/sci/ - Science & Math

>agnosticism
>religious position

you mean agnostic atheism

also, you mad

agnosticism isn't a position at all, you are ignorant.

Fuck off. Agnosticism isn't a religious position, it's a ontological position.

You can be one of the following:

Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

And two of them are axiomatically inaccurate (clue: the gnostic ones).

What are you left with? Do you believe a god exists or not?

Op believes in the pixies.

>>2886980
the difference is definitional.

The "position" of agnosticism is just the result of using a different definition for atheism and then defining agnosticism as ground not covered by that different definition. By most, however, the definition for atheism covers the ground agnosticism attempts to take.

Agnosticism is more aptly and meaningfully used as a modifier of the Atheist and Theist positions, because it is a position on absolute certainty, not the actual positing or rejecting of a claim.

>>2886982
>agnostic atheism
>he repeats everything Dawkins says without question

dont atheists bash religious folk for believing in falsities based on faith? sounds like exactly what youre doing considering agnostic is a noun in the dictionary

>>2886983
>>2886984
>>2886982
>>2886989


>agnostic atheism
>they repeats everything Dawkins says without question

dont atheists bash religious folk for believing in falsities based on faith? sounds like exactly what youre doing considering agnostic is a noun in the dictionary

>>2886989

You don't know what the word 'ontological' means. What you meant is an epistemic position. Don't use words you don't understand, you pretentious faggot.

>>2886980
If god ever shows up and declare "HELLO FAGS I EXIST!" with his divine power, then atheists would obviously accept his existence too.

Agnostics are just afraid of him existing and punishing nonbelivers, they think god will listen to "I HALF-BELIVED IN YOU!"

And when(provided this whole mess plays out as religious BAD END) the agnostics go to hell instead, what do you think satan will think of them?

Atheists will, if they go to hell, be respected for having balls. Or they'll be let into heaven for not displaying cowardice and taking a stand for their belives.
Agnostics on the other hand... oh damned they'll be for certain.

>>2887001

Then you must believe in pixies. Because you can't disprove them.

>>2887001

>implying dawkins invented it

I am agnostic. And nothing else. A true agnostic doesn't need to specify further agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

An agnostic argues with a theist by referring to God to reveal logical contradictions from within. However it is just an open ended metaphor for the cause of the universe. It is not deception - the agnostic just doesn't care to differentiate a christian god from the cause of the universe.

An agnostic argues with an atheist by questioning the limits of human knowledge.

>>2887015
>implying thats not who you learned it from like all teenage atheists

oh excuse me, youre special. youre the one angsty teenage atheist who didnt learn it from dawkins. what a coincidence. i suppose you had the mohawk before everyone else did, you just happened to be wearing it while it was trendy by coincidence too.

i know your type

>>2887010
One of the most retarded posts I've seen.

If God is not real, how come "HAY GUIZE ITS ME GOD" written in ASCII in our DNA?

>>2886996
>absolute certainty

>>2887027
well hes an atheist crusader after all

>>2887019
You have stupid opinions on everything, don't you?

>>2887029
if it were, atheists would just say its a coincidence and show how "moby dick" is also written in our dna. the fact is, atheists cant ever be convinced no matter what the evidence is.

>>2887026

and what's the problem with learning it by dawkins?

you are butthurt because Dawkins is successfull

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm

Atheism: The belief that gods don't exist

Agnosticism: The belief that the question of whether gods exist or not is unanswerable

Theism: The belief gods exist

Only teenage hipster rebelling against mummy and daddy for the first time believe otherwise

>>2887019
You're a fucking moron, that's what you are. Whether you like it or not, you've made up your mind on that particular subject. You can't just not have an opinion. You can say that you "don't know/don't care" to everybody you know but inside you've already chosen a side. You just say you're "agnostic" as to not offend anyone and/or because you're 17 and you just discovered philosophy.

"Agnosticism" doesn't make any more sense than skepticism.

>>2887044
yea Dawkins is so successful he had to abandon his science career because he wasnt intelligent enough to do anything significant and instead became a full time anti-religious zealot due to childhood trauma of getting molested by a priest

WHAT A SUCCESFUL GUY

protip: your hero is schizo

>>2887050

nope , he is a great man

>ctrl+f
>apatheism
>no results

Why are you faggots wasting your time with such trivial matters?

