Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
Here's a link to a 3-4 minute video, featuring the molasses soaked voice (and head, shoulders and hands) of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-deg ... r-agnostic
In it, he discusses how he's often assumed to be an atheist. He talks about the implications of such a charge, down to the semantics, making some good points along the way. His final statements sum up how I feel about Myself.
I'm back off to have a timely nap but feel free to discuss.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-deg ... r-agnostic
In it, he discusses how he's often assumed to be an atheist. He talks about the implications of such a charge, down to the semantics, making some good points along the way. His final statements sum up how I feel about Myself.
I'm back off to have a timely nap but feel free to discuss.
Last edited by God on Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
If Dawkins and DeGrasse has said they are not atheists but agnostics then they are making a category error.God wrote:Here's a link to a 3-4 minute video, featuring the molasses soaked voice (and head, shoulders and hands) of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-deg ... r-agnostic
In it, he discusses how he's often assumed to be an atheist. He talks about the implications of such a charge, down to the semantics, making some good points along the way. His final statements sum up how I feel about Myself.
I'm back off to have a timely nap but feel free to discuss.
Agnostic is a class of atheist.
Neither of them believe in God, as they find the evidence unconvincing. That they can not be certain God does not exist makes them agnostic. QED they are agnostic atheists. But not one rather than the other.
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
It's funny how, when a scientist asks not to be categorised as Tyson did, a philosopher will come along to do just that!Hobbes' Choice wrote:
If Dawkins and DeGrasse has said they are not atheists but agnostics then they are making a category error.
Agnostic is a class of atheist.
Neither of them believe in God, as they find the evidence unconvincing. That they can not be certain God does not exist makes them agnostic. QED they are agnostic atheists. But not one rather than the other.
My response is a question of semantics.... ( I shall refer to Myself in the third person here just to be clear)...
Hobbes' Choice's argument seems to be that agnostics are atheists but that what differentiates them from each other is that agnostics are "not certain" of the existence of God. Does that mean that 'pure' atheists are certain as to that lack of that existence??? (Don't. It's rhetorical...)
According to the OED:
An agnostic is: a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
An atheist is: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostics don’t believe God exists, nor do they disbelieve God exists. They are 'neutral' in their judgement of divinity. However, the moment they disbelieve in God then they move beyond agnosticism into atheism. An atheist lacks the neutrality of the agnostic.
An 'agnostic atheist' is person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the likelihood of there not being one until proven. In this case, agnostic is an adjective. "Atheist" has to do with belief, and "agnostic" has to do with knowledge. Two completely different animals, that can relate to each other but which are, to most intents and purposes, mutually exclusive.
It could well be argued that both Dawkins and Tyson are agnostic atheists but that does not make agnosticism a subset of atheism.
Now where's that pillow...
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
You realize this is no better for you than to believe absolutely that there are no gods.An agnostic is: a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
In both cases, the unbeliever rejects everything - all the established churches, doctrines, priesthoods, rituals; all the scriptures and strictures that purport to represent any gods whatsoever. Agnosticism, as well as atheism, makes both you and religion irrelevant.
It requires no energy or time to disregard irrelevancies.
Re:
Been very busy. What with Brexit and the march of the Anti-Christ in America.. It's been all go.henry quirk wrote:God! Long time, no see...how's it goin'?
I'm not being honest... I've been holidaying in a rather swanky cave in Rio Tranquilo, Brazil, for the last eighteen months, away from it all, which is possibly how things have gone to pot.
Thanks for asking. I don't demand people believe in me these days, but I do believe politeness goes a long way. That applies both ways.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
God wrote:It's funny how, when a scientist asks not to be categorised as Tyson did, a philosopher will come along to do just that!Hobbes' Choice wrote:
If Dawkins and DeGrasse has said they are not atheists but agnostics then they are making a category error.
Agnostic is a class of atheist.
Neither of them believe in God, as they find the evidence unconvincing. That they can not be certain God does not exist makes them agnostic. QED they are agnostic atheists. But not one rather than the other.
