/sci/ - Science & Math

mfw i care

Or you could take your own personal beliefs, follow them privately and not shove them in other peoples faces like you are now.

Agnostics are just pussies who can't commit to the truth.

my sentiments exactly, OP
thank you, but by posting about staying on the sidelines and making fun of them, you are somewhat a hypocrite. this is the same reason i don't express my thoughts on the matter with people i know, because it simply contradicts being agnostic in the first place.

>>2030546
This is a classic troll that has truly standed the test of time.

>>2030543
I agree. I am agnostic, and I feel no need to be as aggressive as OP was in his assessment of theism vs atheism vs agnosticism.

>>2030551
>>2030547

agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, a/theism is the belief or lack of belief in a deity

if you lack a belief, you are an atheist. if you claim that you have no knowledge of the existence of a deity, and therefore make no choice regarding it, it makes you an atheist as you lack a belief.

>>2030556
>implying that we don't believe it could be either way

Hey, OP.

If you are officially unsure on the existence of God because you cannot prove or disprove God one way or the other... what are your thoughts on Santa Claus?

>>2030562
if you dont have an active belief in a deity, you are an atheist, even if you consider the existence of a deity a possibility

this isnt a difficult concept

>>2030566

I believe there was a man who gave gifts to children, and in the spirit of tradition we continue this every year.
We make up bedtime stories for children to feel comfortable that every child deserves to be a child and receive gifts.

>>2030567
a-theist literally means the lack of belief in god
theist literally means the opposite.
since you believe it could be one way or the other, you are either atheist or theist. but since these two are polar opposites, there's a new word for it, agnostic.
but is that too much for you to wrap your small mind around?
also; im not really offended by being called an atheist, i'd just rather not be grouped with radicals.

>>2030584
"A theist" is a person who is a person who follows theism.

>>2030584
they arent polar opposites you retard, the opposite of a theist is an anti theist, but i suppose thats too complicated to wrap your fucking peanut around

>>2030593
go back to high school english and learn latin roots, kthxbai

hey faggot, maybe this thread will go better than your immediate 404 on /b/

>>2030584
>since you believe it could be one way or the other, you are either atheist or theist. but since these two are polar opposites, there's a new word for it, agnostic.

this statement doesnt make any sense. you either have a belief in a deity or you don't. agnosticism and gnosticism refer to knowledge of the divine, not the belief in it.

eg you can be an agnostic theist

>>2030597
*prefixes, my bad

>I'm an agnostic

>>2030607

>>2030546
/thread

Also, what is your view on the flying teapot. Jack ass.

>>2030600
>you either have a belief in a deity or you don't.
Not if you're talking about human beings. There is a whole spectrum of belief. It's not a binary matter.

Those who think the probability of God existing is very low are atheists. Those who think it's very high are theists. Those in whom it's neither very low or very high are agnostics. Agnostic doesn't necessarily pertain strictly to "knowledge". In this case it means not taking one position or the other.

>>2030627
I think it does not exist.

Hey, agnostics. You can't prove or disprove me, either!

Signed,
- The invisible flying unicorn

Pic related; it's me being invisible as always

>>2030607
this

>hurr I don't know the secrets of the universe for certain so I can't state my beliefs which I still have
>omg so deep

>>2030584
>a-theist literally means the lack of belief in god
There is no such hyphenated word. Atheism is the belief or doctrine that there is no God, per the Latin. Some try to stretch the boundaries of the meaning into agnosticism as well, but that's certainly not what it literally means. It does NOT mean "no belief". Any -ism in philosophy is by definition a belief.

>>2030629
by common definition, agnosticism refers to whether or not divine knowledge is even attainable, not the belief of whether or not deities exist.

>>2030629
>Agnostic doesn't necessarily pertain strictly to "knowledge"

gnostic (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge)

Uhhh, what's the exact definition of agnostic. You can't change the meaning of a word just because you want to.

>>2030641
it original referred to people who rejected the gods or who were 'godless'

lrn2history

>>2030637
You are correct. No matter how unlikely an invisible flying unicorn may seem to the average person, it is still within the realm of possibility, and therefore due to our imperfect knowledge we can neither say it exists or that is doesn't.

>>2030629
If you don't think it's very low you're a moron. Deal with it. Even an agnostic fag has to admit that or he's no better than a religious person.

