/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5160683]

Why aren't you agnostic?

[Anonymous No.5160691]

Because your definition is wrong.

[Anonymous No.5160689]

>>5160683
I am.

[Anonymous No.5160694]

>>5160691
Second.

[Anonymous No.5160702]

Because agnostics sterotype apparently.

[Anonymous No.5160708]

>>5160694
But this one is just as wrong. This little 2x2 table you see copypasted everywhere on 4chan has no reference in litterature.
"Agnosticism" is a school of thought that says the existence of God is unknowables. Not that there is a difference between "I don't know" and "I know it's not possible to know".

"Gnosticism" is a collection of early christian sects. Using it as the opposite of "agnosticism" will only show your lack of formal education.

[Anonymous No.5160710]

>>5160708
*Note

[Anonymous No.5160711]

>pic related
a lot of people just quote agnosticism to avoid atheist stereotypes or just to make themselves feel smarter. Besides the proper terminology is here>>5160694

[Anonymous No.5160712]

>>5160691

THIS

GOD DAMMIT OP "AGNOSTIC" IS A MEANINGLESS INDIVIDUAL POSITION

Agnostic is a DESCRIPTOR, it cannot be a position on its own

[Anonymous No.5160715]

>>5160691
>>5160694

Definitions cannot be correct or incorrect. They can fail to be congruent with standard usage, but that's rarely a clear matter. His error is not using the wrong definition, it's setting up a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.5160717]

>>5160708
Gnosticism is a religious sect.
Gnostic is a term relating to knowledge.
Plus, language is a living thing.

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

[Anonymous No.5160721]

>>5160708

>"Agnosticism" is a school of thought that says the existence of God is unknowables. Not that there is a difference between "I don't know" and "I know it's not possible to know".

Very few self-proclaimed agnostics take the second position, as they want to weasel out of the idea of a god or gods being proven to exist. That form of agnosticism prevents proof, and assumes that god or gods will always be unknowable.

>"Gnosticism" is a collection of early christian sects. Using it as the opposite of "agnosticism" will only show your lack of formal education.

How do I into homonyms? We're not talking about that. The same word can hold two meanings.

[Anonymous No.5160726]

>>5160721
>How do I into homonyms? We're not talking about that. The same word can hold two meanings.
See >>5160724

[Anonymous No.5160724]

>>5160717
>Plus, language is a living thing.
Give me a reference for that use which is not 4chan or SA.
Language is a living thing, imageboard philosophy is still irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5160729]

>>5160711
I am not an agnostic to 'feel smarter'.
I am one because I do not know if there is a God or not, and perhaps there is.
I am open minded.

[Anonymous No.5160731]

>>5160726

Did you miss this link somehow
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

[Anonymous No.5160738]

>>5160731
Specific use for religion plox, and when I mean "litterature", it should be obvious I'm not asking for an online dictionnary entry.

[Anonymous No.5160743]

>>5160729
Then just say you are open-minded and have no position. You don't need to have a word for that. You're just one of the many kinds of atheist.
Leave "agnosticism" to those who have something to say about the unknowability of the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.5160744]

>>5160738
You dont happen to be the guy who just said he was open minded, are ya?

[Anonymous No.5160745]

>>5160729

So you think Thor might be real?

[Anonymous No.5160747]

>>5160744
No.

[Anonymous No.5160750]

>>5160743
I usually do say that I have no position.
If pressed for a position, then I will say agnostic, as that is the closest that I can give.

Video is very much related; we think alike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

[Anonymous No.5160753]

>>5160745
We know where thunder and lightning actually comes from.
So no, Thor is not real.

[Anonymous No.5160754]

>>5160744
There is no reason to be "open-minded" about that.
This little 2x2 table crushes millenias of theology into a stupid caricatural excel chart, which is why I'm violently against ignorant uses of those words.
It's typical "let's do phylosophy with a baseball bat" mentality I despise.

[Anonymous No.5160761]

>>5160738
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic
>possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gnostic
>(no comparative or superlative) Of, or relating to, intellectual or spiritual knowledge

>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gnostic
>Adjective: Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

>https://www.google.com/search?q=gnostic+definition
>Adjective: Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

It's not just religious knowledge, but 'gnostic' means you know. You know for sure. It can be used in a religious manner or any other manner.

How many dictionaries do you need?

[Anonymous No.5160766]

>>5160750
Yeah Tyson is just one of the many people who use "agnostic" just to separate themselves from perceived "atheists".
It's wrong though, and it's really not doing justice to agnostics.
Fundamentalists are to blame for that, with their retarded attemps at making "atheism" appear as one monolithic school of thought.

Show you're free from fundamentalist propaganda, use the correct word without social fear. The correct word is "atheist", as long as you are not a believer.

