Page 28 of 44

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:53 pm
by newberry_Archive
You're an agnostic until you state that you believe there is no God.


I do believe there is no god, because I haven't seen any evidence. I also don't believe that there are invisible aliens that live in my house from another galaxy. I can't be absolutely positive that there aren't invisible aliens living in my house, but I haven't experienced any evidence, so I don't believe they are there.

I don't believe in god. I believe there is no god. However, I wouldn't absolutely rule out that god exists, and I wouldn't say that it's necessarily impossible to empirically experience god.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:54 pm
by DrAwkward_Archive
Oh good, we've moved into the semantic argument portion of the thread.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:02 am
by newberry_Archive
..., one problem with the term "atheist" is that it has different meanings to different people.


I said this earlier in the thread. Now I'm saying it again. FMP.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:19 am
by Mark Van Deel_Archive
DrAwkward wrote:Oh good, we've moved into the semantic argument portion of the thread.


Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm really, really, really sorry.

Bob, try this one:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.



Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief


Yes, I know that getting bogged down in this is really fucking stupid.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:23 am
by newberry_Archive
I highly recommend this short essay from Bertrand Russell: Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas

An excerpt:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.


None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:35 am
by Mark Van Deel_Archive
So you're saying your grasp of what English words means exceeds that of the people who write the Oxford Fucking English Fucking Dictionfuckingary?

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:42 am
by Mark Van Deel_Archive
Do you think that both agnostics and atheists are in the category of 'non theist'


Not necessarily. An atheist is, by definition, a non theist (a, prefix - not or without. non, prefix - not). An agnostic is a non-theist if that agnostic does not believe in a god (making him an atheist). An agnostic is not a non-theist if he does believe in a god (making him a theist).

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:50 am
by newberry_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
newberry wrote:I do believe there is no god

newberry wrote:So I'm not certain there is no god

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=632901
You would think you could keep your story straight for two consecutive posts, but maybe not.


I don't believe in god. But I'm not certain there is no god, in the same way I'm not certain that my home is free from invisible aliens from another galaxy. I don't believe in either god or invisible interplanetary aliens, until I experience evidence. From what I know so far, it seems unlikely that god exists, just as it seems unlikely that invisible aliens live with me.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:56 am
by Mark Van Deel_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Mark Van Deel wrote:
Do you think that both agnostics and atheists are in the category of 'non theist'?


Not necessarily.

That's retarded. Neither agnostics or atheists are theists.


Bob ... do you understand that it is possible to believe something, but also admit that you do not know if it is true or not?

My friend tells me he's going to see a movie at 3 o'clock. At 3 o'clock, you ask me where my friend is. I believe he's at the cinema, because this friend isn't a pathological liar. But I'll admit that, without being there in the cinema with him, I don't know he's seeing a movie. Simple, right?

An agnostic is a theist if he believes in a god. Have you ever met anyone who claimed to believe in god, but admitted they weren't 100% certain that he existed? That person would be an agnostic theist.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:59 am
by newberry_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:Newberry, March 25, 2008:
newberry wrote:No problem, I just don't want my views to be mischaracterized (for one thing, I would call myself agnostic, not atheist).

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=630682

Newberry tonight:
Newberry wrote:So I'm not certain there is no god, but I'm definitely not a theist. Therefore, I'm an atheist.


I really think that Newberry doesn't want a certain Someone who may or may not exist hear him deny the G-man outright.


And now, in context:
So I'm not certain there is no god, but I'm definitely not a theist. Therefore, I'm an atheist. But I hesitate to call myself that, even though that's what I am, because to many atheism means something different.