"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Maxwell]

If atheism didn't require additional belief, agnosticism would be equals to atheism.

No.

You seriously can't understand the difference between rejection of an idea or premise based on the previously stated factors (false cognitive content, no confidence, false proposition) and saying "I dont know"?

Atheism is rejection of the theist premise.

Agnosticism is saying "I dont know".

How is that the same?

I have a hard time not believing your trolling when you keep repeating this same mistake over and over.

Here, let me dumb it down for you:

Person A: There is a giant pink invisible elephant in the room, I have no data, nor reason to make this claim.

Person B: I reject your premise that there is a giant pink elephant because there is no confidence in your claim, due to no data. Person B is an A-elephantist.

Person C: I really don't know if Person A is right, because who can really know anything, and I have weak critical thinking skills. Person C is an Agnostic.

[Kaylia]

Atheism is rejection of the theist premise.

Agnosticism is saying "I dont know".

To conclude different things, you need differents premise. Atheism simply need more premise than agnosticism, hence why they came up to a differents answers.


Agnosticism, and atheism are conclusion you reach based on a reasoning. It's not a spur of the moment type of answer.


[edit]
If you want to use such superficial definition, then fine, it doesnt require any beliefs since you never put any thought in your choice. You might as well roll a dice to decide in what category you are.

[Kaylia]

You seriously can't understand the difference between rejection of an idea or premise based on the previously stated factors (false cognitive content, no confidence, false proposition) and saying "I dont know"?

Wait...what? I'm saying there is a difference, and that difference come from the additional beliefs used by atheists in their reasoning.

All I'm saying is that if you were right, both atheists and agnostic would come up to the exact same conclusion since accordng to you, they are using the same set of axioms. However, it is not the case, and because of this, they necessarily have a different set of axioms. In this scenario, agnosticism is using less axioms because mathematicaly, an indeterminate solution doesn't require any.

Because I don't need additional axioms to do sciences rigorously, I don't see the need to be anything but agnostic. Why would I go out of my way to discredit something sciences can't possible hope to answer?

and I have weak critical thinking skills

You sure do. Not even understanding your beliefs is a sad thing.


But seriously, a biased statement like this one has no place in a definition, especially when agnosticism is the only rational choice you can reach using sciences.

[Maxwell]

Sorry Kaylia, but according to your semantics: Agnosticism is the belief that both atheism and theism are wrong, which takes faith.

Am I doing it right? Because obviously if you reject an idea, that actually means you're "believing in the anti-idea".

Atheism is simply the rejection of poor premises, you'll never change the meaning Kaylia, no matter how hard you want to.

[Deadgye]

"Person A: I saw a giant pink invisible elephant yesterday, I have no data, nor proof.

Person B: I reject your premise that there was a giant pink elephant because there is no confidence in your claim, due to no data. Person B is an A-elephantist.

Person C: I can't disprove that you saw one; Cool story bro. Person C is an Agnostic."

ftfy

[LinktheDeme]

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/0908...hp?pic=lag.jpg

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/090810/lag.jpghttp://poststuff2.entensity.net/0908...hp?pic=lag.jpg

[Kaylia]

Sorry Kaylia, but according to your semantics: Agnosticism is the belief that both atheism and theism are wrong, which takes faith.

Am I doing it right? Because obviously if you reject an idea, that actually means you're "believing in the anti-idea".

Nope, that's where you make a mistake.

An agnostic won't make any claim about atheists (or theists) being right or wrong. He understand both persons are using different set of axioms, and can't possibly reach his conclusion. He is simply using the minimum amount of axioms needed to reach his conclusion. Basically, he is limiting himself to the minimum you need to do proper sciences, and that alone won't allow him to say anything about the topic.

That being said, mosts atheists and theists (the pure bred one) reach the conclusion using a faulty set of axioms. Anyone can find a logical fault to undermine their ideas if they see the complete reasoning. The one that don't usually admit their own beliefs.

Atheism is simply the rejection of poor premises, you'll never change the meaning Kaylia, no matter how hard you want to.

Let's not talk about the way we categorize people, but the reasoning behind their ideas.

The rejection of poor premises is based on what criteria? Why do you need such criteria in the first place?

[Mizango]

Somewhere, Wafik is hopefully turning in his grave. Semantics as far as the eye can see.

[Maxwell]

What faulty axiom does atheism use to reject theism Kaylia?

By your logic, nothing can ever be proven wrong, -ever-.

The false aspects of theist philosophies have been displayed in this and every religion thread. It isn't atheist's responsibility to "disprove every possible definition of god". The fact remains there exists not one single definition of god that isn't self-contradictory or easily debunked.

Pointing out that there are errors in theist premises (huge obvious errors that are pointed out with ease), doesn't require "belief", it requires only critical thinking skills.

[Faris]

its no fun when atheists argue with eachother

[Kuya]

I think i saw a Metalapocalypse episode about this once.

[Kaylia]

What faulty axiom does atheism use to reject theism Kaylia?

By your logic, nothing can ever be proven wrong, -ever-.

The false aspects of theist philosophies have been displayed in this and every religion thread. It isn't atheist's responsibility to "disprove every possible definition of god". The fact remains there exists not one single definition of god that isn't self-contradictory or easily debunked.

Everyone use different axioms. If I pick a specific one, you will simply say "thats not what atheists think". It would be simpler if you were the one posting the list of axioms you believe are needed to be a rational being, and how you can reject every single theism argument (unless you think occam's razor alone solve everything?).

