/sci/ - Science & Math

>sci troll

Fixed that for you.

Agnostic atheist.

>>2851429
nice oxymoron

>atheist: without theism
>agnostic: aware that I cannot be certain
>implying that these are mutually exclusive
>implying I didn't get trolled
>implying I don't give you a 5/10

>>2851484
oh right, you mean you're thoughtless? i assumed just stupid.

a·the·ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Agnostic

>>2851520
>disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
>theism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
>my summed up definition works
>7/10

>>2851520
Definition of ATHEISM

2
a disbelief in the existence of deity

Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Please show me the contradiction.

>>2851552
Good post but please sage.

Implying that one can't be agnostic and atheist
Implying that one can't be agnostic and theist
Implying that one can't be gnostic and atheist
Implying that one can't be gnostic and theist

Sage to trolls

>>2851415
Atheist.
agnostic atheist more precisely, like 99% of all Atheists actually are.

>>2851552
you're actually trying to argue that you think that the definition of atheism is 'to WITHOLD belief in the existence of deity'?

>not believe
>not committed to believing in nonexistence
you don't believe, but you're not committed to not believing? bi-fag skitzo/agnostic

>An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.


i thought the question was simple enough for /sci/, but let me rephrase it for those just joining us from /b/: do you a) believe in a god b) not sure if there is a god or not c) believe there is no god? one choice only pls...

>>2851603
>An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings
That is making the assumption that a God exists, which is not proven.

Also that definition is WRONG, deal with it.

why does agnostic theist exist? It seems strange to believe something without having a compelling reason..

>>2851603
It's a yes or no question, there is no other answers for "do you believe in god". Either you do or you don't

"Not sure" is equal to No. This is because "No" is the standard position for beliefs.
Theism requires active "Yes" and everything else is atheism.

Gnostic/Agnostic answers to different question than Theism/Atheism

You are a troll, also probably 13

>>2851566
>nope
>definately fucking not
>hurr
>durr

do you even know what gnostic means? anyone who isn't gnostic in some sense is pretty fucked...

>>2851618
Don't know. I guess that means they are saying they COULD be wrong.

>>2851603
>Provide factual definition of atheism
>"What, you think this is what atheism means?"

0/10

Atheist

>implying agnostic atheist is a worthwhile term that doesn't lead to more confusion than it rectifies

>>2851603
b and c

I do not believe in god, but know that I cannot be sure.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in deities. Deal w/ it.

>>2851618
It exists because it can.
It might not be logical but i'm sure that there are some.
There are crazy people.

>>2851621
Yes, i think you don't
Also to you, even if they are crazy, like creationist, they still exits hence my post.

If i would only list the logical positions it would be:
Agnostic atheism.

Agnostic.

There are universal laws that bind us and everything around us according to specific rules. It is my belief that whatever "god" is, it must be correlated to the existence of these laws.

Doesn't mean we have to worship "it" though, and "it" certainly isn't a white bearded man in the sky.

>>2851650
>no mention of belief in a deity

Nice atheism bro.

Atheist.

>>2851611
you dumb.
also
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
synonyms section. you deal with it faggot. and dont make me fucking define 'synonym' or the nuance between 'nearly the same' and 'the same' for you too.

>Gnostic/Agnostic answers to different question than Theism/Atheism
agreed, but you're saying if i asked you if you wanted a) a smack in your stupid fucking moronic face b) an ice cream c) not being smacked in the face and you could only choose one, you wouldn't be able to answer? if it were a yes or no question i would have given you two choices fucktard...

>You are a troll
This is a poll
fix'd.

why so sensitive/sagey /sci/, afraid your magic can't answer the questions of life, or is it just that your militant atheism is actually reactionary counter-culture faggot shit and if you had any sense you'd just be agnostic. stop trying to hedge...

>>2851626
>factual definiton
>chooses 2nd definition because it fits argument better
-10/10

>>2851653
Only creationists use that definition, no actual Atheists agree with it. And since it doesn't fit anyone, it is WRONG. Also a definition on some website doesn't tell people what they believe or not.


Atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

straight out of oxford dictionary.

>>2851659
>Both definitions fit my argument
>"You pick the one that suits your argument"

Besides, you're the one claimed that I'm using the word incorrectly. That implies that no matter which definition I pick, what I say is incorrect. To show you wrong, I only have to find one definition by which my way of using the word makes sense.