[Anonymous No.5160770]

>>5160761
I
don't
need
dictionnaries.
I need a philosopher or a theologian.
Dictionnaries are not authorities.

Show me a source for that little 2x2 classification other than 4chan, goddamit.

[Anonymous No.5160774]

I'm an agnostic atheist.

[Anonymous No.5160775]

>>5160770
Keep moving them goalposts.

[Anonymous No.5160778]

>>5160766
The OP's picture is actually quite accurate though.
Atheists tend to be loud-mouthed and arrogant.
They claim to be free from religion, and then never shut up about it.
As an agnostic, I see no reason to discuss it at all.
Those who want to follow a religion, should be able to, and those who do not want to, should be free from it.

I do not believe in Ghosts either, but I see no reason to confront people who do, and start arguments with them.

[Anonymous No.5160776]

I don't know why I'm agnostic.

[Anonymous No.5160781]

>>5160776
lol

[GOMADWarrior No.5160784]

lol dummy

you either believe in god or you don't, there's no middle term

[Anonymous No.5160787]

>>5160774
You need to pick one.

[Anonymous No.5160783]

>>5160775
I never did, I always said online dictionaries wouldn't satisfy me, and that I want a specific example for that use in religion.
You just keep posting the same online dictionnary links.

[Anonymous No.5160790]

>>5160784
Yes there is; you do not have to pick one side or the other.
Nobody is forcing you to choose.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that you do not know the answer, to the question of whether or not God exists.

[Anonymous No.5160791]

>>5160778
You will when people want ghosts to become an integral part of the government.

[Anonymous No.5160796]

>>5160787
>i don't understand words
>i don't know how to google search
it's time to stop posting

[Anonymous No.5160798]

>>5160791
Obviously they never will, troll.

[Anonymous No.5160799]

>>5160778

So how do you react when people want undead spirits to be taught in schools?

Teach both sides?

[Anonymous No.5160802]

>>5160798

[Anonymous No.5160803]

>>5160711
The important thing is you've found a label to pin on people who prove you wrong in rational debate.

[Anonymous No.5160804]

>>5160787
No, both terms are complementary.

[Anonymous No.5160801]

>>5160798
>the point
.

.

.

.

.

>your head

[Anonymous No.5160806]

I think what OP meant to write instead of "Agnostic" is "Tolerant"

It is perfectly reasonable to find tolerant athiests/theists who, whilst believing there is or isn't a God, can still appreciate the religious and spiritiual choices their fellow man has made.

Just as you can easily be an intolerable agnostic by slating those who you think are "inferior" for allowing themselves to believe in something we cannot prove/disprove.

[Anonymous No.5160807]

>>5160753

So you aren't agnostic about Thor, then.

do you see where this is going?

[Anonymous No.5160808]

>>5160799
Religious studies is taught in schools.
Religion is quite a big part of life, it has an affect on other people, even if you do not believe any of them yourself.
Children should be taught about religion.
Would you ban religious studies?

Your comparison with 'undead spirits to be taught in schools?' is faulty.
They do not play a large part in life, and there has never been any evidence that they exist, and very very few people believe in them.

They do not need to be taught.

[Anonymous No.5160811]

>>5160808

That depends. What Church do you belong to?

[Anonymous No.5160814]

>>5160807
The difference is that Thor can be proved to be a fictional character.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Formation

You can not do the same for all Gods.

I am not agnostic about the ones that I know can not possibly be real.

[Anonymous No.5160815]

>>5160811
I am agnostic, so I do not belong to any Church.

[Anonymous No.5160816]

>>5160808
Religion can and should be taught but only culturally.

You're rather dense or lack imagination if you don't understand the ghost metaphor.

[Anonymous No.5160821]

>>5160814
Obviously Thor is working behind the scenes to create the conditions for lightening. How dare you insult my God.

[Anonymous No.5160823]

>>5160808
>there has never been any evidence that they exist
Same goes for the existence of god.

>very very few people believe in them.
I disagree. Many uneducated people believe in ghosts and those sort of thing.

>They do not need to be taught.
I want the same for all the fields that do not follow the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.5160826]

>>5160816
You can not relate Ghosts to Gods.

It is as foolish as me saying "Well Dragons are not real, so therefore Dinosaurs never existed either!"

Dinosaurs did exist.
It is just that through most of Humanities history, we were not able to find any evidence of them, until we developed the field of modern Archaeology.

[Anonymous No.5160829]

>>5160821
Clearly not.
Read the link, troll.

The formation is fully explained. Nothing is missing.

[Carl No.5160830]

This is a bad thread. I think I'm gonna delete it.

[Anonymous No.5160830,1]

>>5160830
Because you intended it just to be a trollthread?
Damn you Carl, I actually wanted to see that other persons next response.
:(