Every ideas need to be translated into mathematical statement to be proven right or wrong. Because differents axioms produce differents mathematics, you need an agreement on the axioms before talking about "right" and "wrong". If you have such agreement, then it is possible to prove the veracity of a concept. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I would rather make myself clear on that point.

How can you prove someone wrong in such scenario? Well, you can't, or at least, you can't until you convince him to change his axioms, or uses his axioms against his conclusion (effectively destroying his idea). Convincing someone to use a different set of axioms is not an easy task, especially in a non-friendly environment, but that's how you argue when both are using logic correctly.


When you do sciences, you simply assume everything observed is true (and thankfully, most human think this way). From this point, it's very easy to prove/disprove someone when it concerns reality because everyone use that axiom. If someone want to deny a reality he can interact with, having a rational argument with this person is simply not possible.

In other word, sciences simply describe what you observed. You don't need occam razor to eliminate "useless" idea, because they were not observed in the first place.

Pointing out that there are errors in theist premises (huge obvious errors that are pointed out with ease), doesn't require "belief", it requires only critical thinking skills.

No sane theist pretend to make science when they talk about their beliefs. The reasoning is usually similar to:

1) Science can't explain the existence of this world, and will never be able to since it's mathematically impossible.
2) Because sciences can't be explain everything, we need to define something different to answer the question.

Agnostic will stop right here because they can't proceed any further. Theist will listen to their feeling and hope to be right, and atheism will do w/e you want them to do.

Who is right? I don't know, but because sciences can't answer everything, I have the feeling it's stupid to uses the same axioms I use when I do sciences to answer this question.

Somewhere, Wafik is hopefully turning in his grave. Semantics as far as the eye can see.

Sheesh. Semantics were left on last page. give me a break! D:

[Max™]

The razor comes into play when you are positing that invisible pink elephants fly through one slit and interfere with an electron going through the other slit, giving an interference pattern. As you can show there is a simpler explanation which explains more phenomena, the elephant model can be happily done away with.

You can also use a razor to open a vein when you find yourself seriously arguing the nitpicky semantic differences between various philosophical viewpoints.

[Kaylia]

The razor comes into play when you are positing that invisible pink elephants fly through one slit and interfere with an electron going through the other slit, giving an interference pattern. As you can show there is a simpler explanation which explains more phenomena, the elephant model can be happily done away with.

You can also use a razor to open a vein when you find yourself seriously arguing the nitpicky semantic differences between various philosophical viewpoints.

You convinced me to burn my QM mechanics book, shit is too complicate.

[Max™]

Bradbury actually invented invisible pink elephants, and they are why paper burns at 451 fahrenheit.

[Kaylia]

If you want a serious answer, here it is:

You could easily build an unique solution for every problems, with 1 axioms per problem (actually, isn't that how the universe compute thing!). However, you will eventually have to realize that X and Y particles are the same because you observed it. Once X=Y, your system will be simplified automatically. You didn't aim for the simplest system, it simply happen when two axioms are equivalents.

Where Occam's razor shine in sciences is when you miss a few pieces of the puzzles and try to figure out what it could be. You will want the smallest amount of postulate because it's more likely to be right (however, it's not always the case).

[Maxwell]

We'll this is going to just continue into me saying "no atheism doesn't require belief" and Kaylia saying "yes, atheism requires belief". I don't agree, I find it to be semantics, and it's been said a dozen times already, so:

Have fun with that Kaylia. You're entitled to your opinion. No matter how bat shit crazy it is.

[Saga]

We'll this is going to just continue into me saying "no atheism doesn't require belief" and Kaylia saying "yes, atheism requires belief". I don't agree, I find it to be semantics, and it's been said a dozen times already, so:

Have fun with that Kaylia. You're entitled to your opinion. No matter how bat shit crazy it is.

How does atheism not require belief? Christianity believes there's a God. Atheism believes there isn't one. Belief in the inexistence of something is still a belief.

[Eratosthenes]

The "a-" prefix on a word means "without", so atheism means "without belief in any gods". Atheism does not imply the conclusion that no god exists.

I would out my hair in frustration at these people, but it's too short to grip.

[Tekki]

I've been floating around for the past two years as an agnostic. I spent 10 years with the church until I left @ 17 and found myself as agnostic. I was confused, and was searching for answers. It wasn't until the middle of last year that the lack of answers towards what I thought I believed, coupled with answers for a lot of the unexplained in religion put me on the atheist label.

At this point you guys are mostly arguing over the semantics and the word "belief"

I think a better definition of atheism would be: I have positioned myself to reject religious ideas and reject the existence of a supernatural being. "Belief" to me seems to carry a sense of uncertainty when and if I were to use it to define any position. It leaves room for doubt compared to using the word "Know" ("I know there is a god" "I believe there is a god") In a sense I have always coupled the idea that belief requires a certain amount of faith to make up the difference for the unknown.

That said, sure maybe some atheist may believe they are atheist. But that wouldn't make them atheist would it. They still have a certain level of uncertainty. They believe there is no god. They can't find the logic or answers behind the idea of a god's nonexistence, so they would say they "believe" so they can use a small amount of faith to make of the difference.

To them I would still not label them as atheist until they have the same level of certainty. They would still fall under some other label until they have answers for whatever uncertainty exists in their mind. (Deist, Agnostic, etc)