence that can be improved as time passes. Science shows that there is no need for a god to exist. This, in term, means that it is ofcourse not very likely that a certain being does exist, because everything in this universe can, in theory, be explained through science.

Then why does religion work? Scare tactics are reason #1 in my opinion. The fact that an omnipotent and omniscient being (which is paradoxial and impossible) can watch your every move and will condemn you to eternal hell if you don't believe in him, causes the bulk of the people to take the safe bet.
Mass delusion also tends to help in this aspect.

Consciousness.
Explain it.
Through science.
I'll wait.

ok so free will exists because polar bonds are present in the brain?

>>1265581
GAWDIDDIT?

Correct.

>>1265591
I missed the part where you explained it.
Through science.
Still waiting.

>>1265594

It is simply advanced brain activity, by which we are aware (to varying degrees) of our surroundings. I fail to see how this isn't explained by science. You need to troll harder.

lol at vagueness

>>1265616
That's not an EXPLANATION, that is a DEFINITION.
Keep trying.

anyone who believes that two of every can animal fit in one arc .... IS AN IDIOT

>>1265706
That depends on how big the circle is.

>>1265706
Anyone that beleives that two animals can spontaneously erupt into existance.... IS AN IDIOT.

hey ateists, if ure so smart, why dont u go and kill people and eat fetuses??? u not afraid of hell

>>1265718
omg ateists sekertly feer GOD ollolololol xD

"in gods"
fix'd

>>1265706
anyone that believes there were more than 100 animals in the past is an IDIOT

>>1265723
that's why the repress their spuritual thoughts. they dont wanna think about hell. lol.

I hate it when we have a whole entire thread on semantics

HOW TO DEAL WITH RELIGION THREADS:

1. See religion thread
2. at the left of the OP's name there's a white square, click it.
3. Go to the end of the page at thre right and click "Report"
4. click "rule violation"
5.???
6. Profit!

>>1265109

rｅMOＥＶ ＹＵＯｒ_ＩLLGEＡｌ cＬｏＥＮ fｏ ＨTtP://wwＷ.ｃoCｋSＴＡLk.Ｓe/ (RｅpLＡCＥ_ｃOｃＫS_ＷIＴｈ ａnon)_imＭEiDＡTｅlY. puhnroxm sv japgf qd ypblxlamhm zf

>>1265823
Better than the religousfags.

The only thing that flusters me a bit though, is that this is a daily topic on /sci/, yet personally I never, ever EVER give even a shit of thought about god or religion in my day to day life. Why the fuck do people care so much about it here then? Are we that insecure so as to bring this up and actively discuss it every single day even if there are no religiousfags/trolls?

God damn, aren't you guys interested in the sciences and math rather than abstract and decidedly unscientific concepts? Let's just let the religiousfags suffer in their squalor. If we all ignored them to begin with, as in never even responded to their threads (not one reply) and just reported, we'd rarely have to talk about all this religious bullshit on what should be the most reasonable and reality-based board on 4chan.

ReＭＯｅv_ＹＵOR_ILlＧEＡL CLＯｅＮ_fＯ hＴｔp://ｗｗｗ.COＣKsTａｌｋ.SＥ/ (rEｐlＡＣＥ ＣOcＫS_ｗＩtＨ ａnＯN)_iｍmeiDＡtEＬｙ. pqj y ljzqse f deu uywi mshlopc e q k de r