>>2030645
That's right, it's the belief or doctrine of atheos, which is godlessness, which is what I fucking said, jackass.

>>2030648
then *GASP* we are ALL agnostics! then labeling yourself as such is extremely redundant, is it not?

>>2030652
and people who lack a belief in a deity are.....?

>>2030643
Words mean whatever a person wants them to mean (the most widely held definition is not the correct definition, there is no such thing as a correct definition); they are tools.

If I were to state with 100% certainty that flying unicorns didn't exist, I'd be a person of FAITH.

>>2030643
>Uhhh, what's the exact definition of agnostic. You can't change the meaning of a word just because you want to.
It has two definitions, you fucking retard. lrn2dictionary.

1) (consistent with its etymology) The belief that the ultimate knowledge of God can not be attained.

2) not taking a position on something, especial on whether or not God exists.

>>2030653
No, we are not all agnostics. There are some who choose to believe that there is a god(s) and there are some who believe there is no god(s). The difference is that both of these positions require faith as opposed to logic.

>>2030649
I think it's very high. I think anyone who thinks it's very low is a shallow thinker and borderline retarded.

>>2030669
read the actual history and usage of this term, and you will see that 'not taking a stance' is grossly simplified by that definition and by the kids who use it

>>2030678
This post explains so much.

OP IS A CLOSET THEIST, NOT AN AGNOSTIC.

>>2030657
People who lack belief in a deity are not theists. They are therefore non-theists. Note that as that denotes a LACK of belief, there is no such word as non-theism, because that would mean a non-existent doctrine which makes no sense. But there IS the word non-theist, which is the only word that means "someone who isn't a theist".

>>2030683
Every word has a varied history. What's your point?

>>2030686
I'm not OP, you intellectual cripple.

>>2030683
It's what the word has meant for at least 100 years. Fucking deal with it.

>>2030675
you are trying to confuse agnostic theism/atheism with gnostic theism/atheism

you have already admitted that no one can actually 'know' whether or not there is deity. those who admit this, but lack a belief would agnostic atheists. those who admit a lack of knowledge yet still believe would be agnostic theists.

those who insist they 'know' a deity does or does not exist would be gnostic theist and gnostic atheist, respectively

trying to claim 'agnosticism' as a completely separate camp is tantamount to misunderstanding, if not outright lying.

>>2030692
Keep telling yourself that, OP.

Shouldn't be too hard trying to lie to yourself, especially since you're a theist.

>>2030698
no, it hasn't meant 'those who don't take a side'. it has always meant those who don't take a side on whether or not knowledge is attainable.

>>2030706
see
>>2030615

trying to insist on your own narrow and contrived definitions instead of allowing people to use words to mean what they are understood to mean just makes you a giant faggot and a joke.

>>2030706
Right. You can make a distinction between hard and weak atheism if you'd like, but I don't understand how what I said was incorrect (I'm also not thinking about this very hard as it really doesn't matter, so maybe that's my problem).

>>2030718
liar

>>2030722
how about you actually read what has been written about agnosticism and it's usage in history, rather than rely on a childish interpretation of it?

>>2030725
you claim there are only 3 positions, those who belief, those who disbelieve and those who don't care either way

this is a gross over simplification over the philosophical positions.

You don't have to hold a belief that there is no god in order to be an atheist. Don't have a belief in the existence of gods? Then you're an atheist. Everyone is an atheist in regards to some deity, some of us just go one further.

I'm an atheist, and I think that god probably doesn't exist. Am I 100% sure? Nope, and I'm completely comfortable with that. I don't require proof that things don't exist in order to think that they don't exist. The proof of burden is on the people making the claim that they do exist; since no reliable proof has been put forth by the theists, there is no reason to believe in a deity. The stance of most agnostics is illogical, there is no reason to shift the burden of proof.

Indifference to the issue all together is the only way.

Remember when there was actual science in /sci/.

Yeah, me neither.

>>2030641
i love niggers like this, "HEY YOU MADE AN GOOD ARGUEMENT BUT ILL JUST IGNORE IT AND SPOUT BULLSHIT."

A is a fucking prefix wich denotes that the following propesition is fucking false. IE, Atypical, not typical, theism, not theistic. this is not hard to grasp for anyone who isnt a self important dick whos buttmad at athiests and searching for reasons to discriminate against the whole group.