>>2886996
It's widely accepted by philosophers, scientists and any sane clergymen that God can't be proven or disproven. Hence your "distinction" is nothing more than a pile of rancid shit.

>>2887052
>something doesnt make sense because Dawkins said so even though its in the dictionary but i trust Dawkins out of faith boohoo

typical fundamentalist atheist

Why do theists keep insisting that Dawkins is some sort of atheist pope?

>>2887065

why so mad?

>>2887052
>Withholding judgement because there is no evidence for or against
>Doesn't make sense
>This is what children actually believe

>>2887066
maybe because atheists keep claiming that what hes saying is "the truth" regardless of being proven factually wrong?

>>2887066
Why do atheists use baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawkins' copy pasta?

>>2887065
>derpderpDawkins
I haven't even read anything by him, and I couldn't give two shits about what he thinks.
This isn't an evolutionary matter you shitnugget, it's a philosophical one.
I'm an atheist because vocal religious people tend to be cunts like you rather than normal, logical people.

>>2887077
Fuck off, Gouldfag. Genes are what evolution's all about.

>>2887077
>>2887080
>religious people knowing more about Dawkins' research than atheists.
It's like the religious equivalent of an atheist learning bible passages just to piss religious people off!

>>2887085
>a bunch of ad hominems and bawwing like his hero bawkins

nice "normalcy" and "logic" this is a lot like how bawkins argues

>>2887086
Dawkins is legitimately a second-rate biologist.

>>2887077

LOL - How many times has religion been proven wrong. And you still insist on its pontificating nonsense. Its all bullshit folks and its bad for ya.

Carlin.avi

>>2887019
If you lack belief in any deity, you are an atheist. Therefore, even if you consider yourself to be withholding judgment on the issue of the existence of a deity, the fact that you lack belief in the claim "a god exists" means you are an atheist by definition.

so, the best response to existance is

"LOL i dunno"

lol

>>2887100

Religion does not make falsifiable claims, ergo it cannot be disproven.

/thread

>>2887100
what on earth do you mean by "religion"???

>>2887100
>RELIGION SUX LOL SCIENZ RULZ pontification DUR LOL UR STUPID

nice argument bro, i guess using pontification really made you feel like you had a valid point?

>>2887099
Duh, he's not a nobel prize winner.

>>2887066
why do atheists treat him as if he were some sort of scientific pope?

>>2887093
>resorts to saying people blindly follow Dawkins all the time
>accuses other people of using ad hominem arguments
0/10

>>2887125

It's not either/or. Science deals with this world, religion deals with the next world. Case closed.

>>2887112
That's just not true. There are many religions that do make falsifiable claims, Christianity included.

>>2887135
>religion deals with the next world
No it doesn't, not exclusively at least.

>>2887116
An agnostic doesn't lack belief in a deity. What is a deity? An agnostic simply equates deity to being a metaphor for the cause of the universe.

>>2887112

LOL - earth in 6 days, woman from a rib, man has dominion over the earth, "god created" --- ALL FALSE. The only thing that isnt falsifiable is the existence of such a creature which is highly improbable.

>>2887144
No, that's just your own personal bullshit definition of Agnosticism.

>>2887122
Because they think he's a scientist who has contributed greatly to the advancement of humanity and thinking. Meanwhile the some of the greatest minds in history like Euler and Newton were deeply religious.

These annoying angsty atheist teens attempting to rebel agianst the beliefs of their elders speaking about science while making no real scientific contribution of their own and also having very little real scientific knowledge outside what they see in pop sci. All they day everyday they play anti-religion keyboard warrior because they think they're better than the religious.

>>2887151

Only proves that the Biblical narrative isn't literal, but does not disprove the existence of God.

>>2887151
The bible isn't suppose to be interpreted literally. The more you know.

>>2887160
And also because he literally is a scientist, so *not* calling him that would be factually incorrect.

>>2887125

I suppose if I wrote a thesis on it you'll come back and say tl;dr - Try making it accessible to us laymen.

Or if I did it in any other fashion you would pick it apart instead of accepting the truth behind the circumstance.

