|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2002 : 20:24:32 [Permalink]
|
Interesting link to Pantheism definition, PhDreamer. I would agree that most times I am content to express non-confrontational amazement at our insignificance with respect to the scale of the universe but I don't equate that with “god”. I do not believe that nature equates to god. Naturalism is more like what I hold on to with the exception that I don't believe that all phenomena are necessarily explained mechanistically. Who really knows what is in all those other dimensions of string theory. And aren't most or all atheists naturalists too?
I disagree with Gorgo on one point. Just because you label something as “god” doesn't mean you are theist. When I say that god is truth, I only mean it as a label that allows me to communicate a concept to my religious friends who would miss the point entirely without it.
So, I still think I'm an atheist. And may god strike me with a bolt of lightening if I'm not!
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 04:57:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denise
Why are the definitions so muddled. Why can't atheists and agnostics make up their minds?
troll ... |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 08:57:12 [Permalink]
|
I don't know if its cultural differences or not. We, in the UK ascribe quite different definitions to both;
AGNOSTIC:noun/ person who believes that the existence of god is not provable.
ATHEIST:noun/ belief that no god exists.
As you can see, neither implies the existence of any deity, thus removing a few of the problems
in earlier posts.
I'll proffer that I consider myself a firm agnostic atheist. In other words, because the existence of god is unproven, I can't believe he exists. Remember the immortal words of - drumroll please - Mr Sagan, (now HE was a god)
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
(I appreciate I've not quoted verbatim, so please forgive me for paraphrasing.
And there we have it, clear as mud!! |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 09:56:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Denise
Why are the definitions so muddled. Why can't atheists and agnostics make up their minds?
troll ...
Settle down, RD. Denise is a crossover from the JREF board. Not every skeptic has been over atheism/agnosticism as much as some of us.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 12:04:09 [Permalink]
|
As has been said, an atheist is someone who lacks a god belief. Most agnostics I've encountered lack a god belief, therefore they are agnostic atheists.
A theist who believes that god(s) exist, but is/are unknowable is an agnostic theist.
In my humble opinion, many who declare themselves agnostic do so because of the social stigma of being an "atheist". By claiming not to know either way, they feel they rise above the two "warring camps", and are content to sit on the fence.
Personally, I find the common definition of agnosticism ("I don't know, and you don't either!") a bit indefensible. |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 11/26/2002 12:05:12 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 12:50:38 [Permalink]
|
If you label something as "god" and think it is "god" then you are a theist. If you label something as "god" and think it isn't "god" that would make you, well, uncomfortable with the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
I disagree with Gorgo on one point. Just because you label something as “god” doesn't mean you are theist.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 13:10:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Denise is a crossover from the JREF board.
Oh. Well, in that case, ... |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 13:37:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
I'm simply describing a cosmological power (or call it energy, or force, or whatever) that is organizing the universe as we observe it that we must recognize.
I see no difference between "a cosmological power ... organizing the universe" and "Intelligent Design". Let me ask you a question: Is this 'cosmological power" purposeful, i.e., goal-directed?
I ask because intentionality is the quality I infer from your use of the term "organizing". One would not, for example, talk of tides "organizing" a shoreline, or plate tectonics "organizing" a mountain. However, once you posit an 'Intentional Organizer' with "cosmological power", you've claimed no less than any other theist who embraces the God-of-the-Gaps. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 14:16:27 [Permalink]
|
Ummm.., well thanks folks, for that little outpouring. Dunno if Denise got anything from it or not, but me did. After all this time on SFN, how did me miss "Pantheism," (tanx PHDmr), am sure it was there all the time? To muddle the water some more, or just reveal me own muddled thinking. No 'religion' that have encountered, projects a vision of "God," that can accept as reality. And actually have quibbles with the accepted concept of a 'god' altogether, too human like in form, implying dependence on conditions to thrive. Atheist? Still accept and embrace the concept of the "divine" as part of human, or at the least my own, existence. Yes, "the view that Nature and God are one, that the world universe is divine," rings me bell.
So now have a label, too, that can live with, not that it really matters all that much. All our questions and curiousity, will be satisfied soon enough. Let's not rush to the last page, let us just enjoy the moment... |
 |
|
|
|
Blue Monk
New Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 14:19:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
I'm simply describing a cosmological power (or call it energy, or force, or whatever) that is organizing the universe as we observe it that we must recognize.
I see no difference between "a cosmological power ... organizing the universe" and "Intelligent Design". Let me ask you a question: Is this 'cosmological power" purposeful, i.e., goal-directed?
I ask because intentionality is the quality I infer from your use of the term "organizing". One would not, for example, talk of tides "organizing" a shoreline, or plate tectonics "organizing" a mountain. However, once you posit an 'Intentional Organizer' with "cosmological power", you've claimed no less than any other theist who embraces the God-of-the-Gaps.
I don't speak for chainsaw, of course, but I don't agree that the use of the word organizing in this context automatically assumes a consciousness or intent.
Crystals form due to the fact that their molecules are shaped in such a way that they become self-organized and take a very precise shape.
If you pour a liquid into a container it will then assume the shape of the container.
Neither of these events requires any decision on the part of the liquid or the crystal molecules or any other outside entity.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 14:19:38 [Permalink]
|
Just to further muddy the water: - Atheist: Without belief in any god
- Agnostic: Without knowledge (implied: of a god)
It is impossible to believe in something if you have no knowledge of it; thus, all agnostics are atheists. All atheists, however, are not agnostics, since they may know there is no god.
I call myself an agnostic since it is more explanatory, like calling someone a Catholic rather than just Christian. |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 11/26/2002 14:20:52 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 14:38:50 [Permalink]
|
Funny, I always considered you a quintessential pantheist, Nubi, to the point that it never occurred to me you might not have encountered that word. Glad to be of service.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 14:39:10 [Permalink]
|
| Doesn't that make it all clear? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 15:41:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
I don't speak for chainsaw, of course, but I don't agree that the use of the word organizing in this context automatically assumes a consciousness or intent.
I never said that it did. I took responsibility for my inferrences and asked chainsaw a direct question. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 11/26/2002 15:45:58 |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 15:46:35 [Permalink]
|
I guess I need to speak up for myself. Blue Monk did accurately described what I meant by organizing; such as, black holes have organized galaxies. Intelligent design would say “and then a miracle occurs” to explain an unknown and attribute the miracle to a Santa Claus type figure.
It seems to me that there is a larger reality that we can't deny. Such as the distances to the end of the observable universe exists, that gravity forces exist, maybe strings exist and things undiscovered exist that dwarf our human existence.
Going back to one of my first statements, that historically man has explained the unknown as god(s). I'm taking that historical tendency and saying that in the unknown (god, as history has labeled it) there is truth, a reality not revealed. Add that to truth known (if we ever could agree on that) and you get what? And then what would you call it? The end of learning?
Maybe better to say there is no god, only truth.
I would state that I believe in the truth of reality, accepting the fact that a lot of what I see or experience could be an illusion, but isn't that just another reality.
Maybe my whole problem is not whether there is a god, or that I have misrepresented myself through mislabeling stuff, but does reality really exist?
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