2/10

>>2851653
There is no third answer to "Do you believe in god"
There is only:
Yes -> Theism
And
Other answers that are not Yes or imply yes -> Atheism

This might be a poll but considering that this poll:

Are you: Theist, atheist or man
Is same than yours.
I would answer:
man and atheist or to your poll agnostic atheist.
That is a really bad poll because it implyes that you can only pick one and it leaves out Gnostics.

It's a bad poll because most of the people can't give a meaningfull answer because they are agnostic atheists.

Because of this you are a troll or 13.
If you are 13 then i forgive you but you really shouldn't be here.

>>2851636
>There are crazy people.
so i see...
>It exists because it can.
by that logic there could be devil worshipping christians... or a teapot could be orbitting jupiter while we're at it... stringing a couple of words together doesnt make that when you said that was having been going to do it...

gnostic
   /ˈnɒstɪk/ [nos-tik]
–adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.
1.
pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
and inb4 'omg def2 etc', reading the bible satisfies that requirement, but doesnt make you a believer by default...

gnostic theist: having knowledge of a god [proof?]
gnostic atheist: having knowledge that there is no god [again, proof?]

Ignostic atheist; it is impossible to determine the existence of a being that is undefined, or has several contradictory and useless definitions.

>>2851678
>An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings
>That is making the assumption that a God exists, which is not proven.
so you have to prove that something doesnt exist to not believe in it?

>you're the one claimed that I'm using the word incorrectly
you asked me to point out the contradiction, which i did
>To show you wrong, I only have to find one definition by which my way of using the word makes sense.
told? told.

>>2851682
what are you fucking stupid
answer me this: is string theory a) right b) incomplete c) wrong

>>2851699
>Implying the top quote is me

>you asked me to point out the contradiction, which i did
No you didn't. As I just pointed out, to have a contradiction, you need to show that there is no way in which my way of using the word makes sense. You have to show that each combination of valid definitions leads to a contradiction.

3/10

I get banned 2 times for trivial, stupid reasons such as posting goatse and using the word "jew" (not even anti-semtically) and yet these threads remain.

mods=fags

Seriously, this board has the worst mods out of any board on 4chan.

I'm just going to leave this here.

>>2851685
Please read
>It exists because it can.
>It might not be logical
People believe in all sorts of things without proof.

Opinion=/=Reality

I can believe that there is green goblin god under my bed and be 100% sure about it. That would make make gnostic theists towards that green goblin god.
There is no evidence but i would not care, that is just my opinion.

The group exist, like it or not. It might not be logical position to take but people take it anyway.

Your example about the bible is exactly why people are gnostic theists. They claim that they believe in
god and they also claim that they have knowledge about the god. It is not logical position to take but they take it anyway, much like creationist.

>>2851703
You seem to think that:
If A is B ( Some question has 3 options)
Then
C must also be B (all/this other question also has 3 options)

And that is one big pile of bullshit.

We are not talking about string theory, we are talking about this question:
"Do you believe in god?"
What are your possible answers to this?

Do not try to change the subject or perform ridiculous fallacies.

>>2851711
>accepts illogical ideas
>calls me troll
nice one /sci/

>>2851710
this validates the options i gave... furthermore
>Believes in a god or gods, but doesnt know with 100% certainty
>believes
>doesnt know
>has faith but doesnt
philosophicalskepticismFTW.jpg

>>2851720
The possible answers are "yes", "no", "Undecided".

>>2851707
>implying the bottom quote wasn't your answer the top quote

>>2851731
His point being, if you are "undecided" then at that time you don't believe in a God, thus you are an Atheist. Or vice versa.

>>2851633
>one choice only pls...
>2851603
>b and c
fullretard.jpg

>>2851731
>The possible answers are "yes", "no", "Undecided".
Undecided means that you do no believe and that is same as No,
Nice try though

>>2851733
I don't even know what you are saying. Would you clear it out.

Are you saying that positions that are not logical can't exist?
Because i'm definitely sure that creationist exists and that is one illogical stance

>>2851699
>>2851699
top quote guy here.
You used this as your definition, which I disagreed with.
>An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings

As to which I responded that in order for me to "deny" something, it has to be proven, if it is not proven then one can just believe or disbelieve. As to which I disbelieve.

