The definition of "Atheism", why Agnosticism is bs.

[lucious]

209 vaughn- you seem to believe in a theistic God because of the supposed absurdity of the universe being meaningless/random fluctuations of energy.


But why polarise the question so sharply? Why not consider futurism/transhumanist philosophies? Omega Point? Complexity theory? Emergence? Buddhist/Taoist ideas interpreted for a modern scientific society? Its a question I ask myself often: Why run to the Christian God just because you need ultimate meaning?

[lasher]

209 vaughn- you seem to believe in a theistic God because of the supposed absurdity of the universe being meaningless/random fluctuations of energy.


But why polarise the question so sharply? Why not consider futurism/transhumanist philosophies? Omega Point? Complexity theory? Emergence? Buddhist/Taoist ideas interpreted for a modern scientific society? Its a question I ask myself often: Why run to the Christian God just because you need ultimate meaning?

Do you really feel something like the omege point, for example, can provide ultimate meaning?

[chalup]

Do you really feel something like the omege point, for example, can provide ultimate meaning?

I do, I feel it makes the most sense. As in life is pure consciousness and is wanting to experience itself in every single way possible. It answers all the questions about why "evil" and bad things exist. I dont know exactly what you mean by the ultimate meaning, I think that might just be a concept we have made up for ourselves. I think absolute do not exist, as in there is no such thing as perfect beauty, or perfect knowledge, etc. I dont agree with all the concepts of the omega point though.

[N4th4n]

So if someone says "I dont know if I believe in God or not", they're an Atheist? Pls go.

Are you trolling? There is no, "I don't know if I believe in God or not" stance. You either believe or you don't, it's a fairly simply concept.

Saying 'I don't know if there is a god or not' is a different question, but it still means you're an atheist, because you don't actually believe in a higher power.

[chalup]

Are you trolling? There is no, "I don't know if I believe in God or not" stance. You either believe or you don't, it's a fairly simply concept.

Saying 'I don't know if there is a god or not' is a different question, but it still means you're an atheist, because you don't actually believe in a higher power.

ag�nos�tic   /�gˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Say what? Holding neither sides puts you, well, on neither side dude. You are trying to tell us the word agnostic isn't real and should have never been created? lolwut.

[Tamorlane]

It's mind blowing how retarded some of you are in this regard. How difficult is this concept to understand?

Atheism is a world view. It's not some slang-symbolic term to be deeply interpreted in some ancient monastary.

-Atheism means you believe there is no God. This is based off scientific rational. A typical atheist is Carl Sagan. He knows physics, he knows the emptiness of the Universe, he knows the atheist arguments. He believes there is no God because science cannot prove there is a God, and like how some need religious dogma to guide them through life, others use science and cannot think outside of it. Sometimes, as in cases of Sagan, this is a good thing because he provides us that counter-balance to more theoretical/metaphysical approaches.

-Agnostic means you are not sure. If there is even the slightest doubt from the above atheist world-view, then they are no longer an atheist, they are deemed agnostic. This is why atheists like Dawkins piss people off, because they are steadfast in their approach to the notion that there is no God, despite corroborating evidence.

[209vaughn]

It wouldn't be discernible from that statement if he was either, he could be theist (as he might not know, but still have faith), atheist (lack belief, choose not to believe)or he might be gnostic (conceed is possible to have knowledge of god but he yet does not have it)

Stop repeating the argument, that the minor lay definition (which only featured in one source of yours at 4th place), is the one commonly understood by lay people therefore that the one everyone should use even in philosophical discussion and philosophical classification. Especially when given your example, unless you are ignorant and so make assumption based on ignorance is not more informative than the correct usage of the terms.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does make you correct and over turn how the word has been used and classified for the last 300 years in philosophical discussion. I really couldn't give a **** how uneducated ignorant retards use the word or how it has entered popculture. If we are having a discussion about theology and philosophy if you want to have a meaningful conversation you better use the correct terms. It like when people think they can talk about ethics yet haven't even bothered to get a basic grasp on how meta-ethics is organised.

The proper defintions and the casual vernacular definitions are the same in most cases. You cant avoid this sorry. An agnostic will always be someone who's not sure of their belief in God. Keep reffering to "philosophy" as if it somehow makes you sound smarter. LOL.

[tk217]

It's mind blowing how retarded some of you are in this regard. How difficult is this concept to understand?

Atheism is a world view. It's not some slang-symbolic term to be deeply interpreted in some ancient monastary.

-Atheism means you believe there is no God. This is based off scientific rational. A typical atheist is Carl Sagan. He knows physics, he knows the emptiness of the Universe, he knows the atheist arguments. He believes there is no God because science cannot prove there is a God, and like how some need religious dogma to guide them through life, others use science and cannot think outside of it. Sometimes, as in cases of Sagan, this is a good thing because he provides us that counter-balance to more theoretical/metaphysical approaches.

-Agnostic means you are not sure. If there is even the slightest doubt from the above atheist world-view, then they are no longer an atheist, they are deemed agnostic. This is why atheists like Dawkins piss people off, because they are steadfast in their approach to the notion that there is no God, despite corroborating evidence.

Why do you live in such a tiny box?