>>2030739
I wouldn't exactly use the words "not care"...more like acknowledge that they do not know.

I clearly illustrated that I understand the concept of strong and weak atheism. I suppose I don't understand explicit weak/negative/soft atheists position (according to wiki) that they "reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that 'at least one deity exists' is a false statement". So you could help me with that if you'd like (fyi I appear, according to that wiki article diagram, to be a implicit weak atheist, I guess).

The word AGNOSTIC was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. One definition of agnosticism given at the time was:

"the gospel of suspense of judgment on all questions, intellectual and moral, on which we have not adequate data for a positive opinion."

Hence OP is using the word correctly. These knowledge axis / belief axis faggots are confirmed retards.

>>2030527
You've got agnostic atheiest and gnostic atheiest. Dont you?

Personally i am without a god, and i reject the idea of a god or gods. But i cant rule it out.

Does this make me an agnostic atheist?

wait, im a pantheist i guess.

>>2030767
the point would be that stating something does not exists at all is a position that requires knowledge in the matter, which most admit that they do not have. some gnostic atheists base it on the logical inconsistencies inherent in the idea of a deity itself, which is why they reject it outright.

>>2030741
No, that's not what it means. If you think that "lack of belief" is "atheism", then you are uneducated.

At a minimum you have to advocate that God probably does not exist in order to be an atheist.

>>2030782
So its not different in practice or result, just theory?

>>2030784

No, you are a fucking idiot. Maybe you should read something.

Funny how "agnostics" are always manipulating the definition of agnosticism to fit the situation they're in, yet state that "atheism" has a strict, rigid definition.

Hmm, interesting discovery! According to the wiki on agnosticism, "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."

I must say, I've considered myself agnostic for some time now, however I am UNSURE of whether it is possible to know if theres a god or not (vs being completely sure that it is unknowable). Where do I fall now?

>>2030755
Are you just willfully ignorant? Seriously.

Atheism, like every other -ism in philosophy refers to a belief or doctrine. The belief or doctrine is denoted by what comes before the suffix -ism. What comes before it is athe which is short for atheos which means "no god" or godless. The etymology of the word therefore, which is consistent with its historical and present usage and meaning, is the doctrine or belief in godlessness or the nonexistence of God or gods.

If you want to willfully refused to be educated, do it fucking elsewhere.

The three people who have contributed the most to human society in terms of science and mathematics have all been theists.

Yes, Pythagoras, Newton, and Einstein.

>>2030796
0/10

>>2030804
no it isn't!, ATHEISM refers to THEISM a doctrine in which ATHIESTS ARE NOT PART OF. RETARD! you'd have to be ILLITERATE not to understand this!

>>2030804
the 'a' appropriately means 'no' or 'without'

'theism' is the BELIEF in a deity. so 'no beliefs' or 'without beliefs'

that is the correct definition using the original greek terminology

>>2030807
appeal to authority

>We agnostics are the one's laughing at you every single day. We stand at the sidelines and share popcorn while you two are at eachother's hairy necks.

Judging by this thread (and many other similar ones before), you guys are the ones participating most in these silly arguments. Oh, the irony.

>>2030772

If you "suspend judgment" on something because there is "we have not adequate data for a positive opinion" then you are a fucking fence sitting sackless retard.

>>2030812
>mfw when you actually belief that
seriously, read... anything... a dictionary... a history book... a latin grammar.

>>2030819
1/10

Just in case you are a retard and not trolling me...

There are no cases where a-(something)-ist means a-(something-ist). It ALWAYS means (a-something)-ist.

It's not a-(the-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of God.
It's (a-the)-ism -- the doctrine of no God.

Just like it's not a-(gnostic-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of knowledge.
It's (a-gnostic)-ism -- the doctrine of no knowledge.

Just like it's not a-(narch-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of a ruler.
It's (a-narch)-ism -- the doctrine of the no ruler.

Just like it's not a-(cosm-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of the universe.
It's (a-cosm)-ism -- the doctrine of no universe.

Just like it's not anthropo-(morph-ism) -- a human doctrine of form.
It's (anthropo-morph)-ism -- a doctrine of the human form.

ITT: Atheists trolling atheists, atheists getting trolled by atheists, and retarded faggots that are too stupid to be atheist.