>so you have to prove that something doesnt exist to not believe in it?
You need to prove that a God exists, in order for someone to deny that existence, there has been no evidence put forth for the existence of any of the 1000s of Gods.

>>2851744
I have no clue what you're trying to point out. I did not write, nor comment on,
>An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings
>That is making the assumption that a God exists, which is not proven.

2/10

Theist. Yeah, yeah, but if I don't let it get in the way of anything it doesn't really matter what I believe, does it? You're just jelly that I have an all expenses paid trip to the VIP afterlife, while you guys are home on Friday night, forever.

>>2851755
>>2851745
This is not entirely true though. "Not believe" may be enterpreted as either "I believe the converse" or "I either believe the converse of the middle". Allowing for an "Undecided" option removes this ambiguity.

>>2851778
It may be confusing to some, but that's what it is.

/sci/ is definately the most inscure, retarded, inbred board on 4chan.

at any rate, so far we have 3 agnostics and 3 'agnostic atheists'. ie 3 fags and 3 bi-fags. or just 6 agnostics.
let me re-rephrase it for you bi-fags: are a) straight b) bi c) gay?

>>2851758
oh and
>You need to prove that a God exists, in order for someone to deny that existence
no u, prove that reality, the big bang or evolution [missing link pls] exist. oh wait, i guess science is a belief too, and as such is deniable. Creationist win? burden of proof is on you fuckwad. the implication was that i was asking what you believe, not what you think you 'know'/can prove.
belief: noun - a principle or idea, etc accepted as true, especially without proof

>>2851778
See:
>>2851710
The ambiguity is removed by the additional question of:
"Can it be known?" or some similar question.

If you want to only ask the question:
"Do you believe?"
Then it is just theist/atheist question.

If you want added accuracy then ask the gnostic/agnostic question to make it like the pick.

The problems come when you only include:
>Theist, agnostic or atheist?
because it meanst that those 3 are on the same line, which they are not. That also implyes that they are contradictory, which they are not.

I don't get that comic

>>2851803
the red 'ensign' guy is always the first/often the only to die in star trek eps. they're gingerbread men. they're all going to get ate/die.

>>2851797
>no u, prove that reality, the big bang or evolution [missing link pls] exist.
Ok:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

That should take you couple of years to disprove.


>>2851710
See that chart for correct use of those words.

Using those numbers you gave we have 6 atheists untill those that are "agnostic" say if they believe in god or not.

You are just trolling at this point

>>2851797
>>2851817
And to add we also have 6 agnostics, 3+3
in addition to 6 atheists 3+3

>>2851803
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%28character%29

>>2851797
Evolution has been proven, infinitely more than the bible has. When claiming the existence of a God, the burden is on those making the claim that a God exists.

>belief: noun - a principle or idea, etc accepted as true, especially without proof
Exactly, creationists believe without proof.
I don't believe in science, I accept it, it is the best method for discovering and proving new things.

>>2851429

>>2851817
do you understand what a theory is?
the·o·ry
   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

i have to 'prove' god, yet you don't feel the same applies to science? this narrow-mindedness is what pisses me off about militant atheists like dawkins. agnosticism/skepticism are the only truely scientific approaches to belief. believing otherwise is believing in a religion
re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. [ethics]
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.

get over it.

>>2851855
That's the everyday usage of a theory.
A scientific theory however is an idea that has been put forth, tested and ridiculed for a long time before it eventually gets accepted as true. That idea then becomes a "theory".
It's been tested, all observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that have been tested.

Atheist, agnostic only insofar as radical skepticism is warranted which lets face it it isn't.

agnostic atheist

>>2851855
You can't go higher that theory in science.
Theory of Evolution has more proof than theory of gravity.
Theorie are in turn based on observations.
Make an observation of god and create a theory of god explaining that observation.

I don't really understand what are you saying here. Could you please state your postition so it can be adressed.

Also you seem to imply that atheism and agnosticism are contradictory. They are not, i'mt agnostic atheism.

Also science is agnostic. They don't believe that anything is ultimately right that we know.
Science presents us with theories that fit all evidence.
If you find contradictiong evidence we must create a new theory that takes that new evidence into account.

