|
Religion threads are banned on TL. Further derailment will be met with immediate permanent bans. |
Holy smoke, this thread is beyond derailed hahaha...it's in a completely different direction now... :/
Good luck to her, though!
|
90% of all agnostics are just people who are afraid to publicly declare his opinions  Most of the people who will answer "I'm agnostic" are actually just ashamed theists.
But the important distinction to make is your agnosticism from religious beliefs and your agnosticism towards science. Whatever you think about religion is irrelevant when deciding if you teach it in a science class. I won't go to a church to try to teach them science. You can't go to a school to teach religion.
On June 15 2011 06:42 Z3kk wrote:
Holy smoke, this thread is beyond derailed hahaha...it's in a completely different direction now... :/
Good luck to her, though! We're talking about the opinions she use to support why we should vote for her. It's 100% on topic.
|
Barrin, when people speak about god they don't mean god in a way that Einstein talked about it, they mean a personal god in which he did not believe in and putting those together as theistic believes hurts more than it helps imo.
Atheism doesn't mean you know that there is no god, simply that you don't believe in it.
Theist = You believe there is a god, Atheist = You don't believe there is a god. Agnostic just means that you don't know that there is / is not a god. I bet 99% of all Atheists are Agnostic and many Christians are aswell, if Atheist actually meant you know that there is no god there would only be a few people left.
|
i watched the youtube video, and she gave the most diplomatic answer ever
she said nothing about ID,
she said nothing about ID should be taught instead of evolution
she definitly said nothing about ID should be taught in science ..
wtf people
|
On June 15 2011 06:44 lisN wrote:
Barrin, when people speak about god they don't mean god in a way that Einstein talked about it, they mean a personal god in which he did not believe in and putting those together as theistic believes hurts more than it helps imo.
Atheism doesn't mean you know that there is no god, simply that you don't believe in it.
Theist = You believe there is a god, Atheist = You don't believe there is a god. Agnostic just means that you don't know that there is / is not a god. I bet 99% of all Atheists are Agnostic and many Christians are aswell, if Atheist actually meant you know that there is no god there would only be a few people left.
This. Agnosticism is only mutually exclusive with strong atheism and strong theism, a position which very few atheists or even theists hold.
|
|
|
On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me.
You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
|
On June 15 2011 06:45 phil.ipp wrote:
i watched the youtube video, and she gave the most diplomatic answer ever
she said nothing about ID,
she said nothing about ID should be taught instead of evolution
she definitly said nothing about ID should be taught in science ..
wtf people
"Evolution: I believe in intelligent design, the separation of church & state, & the responsibility of every individual to search for truth."
- @AnnaProsser
http://twitter.com/#!/AnnaProsser/status/79789495783927808
|
|
|
On June 15 2011 06:50 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:45 phil.ipp wrote:
i watched the youtube video, and she gave the most diplomatic answer ever
she said nothing about ID,
she said nothing about ID should be taught instead of evolution
she definitly said nothing about ID should be taught in science ..
wtf people "Evolution: I believe in intelligent design, the separation of church & state, & the responsibility of every individual to search for truth." - @AnnaProsser http://twitter.com/#!/AnnaProsser/status/79789495783927808
oh nevermind then :/
haha
"the responsibility of every individual to search for truth"
thats a really meaningless sentence, expected of a beauty queen tough :D
|
On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan One thing has nothing to do with the other. No theory can ever be proven to be 100% true. That's how science works. So for practical reasons, scientists will consider as "true" a theory that has an acceptable amount of evidence to support it. Else it's false.
So scientifically, god is false. If you disagree, you don't understand science. Many scientists do believe in god. But none of them say it's for a scientific reason.
|
On June 15 2011 06:52 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:47 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me. You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. They do not have to be mutually exclusive, that is true. I hold no "belief" either way. As far as the argument of a "god" or a "diety" is concerned, I hold no position either way simply because there is not enough evidence either way.
Which would make you an atheist. You have a lack of a belief in a deity.
|
On June 15 2011 06:42 Z3kk wrote:
Holy smoke, this thread is beyond derailed hahaha...it's in a completely different direction now... :/
Good luck to her, though!
The whole evolution topic deserves a thread, but not this one.
A mod should pin a massage at the top of the page to warn people from derailing.
Best of luck in the contest!
|
On June 15 2011 06:42 VIB wrote:
We're talking about the opinions she used to support why we should vote for her. It's 100% on topic.
I have to disagree with that. She or her beliefs are not part of this discussion at all. You are merely discussing theism vs atheism, distinctions between theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Her mention of her belief in intelligent design was in passing and by no means (I feel) warrants an in depth discussion of the semantics and facets of science versus religion, etc. That tweet does not mention agnosticism (PM if you disagree about the existence of agnosticism perhaps), whether intelligent design must be taught, or any comparisons/contrasts between science, religion, theism, atheism, intelligent design, agnosticism, et al.
This discussion deserves its own thread, but shouldn't belong here. This is somewhat comparable--perfect analogies are hard to come by--to a discussion of a president-in-running's stated religious beliefs and utter disregard of any other quality (one might point out that over a quarter of the entire thread is about the aforementioned theological/scientific debate).