My response is a question of semantics.... ( I shall refer to Myself in the third person here just to be clear)...
Hobbes' Choice's argument seems to be that agnostics are atheists but that what differentiates them from each other is that agnostics are "not certain" of the existence of God. Does that mean that 'pure' atheists are certain as to that lack of that existence??? (Don't. It's rhetorical...)
According to the OED:
An agnostic is: a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
An atheist is: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostics don’t believe God exists, nor do they disbelieve God exists. They are 'neutral' in their judgement of divinity. However, the moment they disbelieve in God then they move beyond agnosticism into atheism. An atheist lacks the neutrality of the agnostic.
BUT AGNOSTICS LACK A BELIEF therefore they are atheists by your offered definition.
An 'agnostic atheist' is person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the likelihood of there not being one until proven. In this case, agnostic is an adjective. "Atheist" has to do with belief, and "agnostic" has to do with knowledge. Two completely different animals, that can relate to each other but which are, to most intents and purposes, mutually exclusive.
It could well be argued that both Dawkins and Tyson are agnostic atheists but that does not make agnosticism a subset of atheism.
Now where's that pillow...
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
Someone who actually believed in Yahweh wouldn't risk taking his name in vain, let alone impersonating him - he's reputed to have been rather extreme in his jealousy and egotism.
Someone who believe in some permissive, lackadaisical kind of god probably wouldn't bother advocating for such an ineffectual deity.
Conclusion:
This poster is obviously an atheist, looking for a chain to yank.
Someone who believe in some permissive, lackadaisical kind of god probably wouldn't bother advocating for such an ineffectual deity.
Conclusion:
This poster is obviously an atheist, looking for a chain to yank.
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
I've made the point before that, in my view, language is contextual; you can't really understand what someone means by a word in isolation. Agnosticism has come to mean something like indifference, or a lack of commitment to any particular view, but if we are to believe the guy who invented the word, it means this:Hobbes' Choice wrote:BUT AGNOSTICS LACK A BELIEF therefore they are atheists by your offered definition.
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology."
Thomas Henry Huxley
Notice that it is a rebuke to both people who believe there is a god, and those who believe there isn't.
Victorian scientists were extremely confident that their work was almost done, so for example, Lord Kelvin, after whom the temperature scale was named could say this:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Or the American Albert Michelson:
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."
Ironically, it was the null result in his search for luminferous aether that was instrumental in inspiring Albert Einstein to demolish the 19th century certainties.
Huxley himself was known as Darwin's bulldog, for his vociferous defence of evolution. Far from being indifferent, the original meaning of agnostic was a forthright belief that the only evidence worth a crap is empirical, and that anyone who expresses a belief based on anything else is an idiot.
As has been pointed out above, an atheist need not believe there is no god, she is not committed to "anti-theology" in Huxley's sense, it is quite enough to lack a belief in any god.
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
Makes no difference to the god:
either way, he's not getting the yummy lambs and virgins.
either way, he's not getting the yummy lambs and virgins.
Re: Atheist, Agnostic... Where do you find the "time and energy"?
I don't think that will be much comfort to those whose lives are ruined by people believing that is exactly what they will get.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"Brexit"
Goooooo, Brexit!
"Anti-Christ"
Isn't he part of the Plan? You know: Seven Years of Tribulation, Mark of the Beast, Whore of Babel...all the horrorshow stuff heralding Jesus the Avenger who swoops down, divides the goats and lambs, chains the Beast to the Rock of Ages, sends Darkseid back to Apokolips without the Anti-Life Equation, and puts Cthulhu back to sleep.
I got tickets for the front row, center.
Goooooo, Brexit!
"Anti-Christ"
Isn't he part of the Plan? You know: Seven Years of Tribulation, Mark of the Beast, Whore of Babel...all the horrorshow stuff heralding Jesus the Avenger who swoops down, divides the goats and lambs, chains the Beast to the Rock of Ages, sends Darkseid back to Apokolips without the Anti-Life Equation, and puts Cthulhu back to sleep.
I got tickets for the front row, center.