No thats too difficult, its much easier to strawman and deny your intelligence for a "feel good" sensation aimed directly at your ego.

>>2887167
>but does not disprove the existence of God.
That wasn't the point. He responded to someone who (falsely) claimed that religions don't make falsifiable claims.

>>2887169

>not interpreted literally
>god exists

pick one

>>2887160

he is a scientist since he has a doctorate in science

>>2887144
For the big bang so loved(?) the world that he(?) gave his only begotten son(?) that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life(???)
Man, agnostics are even more insane than most people.

>>2887167

To what degree? Some must be literal, other parts not.

>>2887160

I am almost certain if Newton lived today he would not be religious. You fail to see religion is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and as such it carries SOCIAL PRESSURES. We are free of these constraints now because honestly who gives a fuck. We have laws preventing discrimination against such things.

>>2887001
> dont atheists bash religious folk for believing in falsities based on faith?
In general yes.
> sounds like exactly what youre doing considering agnostic is a noun in the dictionary
gnos·tic (note the uncapitalized g)
/ˈnɒstɪk/ [nos-tik]
–adjective
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

Yeah, I guess it would sound that way to someone who, like a religious person, didn't care if what they were saying was true.

>>2887160
>Meanwhile the some of the greatest minds in history like Euler and Newton were deeply religious.
You'll never hear any self-respecting atheist say "Yeah well he believed in God so everything he said is 100% wrong fuck you".
Pascal was religious, and actually argued that it made more sense to believe in God than to not believe (cf Pascal's wager). He didn't defend religion. Hell, most philosophers were religious. There's more to atheism than just angsty teenagers, just like there's more to religion than the Westboro Baptist Church.

>>2887116
>Ignoring the link that showed dictionary definitions proving you wrong

>>2887169
Some parts aren't, like Revelations, Job and Jonah, but other parts were clearly intended to be taken literally. Like when Paul said slavery was totally OK and that women have to wear headscarves, or Moses said the shortsighted or otherwise visually impaired were banned from church and that blended fabrics are evil.

Also, if you're saying the bible isn't intended to be taken literally aren't you just saying Atheists are right when they call God a fictional character? As in God's no more real than The Ghost of Christmas Past?

>>2887190

But Newton also had unorthodox beliefs in a time when those who did not belong to the Church of England were denied certain socio-political privileges.

>>2887179

Let them strawman - They dont see that social constructs evolve with social climate. Religions adapt to fit with the conventional wisdom of society. After greek philosophers deduced that only 2 gods could exist (Good and Evil) guess what happened to Zeus and Poseidon? You guessed it. But people dont read that shit, why? It makes them upset... They were lied to from the start. But they take it personally.... I dont think they understand it wasn't intentional. This was the best information THEY had at the time (even though it was all conjecture).

>>2887177
Never said he wasn't but he is overhyped as fuck and gives too much a shit about people's personal beliefs.

In America, outside the stupid ass media nobody gives a shit what you believe in. It's your personal deal to believe the fuck you want and nobody should force you to think otherwise because it's douchey as hell. Yuropeons are douche bag faggots who don't know how to chill or keep to their goddamn selves.

>There's more to atheism than just angsty teenagers

there are almost no examples of brilliant or important atheists throughout history, and atheism has been around forever so dont even try that. only teenagers think atheism is some "modern" concept

>>2887206
Didn't make him any more of an atheist. The facts are religion does not hamper your scientific nor mathematical ability and you shouldn't be a atheist cunt who has to prove he's so much better than religious because because HUUURDDURR THEY BELIEVE IN GOD!

Yeah, I'm beginning to understand why euros wiped out so many Jews and Muslims for their beliefs. Fucking eurochildren, I swear.

>>2887206

What are you trying to say? Because he had an unorthodox point of view he was ostracized in some way?

>>2887216
Wot, no Bertrand Russell?

>>2887222

>believe in evolution
>believe in adam and eve

>>2887223

I didn't say that, I just said that in those days, one was expected to belong to the state church to get into high social ranks.

>>2887227
didnt science prove there was a mitochondrial eve already?

>>2887230

Precisely my contention. If he didnt fit in he would be ostracized. Thanks for validating my point :)

>>2887222
Yeah, Americans only commit genocide for personal material gain!