However, who am I to judge? Obviously this is just a difference of opinion, i.e. I don't think this type of discussion applies to her candidacy, while you do. To each his own. I didn't realize that she mentioned this specifically (popped in just now), so it's not 100% off topic, but I do not think (added as a disclaimer, I suppose) this is 100% on topic either.
|
|
|
Really hoping Anna wins Miss USA. She does a ton for the community
|
8748 Posts
On June 15 2011 06:47 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me. You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
This response evinces a poor understanding of agnostics. It seems you are so caught up in theist vs atheist that you think everyone must be one or the other. But there's no compulsion. People can opt out of picking a side. It's like a hundred opaque cups are face down and a ball is underneath one and someone asks you to pick the cup with the ball and you say "well I have no idea where it is" and you refuse to pick. And when someone asks "what cup did you pick?" and you say "I didn't know where the ball was." Then the person gets mad and says "That's technically not an answer to my question you are so dumb you don't understand words blah blah blah. If I wanted to know how much confidence you had in the cup you picked, I would have asked that blah blah blah. You must pick a cup!!" So basically, agnosticism works just as well as an explanation for not picking as it does for describing the level of confidence you have in the pick you made.
edit:
On June 15 2011 06:54 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:52 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:47 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me. You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. They do not have to be mutually exclusive, that is true. I hold no "belief" either way. As far as the argument of a "god" or a "diety" is concerned, I hold no position either way simply because there is not enough evidence either way. Which would make you an atheist. You have a lack of a belief in a deity.
You seem to think that not making a choice automatically puts you with the atheists. That's just not accurate.
|
On June 15 2011 07:10 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:53 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan One thing has nothing to do with the other. No theory can ever be proven to be 100% true. That's how science works. So for practical reasons, scientists will consider as "true" a theory that has an acceptable amount of evidence to support it. Else it's false. So scientifically, god is false. If you disagree, you don't understand science. Many scientists do believe in god. But none of them say it's for a scientific reason. Nothing in science is 100%. That's actually the fundamental distinction between religion and science. Religious people simply believe something (or in the lack of something IMO) without hard evidence and proof. Science on the other hand questions everything always... even when everyone believes it is one way doesn't mean that's the way it actually is, that's the heart of science (must I bring up the analogy that hundreds of years ago everyone KNEW that the earth was flat?). I stand by my statement that there is not enough evidence to support the argument that there is no god. I truly do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest my logic to think either way... I am essentially claiming lack of knowledge, which is what agnostic essentially deals with: lack of knowledge. Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:54 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:52 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:47 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me. You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. They do not have to be mutually exclusive, that is true. I hold no "belief" either way. As far as the argument of a "god" or a "diety" is concerned, I hold no position either way simply because there is not enough evidence either way. Which would make you an atheist. You have a lack of a belief in a deity. Google disagrees with you a bit (go to google and type "atheism definition"). google.com: a·the·ism Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist. Anyways I really don't want to have some sort of argument about this... I know what I believe (or don't believe...) and you can call it what you want. Just so you know I had this exact same discussion in another thread and we pretty much decided to just agree upon this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N5pNF.jpg) For the purposes of communication (which is what this is really about), there, that's what I meant.
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." That's all atheism is. It's a lack of belief, if you don't hold a belief in God, you have a lack of belief(you) then you are an atheist(you). In fact I hold the exact same position as you, that being the position of an agnostic atheist.
|
![[image loading]](http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/atheist_chart.gif)
This chart is much better imo.
Edit: Are these discussions ok or should we stop them because they are too offtopic? I just read that might be a problem.
|
On June 15 2011 07:18 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:47 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me. You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. This response evinces a poor understanding of agnostics. It seems you are so caught up in theist vs atheist that you think everyone must be one or the other. But there's no compulsion. People can opt out of picking a side. It's like a hundred opaque cups are face down and a ball is underneath one and someone asks you to pick the cup with the ball and you say "well I have no idea where it is" and you refuse to pick. And when someone asks "what cup did you pick?" and you say "I didn't know where the ball was." Then the person gets mad and says "That's technically not an answer to my question you are so dumb you don't understand words blah blah blah. If I wanted to know how much confidence you had in the cup you picked, I would have asked that blah blah blah. You must pick a cup!!" So basically, agnosticism works just as well as an explanation for not picking as it does for describing the level of confidence you have in the pick you made. edit: Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 06:54 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:52 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:47 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:46 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 06:36 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan On June 15 2011 06:38 Olinim wrote:On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 04:18 Overpowered wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!". So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. On June 15 2011 04:56 randplaty wrote:On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote:On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote:Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution. You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology. Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism. All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name. Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic. Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism. I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I said I am very agnostic... which means I am right in the center. I make no claim either positive or negative, burden of proof is definitely not on me. You're either an atheist or a theist. There is no logical third position. You don't seem to understand that agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. They do not have to be mutually exclusive, that is true. I hold no "belief" either way. As far as the argument of a "god" or a "diety" is concerned, I hold no position either way simply because there is not enough evidence either way. Which would make you an atheist. You have a lack of a belief in a deity. You seem to think that not making a choice automatically puts you with the atheists. That's just not accurate.
You either actively hold a belief in a deity or you don't. If it's the latter you're an atheist, that's all there is to it. You can say you choose not to pick but in reality you either hold a belief or lack one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
