1 2 4 Next
Topic: Never a believer...
mykesorrel's photo
Fri 09/16/11 05:58 AM
Edited by mykesorrel on Fri 09/16/11 06:00 AM







Not suggesting agree with everyone else on something that's improbable, but we both know the agnosticism which deals with knowledge and atheism deals with disbelief.


no, we most certainly do not both know or agree. agnosticism is about the unknowable, not knowledge and atheism has nothing to do with belief or disbelief. the rest of your post i've no comment on as we cannot agree on the terms.







I think you are using the definition on a one sided plane. As you can see from the wiki it states what it is, then later states that modern people use the term to mean "unknowable":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Etymology

Again it states this as i quote:

"Agnostic (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876[10] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[11] Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[12]
In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[13] In technical and marketing literature, agnostic often has a meaning close to "independent"—for example, "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic."" - from the Wiki


As for what i was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

Seems to me you take the portion that conform to you and get rid of everything else to fit what you want, if that's your reasons fine, but please don't make it seem like i'm wrong about the definitions, but then again to me it seems more like your opinion and we will be going back and fourth, but using this to educate anyone else who slides through this thread.


and really atheism is not a disbelief in Gods? Please educate me, maybe i been wrong these past three years. bigsmile


once again. agnostic: regarding what is unknown and unknowable.
atheist: absent theism. you'll note that the word 'belief' or any variation thereof is not part of either description. and i never refer to wiki as a reliable source. and people come to a dating site to be educated???laugh hey man. good one.:banana:


sigh and what is theism kind sir :
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

the belief in deities, the absent of that "belief" is disbelief, why is this so hard to understand? No, let's not get sarcastic, as you can see you have your own perception of whatever you want to think agnosticism is and there are terms coined that are equally valid. It's to not spread misinformation even if this was a website on cookie dough lovers. Wikipedia have cited information so where do your information lay at? the very origin of agnosticism stem from greek as - a (without) gnostic (knowledge), so I guess the word itself is wrong too. Anyway MH is right not that serious this will extend like the other thread did, I made my point.



Hi folks, just popping in and breezed through this thread and just wanted to make a comment.

As an atheist I've always disagreed with those who attemt to define atheism with the term disbelief. On many levels of definition, including synonyms, the term is associated with both, "skepticism" and "doubt."

Certainly, in this vast cyberspace of information, there will be some confliting information available.

However, my reasoning in not accepting the term 'disbelief' is rather simple. I approach matters of religious 'faith' in the same manner with which I would approach reading comic books. Young children with little knowledge or understanding of our human limitations might read the X-Men and wonder about what powers lay hidden in their own bodies. I suppose when those kids grow and no longer habor such childish beliefs that one could say they now disbelieve, but I do not, because those children were working with limited expereience, knowledge and informatin in the first place.

HOWEVER, when an adult immerses himself in a science fiction book or movie they do so by suspending 'belief' (example: imagining our world in the company of vampires or being invaded by Martians). But such behavior is not akin to DISBELIEF.

Now, let's look at religious belief. In most cases in which religious doctrine guides the belief system, the individual is required to suspend and/or modify current scientifically accepted views to accommodate their religious beliefs.

In that case I would consider that faith in religious dogmas causes the faithful to DISBELIEVE rather than a suspension of belief because accepting religious dogma over other more objective inforamtin would be to disbelieve.

On the other hand, I do not accepted religious dogma at any level higher than a science fiction comic book. I may consciously suspend knowledge or current understanding of the universe in order to enjoy the science fiction of the comic book or, in some cases, as an attempt to understand what others believe, but I cannot disbelieve something I did not believe in the first place. There is no more doubt, for me, about religious dogma than there is doubt that "The Avengers" are real. I have not changed in any significant way in response to what others believe but believers often tend to trade in one belief for another, thereby causing disbelief for themselves, not for me.

Understand?


I concur with your post being thought out, but your stance is more opinionated (considering your introduction said "i disagree") than the definition itself. We can continue spamming this thread or just make a new one, i really don't care. When most non-believers i know say they absolutely don't believe in God they most always refer to "the man in the sky" a.k.a Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc. Although anecdotal, even when first deconverting from Christianity, i always came across an atheist who said "there could be something out there, i really don't know, there is no evidence so there is no reason for me to **believe**" especially from a pantheist or deistic stand-point. Now, i don't know if you are on Reddit or know about it but the very FAQ label with this:

http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/atheism#Whatisatheism

Now does majority always make something right? No, but i think the precise term for atheism is disbelief in any Deity, whether you don't want to attach disbelief to yourself is fine, but again, it's nothing but a mere opinion.


not so. the question is definately relevant. we just have no evidence to suggest what was before the big bang.


Trust me i know, i was just going by what Stephen Hawkings stated.

jrbogie's photo
Fri 09/16/11 08:04 AM
were did hawking state that?

mykesorrel's photo
Fri 09/16/11 11:05 AM

were did hawking state that?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

Check out the whole episode, it's still good nonetheless.

jrbogie's photo
Sat 09/17/11 05:46 AM
i've seen it but was fun to watch again.

1 2 4 Next