>>2030812
I believe you are refering to A-theism not Atheism.

>>2030834

>>2030834

I hope you are trolling and are not truly that stupid.

>>2030837
>too stupid to be atheist
Im scottish korean and i still think thats one hell of a contradiction

>>2030830
Really? I would have thought you would be more retarded if you make a judgment when you know you don't have enough knowledge to do so.

>>2030834
Didn't you like coincide just now dude?

>>2030842
>>2030839
0/10
i'm not falling for it

>>2030807
Einstein has stated over and over again that he facepalms whenever annyone suggests this about him.

Yes he was a pantheist, read up on it. In reality it has not much to do with theism at all.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein

>>2030844
You can't be truly an atheist if you haven't researched religions thoroughly.

>>2030845
In the context of what OP is talking about there is plenty of knowledge with which to make an informed decision about the idiocy of religion and mythologies.

>>2030853
hmm, then maybe the athiest i have in my mind is the average one, not the correct one

>>2030846
>Didn't you like coincide just now dude?
You are now aware that coincide is a transitive verb, and requires a direct object.

Apatheists represent.

Who gives a shit if there's a god or not? The only real proof we've ever gotten is in the minds of humans. If there is a god, he/she/it's made it pretty clear that we can function and understand this universe just fine without taking them into account.

There are better things in life to spend thought cycles on than some deity who, by all appearances, just wants to be left alone.

>>2030844
Then you're probably too stupid to get it. It's ok, we can't all be winners.

>>2030844
the fact that you think your race has any bearing on this topic implies you do not have the mental faculties to participate in it.

>>2030799
Can someone answer my question. Thank you.

>>2030862
Noooo!

>>2030856
Then you think you have enough knowledge. How is it retarded for someone to reserve judgment who finds they do not have enough knowledge?

As to who is correct, it is the general tendency of man to overestimate his level knowledge, rather than to underestimate it.

>>2030876
I would say an Agnostic is what u are.

>>2030799
If you are unsure whether it is possible to know, then you aren't an agnostic under the strict definition of believing that such knowledge is impossible.

If you are neither an atheist or a theist, then you are an agnostic under the other definition of one who reserves judgment on the existence of God.

>>2030885
Look it isn't hard to see every religion is man made and there for flawed. Okay?

>>2030799
You are, quite honestly, a true agnostic. Unlike these closet theists, self-proclaimed "agnostics" in this thread.

>>2030875
did you really miss that joke? it was a reference to a starburst commercial. you need to think before you insult people lol

>>2030878
Well, yes, you're right, you can say that two things coincide. However, I don't know how one thing can coincide.

>>2030885
agnosticism isn't reserving judgement, its being an ignorant fuck. we all are to some extent, but the point is it has no true bearing on weather or not you believe in god.

The simple theory of the apathism:

Perhaps there is a god, or gods, or goddesses, or higher powers.

Perhaps not.

It's irrelevant.

You do the most good you can with what you have.
If you get help from somewhere else,
that's just icing on the cake.
I just won.

>>2030895
so?

>>2030885
I'm a mathematician, I don't underestimate shit. You on the other hand are so goddamn stupid that given a mountain of knowledge with which to make an informed decision refuse to do so in order to sit on some imaginary intellectual high ground. You're a fucking retard, case closed.

>>2030914
>>implying a doctrine of believe is a theory.
as long as there are two people on this earth, someone will want someone else's shit slapped.
I just won.

>>2030909
Yes it does. Agnosticism is reserving judgment on whether not God exists. Why do you get off on saying that things don't mean what they mean?

If everyone in history had just sat on the sidelines saying:

>Herpaderp, I don't know if this is true or not. I might as well never think further than the unknown

Nothing would've ever gotten solved.

In short, thanks for sitting on the sidelines; cause we really wouldn't ever want you in the game anyways.

>>2030918
Where is this mountain of knowledge concerning God that you have? I'm not an agnostic, btw. I am a theist. So I agree that there is knowledge.

>>2030807

There are disagreements as to whether Pantheism is atheistic or not. Atheists argue the non-theistic god of pantheism is not a god (according to the traditional definition), while others suggest a deity is not necessarily transcendent.

>>2030939
Actually, that's not true. Progress was made precisely because people adopted this thing called science, which does precisely that. It assumes nothing and makes no judgments until the knowledge can be demonstrated. That is precisely why agnosticism grew out of the scientific era, because it is based on the same philosophy.

