/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1573342
And they both beat the cancer with modern scientific medicine all the while trolling everyone.

Hitchens is pretty entertaining. Dawkins is kind of just an ass.

>>1573352
>mfw

>>1573342
Why do you want other people to die/get infected with serious diseases?
Why are you creationists here always filled with nothing but hate? Doesn't your religion tell you to love each other? Doesn't it say in the bible "Judge not, that ye be not judged" ?

>>1573361
Hey summer!

>mfw this thread

>>1573352
that would never happen, and you know it.

>>1573361
I'm Agnostic and I hate Richard Dawkins. He is a Evolutionary Biologist, not a Theologist. People eat his shit up and he exploits this.

You mad, faggot?

>>1573431
You're a closet theist.

>>1573431
You don't know what 'agnostic' means.

Wishing death upon those with whom you disagree. This is exactly what I have come to expect from religious people.

no, i'd rather he just straight up die. He makes me question my atheistic world view. "Am i really that big of a douche bag?"

>>1573486
>>1573443
Agnostics who think they're atheists sure are butthurt.

>>1573492
meh, I just wish death on people I find annoying, whether they agree or disagree with me.

>>1573431
Agnostic is not a belief choice.

>>1573546
>graph full of bullshit
Agnostic means you're not commiting one way or the other. Look it the fuck up.

>>1573555
Agnostic means unknowable. Do some research before you make an ass of yourself.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

>>1573555
lol, you just found out you're agnostic theist, how does it feel?

>>1573555
lol, you just found out you're agnostic theist, how does it feel to be the worst of the other three beliefs

>>1573555

Agnostic itself is not a belief system.

Answer this question: Do you have any doubts in the existence of god? If you answered yes, you're an atheist. Granted, you would probably be considered a weak/mild atheist, but an atheist nonetheless. In that case, you would be an agnostic atheist, not an "agnostic".

>>1573611
What if you think the existence or lack thereof of God is a question of no importance whatsoever?

>>1573361
It's not about creationism. You can approach the fallacies of religion with education rather than trolling. Sagan had class; Dawkins is just a career troll.

>>1573613

You'd probably be an Ignostic.

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

>>1573613
These are not terms to describe how much you care about the question, but what your actual stance on it is.

>>1573611
No, you'd be an agnostic theist if you just had doubts.

>>1573361

>Implying logic

Challenge I've yet seen met:

Show me an interview/book/quote/etc where Richard Dawkins is a douchebag.

People seem to be repeating this mantra, but is never able to point out where he is acting like a dick.

>>1573640

Technically agnostic-deist. Agnostic-theism would be true retardation, because it would mean you're unsure if there's a god but still buy into a specific religion.

>>1573618

Dawkins has class, but he's not afraid to be contentious. Fuck your shit.

>>1574229
Deism <span class="math"> \subset [/spoiler] Theism

>>1574230

Some non-religious people just think that not arguing with theists and acting as a doormat to their bullshit is somehow "classy". And theists who come up against an atheist that argues with them just suddenly develop persecution complexes.

>>1574240

Deism ⊃ Theism

Deism is the belief in a god, theism is a version of deism where that god interacts and gives rules to follow.

>>1574260
You've got that backwards. Theism is a belief in God, Deism is a version where god doesn't interact.

>>1574260
obvious troll is obvious

>>1574230
Challenge I've yet seen met:

Show me a reason to believe in a god.

>>1574230
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
This. Seriously, I'm evolutionist and share his opinion, but he's pretty bad at debating here imho.

I am and agnostic atheist. But I would rather rot in hell than kiss god's self-righteous shiny ass all day and night. (And YES, no capitals here.)

>>1574270
Deism doesn't necessarily say God doesn't interact. In the 17th, 18th century, most Deists thought God did interact. More recently it's popular among Deists to think that God does not interact.

What Deism is -- what is essential to Deism -- is the belief that God can be known and understood through reason alone, without the need for any direct revelation or holy books.

oh man if dawkins got diagnosed he would totally turn christian and prey like crazy but it wouldn't do it anything because he's had his chance XD

YAWN

>>1574288
What does he say that's so bad? Specifically?