>i have to 'prove' god, yet you don't feel the same applies to science?
God as an explanation to something must fit all the available evidence. Same thing is required for science.
They stand on equal grounds here.
Difference is scientific theories have evidence to back them up.

>>2851838
evolution is not a theory then? you've found the missing link and completed our understanding of it and no more research is needed whatsoever? i'm not saying that i don't agree with the logic of evolution, but our logic being incomplete, its unwise to disgard all notions of alternative theories [ie religion], and just to be clear, when i say 'god' i dont mean big grey bearded guy in the sky, i mean literally anything you want god to be, matrix, truman show, videogame whatever...

at the end of the day the way i see it, if there is a god, science is the joke, but its a funny one so we may aswell play along....

and
>let me re-rephrase it for you bi-fags: are a) straight b) bi c) gay?
by your logic its possible to be both bi and gay.
furthermore i ask you to chose ONE option. if you're not capable of making a decision/haven't actually thought about it, you need not answer/troll.

Agnostic Atheist

>>2851898

Evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is the theory we utilize to explain how evolution works.

>>2851892
thats not quite how faith works,

>Difference is scientific theories have evidence to back them up.
incestuous theories. at the end of the day ALL science depends on the big bang, and science has NO FUCKING CLUE/THEORY as to WHY the big bang happened. personally i like the family guy 'god lighting a fart' reasoning as much as any other.

>>2851912

>implying there needs to be a reason.

>>2851898
>>2851898
Religion is NOT a theory, as it has not been tested or supported by evidence. Which is what is required from a scientific theory. Please read up quick on this website www.notjustatheory.com

>by your logic its possible to be both bi and gay.
That's a different case.

>>2851892
i dont think that faith and science are mutually exclusive, just that they dont mix/reside on different planes.
its perfectly possible that evolution was gods plan, but again, science has no plan for explaining WHY the big bang happened. sure we know what happened a billion billionth of a second afterwards. i understand a movie when i watch it, but that doesnt mean i can always tell how a shot was produced.

>>2851912
>at the end of the day ALL science depends on the big bang
Not true whatsoever.
The theory of evolution, gravity etc.. are all separate from abiogenesis.

>>2851929

Typicalchangeofstory.jpg

Stop changing what those fuckwits wrote thousands of years ago to conform to your fallacious ideas.... Its bunk.

>>2851898
Evolution is fact.
Theory of Evolution is the theory that explains that fact.
It is currently correct and it accounts for all of the evidence we have.
There are no "missing links" or any typical creationist things.
If new evidence is found then we must change the theory.

Untill then Theory of evolution must be logicaly accepted as the best theory and logically we must act like it was completely true.
Of course we must continue to study and gain knowledge about it to further improve it.

>>2851912
>ALL science depends on the big bang
No

Standard fallacy:
"HURR Evilution doesn't explain lifes origin/origin of the universe so it must be wrong"

Theories only explain the things that they are meant to explain

All other theories work even if we were completely wrong about big bang.

Theory of Gravity holds no matter where our universe came from.
Theory of Evolution holds even if there we no gravity
Germ theory explains germs and doesn't explain abiogenesis
Etc. Etc.

All scientific theories stand on their own feet and are independant from each other.

I'm a theist. A Christian Theist.
One of My friend is a Agnostic Theism. He's Buddhist.
The other one is Mystic.

We're all browse 4chan. So 3 votes there for you.

>>2851927

the·o·ry
   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
>a proposed explanation

prop·o·si·tion
   /ˌprɒpəˈzɪʃən/ [prop-uh-zish-uhn]
–noun
1.
the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered
>suggesting

re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. [ethics]
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons
>beliefs agreed upon by a number of persons

see the similarity?
unfortunately in a faith based system, you don't even need a bible to 'prove' anything. not the bible means shit, but you can't just write religion off because its not proven, just like i wouldn't write off higgs-boson.

>That's a different case.
how so?

>Also science is agnostic. They don't believe that anything is ultimately right that we know.
and yet as a /sci/entist you're not agnostic? i'm asking wether you pick white, grey or black, not grey-black or white-grey... you inability to answer black or white leads me to conclude that you mean grey.

>>2851958
Buddhists are also Atheists though

>>2851983
You are still using the everyday usage of the word "theory". Not scientific theory, you're doing it wrong.

>>2851710
>>2851710
^Look at that chart, its a simple concept.