>>2030930
No it doesnt and a casual stroll through wikipedia shows this you nigger

Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[15]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[15]
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed][16]
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[17] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[18][not in citation given]

Sage

>>2030956
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."

sage

sage

>>2030940
>I'm a theist

You have the information, analyze it in a logically consistent manner and you'll see why your conclusion is incorrect.

"Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

>>2030956
The wikipedia article is complete bullshit.

If you want to know the origin of the word, read this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/agnostic.html
It couldn't be more clear. If you want to understand its present meaning, look up the word in any dictionary.

>>2030953
I'm not sure what science you're studying, because science makes TONS of assumptions. Without any assumptions no problems would ever be solved, and the solution to any well defined problem always has well defined assumptions. Maybe you take them for granted, but they are there.

>>2030953

Lol. No, you're wrong.

Play scientist somewhere else.

>>2030979
Wow... theism is incorrect, and you know this because house said so. Isn't it past your bedtime?

>>2030999
Right, no science allowed on /sci/. Only atheistic dogma. Out with your intellectual humility! We'll have none of that here!

Since the existence of God can never be proven, nor can it be disproven, I won't waste my time asking questions to which there are no answers, and just eat another cookie.

Apatheism.

>>2031002
I hope you really aren't so stupid as to think that I believe something merely because someone said it. That is something theists do, not me.

>>2031030
Of course. Do your parents know you're on the computer this late?

>>2030985
>>couldnt be more clear
the origin of the word is from fucking Huxley, he used it as a direct rejection of the Christian church not to put to the position that it was unknowable, his view of agnosticism was about using science and observation. its more in line with atheism in your definition than the shit youre spouting.

>>2031046
LMAO. The definitions I've been giving for agnosticism have been DIRECT FUCKING QUOTATIONS from Huxley. Go fuck yourself.

>>2031044
I'm 30, and my parents don't exist anymore. But good try with the ad hominem, I guess you don't have anything else.

not /sci/ - sage

>>2030956
>Ignosticism
I like this. Define god or deal with it.

>>2031162
God is the immutable eternal infinite transcendent source of all finite temporal reality; the true reality from which all else obtains derivative reality.

>>2031185
that doesnt work. your definition is not falsifiable. how could you prove whether or not god is "the immutable eternal infinite transcendent source of all finite temporal reality; the true reality from which all else obtains derivative reality"? to prove he is the source of reality, and not simply coexisting with reality in the first place you would have to exist before reality existed, which, by your definition, would nullify the definition of god in the first place, because for something to observe god before he created 'reality' would imply that god wasn't his source of reality!

ignostics take the stand that to argue upon a non falsifiable definition of god (one which cannot be proven right or wrong), is pointless in the first place. ignostics are like super agnostics. they won't even argue about whether or not there is a god until someone can make a definition of god which is falsifiable in the first place.

and that's hardcore.

>>2031285
>that doesnt work. your definition is not falsifiable.
This thinking is what you get from the neglect of philosophy in education, in favor of science, such that scientific convention takes the place of philosophy. Some knowledge can only be attained by reason and reflection. If you want to falsify my characterization of God, or the existence of the God that I characterize, then attain knowledge concerning the origin of the reality of things, and simply observe whether their reality has its origin on something eternal and immutable or not. If not, then you have falsified it.

>how could you prove whether or not god is "the immutable eternal infinite transcendent source of all finite temporal reality; the true reality from which all else obtains derivative reality"?
PROOF? If you mean that in a formal way, you can prove almost nothing, and what you can prove only because of your unproven axioms. Fortunately it's possible to know more than we can prove.

>to prove he is the source of reality, and not simply coexisting with reality in the first place you would have to exist before reality existed, which, by your definition, would nullify the definition of god in the first place, because for something to observe god before he created 'reality' would imply that god wasn't his source of reality!
You are thinking temporally, which is inappropriate in relation to God. God exists causally "before" derived reality at all points in time. You could observe God's relationship with reality right now if you could find the way to observation of such things.

>ignostics take the stand that to argue upon a non falsifiable definition of god (one which cannot be proven right or wrong), is pointless in the first place.
Do ignostics also find science, meaningless since no scientific theory can ever be proven?

This is cancer. Sage