>>1574288
And what specifically does he say that makes him a douchebag?
Just being able to refrain from punching that bitch in the face = A fucking hero of humbleness and calmness.

>>1574290
>>1574270

theist (plural theists)
One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God.
One who discriminates based on religion.

Put it this way. The anthropic principal, cosmological argument, ontological arguments etc etc are all attempts to prove the deist position - that there is a god. The theist position is in a specific religion with a specific deity - the deist god is not specified.

Therefore one cannot be a theist without being a deist. But one may be a deist without be religious/theistic. So theism is a subset of deism.

Deism was the next logical step on from theism from those in the Enlightenment era would didn't have the foresight to take the next logical step to atheism.

>>1574313

>. . .for those in the Enlightenment era who didn't. . .

Sorry - my typing.

>>1574313
>One who discriminates based on religion.
lolwut?

>Put it this way. The anthropic principal, cosmological argument, ontological arguments etc etc are all attempts to prove the deist position - that there is a god.

The theistic position is that there is a God. The Deistic position is that God can be proven and known through the arguments you mention, and others that rely only on reason and experience.

>The theist position is in a specific religion with a specific deity - the deist god is not specified.
The theistic position is that there is a God or gods. Not only is the specific understanding of God not specified, neither monotheism or polytheism is specified. Deism is specifically monotheistic.

>Therefore one cannot be a theist without being a deist. But one may be a deist without be religious/theistic. So theism is a subset of deism.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and the ancient roman Pagans, were all theists without being Deists. A deist could be none of those things, because all those religions rely on revelation or tradition.

>>1574300
>>1574312
Well, I only watched 3 or 4 of 7 parts some while ago, and am too lazy to watch them now again, so I don't remember everything he said. It's just his debating style I don't really like, I guess. Just one of many examples: Repeating "go to a museum, there's evidence" like a mantra (and not seeing that it gets him nowhere) instead of just saying "where's the evidence for creationism and for gods existance" or something like that.

Of course, the chick is much worse, but the fact that she's a creationist just implies she's not very comfortable with common sense and logical though process. I really saw that coming.

>>1574336

Okay obviously we are using the word deist differently. There's deism that you are talking about (understating through reason etc is was I would term classical Deism - an Enlightenment era philosophical movement - which I'd capitalize to differentiate) and the one I am using (the belief there is a god, or prime mover - a modern usage of the word).

The word theist (that definition was from wiktionary) means a follower of religious a god(s) - scripture, tenets, theology etc so this is where we're going wrong.

BTW I actually recognize I'm wrong about something anyway - I realized after you said it, that even using the usages I go by, polytheism still can't be a subset of deism. But I'd still contend that they overlap and monotheism is a subset of deism (not in the classic sense that you use).

>>1574391

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism
the·ism
   /ˈθiɪzəm/ Show Spelled[thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism
de·ism
   /ˈdiɪzəm/ Show Spelled[dee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

>>1574417
So by the 2nd definition of theism, deism is a subset of theism. By the 1st definition of theism, deism and theism are incompatible.

>>1574421
Or rather,
* the 1st definition of theism excludes the 1st definition of deism.
* the 1st definition of theism intersects with the 2nd definition of deism.
* the 2nd definition of theism is a superset of both definitions of deism

>>1574421

Yeah - shat brix. So one's usage of one of these words is directly limited to the usage of the other.

It appears though in the modern vernacular that theism = god(s) + religion, and deism = god. How irritating.

>>1574417

from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deism

deism (plural deisms)
(philosophy) The belief in the existence of a god, by or through reason.
The belief in a god or gods who set the universe in motion, then ceased to interact with it.
(uncountable) The religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries that rejects supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things.

FFS

>>1574458
How is that different from what dictionary.com says? Show me how it's different, and I'll go change it so it's not.

>>1574470

The FFS wasn't aimed at you, calm down. It's just that it splits it up into 3 definitions instead of 2 (and in definition doesn't distinguish from theism) though 1 and 2 are subsets, of sorts, of 3.

>>1574497
ok