Quote :

"I take back what I wrote, I actually do think that book looks appealing."

Srsly. I've read several of his books and they are bursting with passion for science, beauty, and life. It's easy to catch just a glimpse of Dawkins and conclude he's a douche, but he's really not.

http://youtu.be/IOXMjCnKwb4

7/6/2011 1:49:07 PM

I still think he's douchy when he talks about atheists as if they're a bunch of traumatized teens in need of a support group.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 1:56:55 PM

Quote :

"I would side with Sam Harris here and argue that ethics are probably not subjective, except in the sense that everyone is free to come up with their own definition of the word. Once you decide on what ethics means, and what its objectives are, then you immediately enter a discussion based on objective facts."

If everyone is free to come up with their own definition of ethics, then how are ethics not subjective? You can't start "nailing down" conclusion on ethics until you "nail down" the definition of ethics, and clearly we're not at a point where that's possible.

7/6/2011 2:01:24 PM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around The Moral Landscape as well.

7/6/2011 2:03:59 PM

I am free to define "oxygen" as "an arboreal rodent species native to Papua New Guinea," but that does not prevent you from discovering objective truths about what everyone else understands oxygen to be. The only way around the objective nature of moral truths, in other words, is word games.

^ I found certain chapters of The Greatest Show On Earth to be far more perplexing.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 2:09:11 PM

Quote :

"The only way around the objective nature of moral truths, in other words, is word games."

Unfortunately, words are our primary way of communicating with each other. I can guarantee that our definitions of what counts as "ethical" are very different, but I also believe that my definition is superior to yours based on our previous dealings.

The only way of objectively defining ethics that I'm aware of is using a natural rights framework, stemming from the non-aggression principle: "Other people are not your property." Take it to heart, and consider the implications.

7/6/2011 2:21:23 PM

"Natural Rights" is an oxymoron

7/6/2011 2:36:27 PM

It really sucks when you explain something in detail, multiple times, in multiple threads, and people are too stubborn to let it sink in.

*********************************************************************

NATURAL RIGHTS ARE ANY ACTIONS THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO PERFORM WHEN UNRESTRAINED BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS

IF BEHAVIOR INFRINGES UPON THE RIGHTS (ACTIONS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PERFORM IF YOU HAD NOT STOPPED THEM), THAT'S REFERRED TO AS A VIOLATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS

*********************************************************************

Holy fuck, man.

7/6/2011 2:43:39 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, words are our primary way of communicating with each other. I can guarantee that our definitions of what counts as "ethical" are very different..."

You don't seem to have grasped the point. Try thinking in terms of concepts, such as the following: the way human behavior affects human happiness. This is what I am interested in. This is the concern of ethics, as I define it. If you define ethics some other way, that's fine, but in that case you're just talking about another concept. At that point we are having an argument about definitions, not concepts, and certainly not values. Regardless of how you want to think of the word "ethics," it doesn't change the fact that the concept I've outlined is subject to objective facts.

Quote :

"The only way of objectively defining ethics that I'm aware of is using a natural rights framework, stemming from the non-aggression principle"

In other words, your understanding of ethics is based on the cockamamie notion that nature takes an interest in human affairs, though I doubt you really buy into this pseudo-pacifism. I'd be willing to bet you are perfectly fine with coercion, so long as it is used in ways you deem justified.

^ Rights are not actions. That is just idiotic.



[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 2:50:36 PM

I know what you're talking about. I just wish there was a less confusing term for it.

7/6/2011 2:51:02 PM

Quote :

"You don't seem to have grasped the point. Try thinking in terms of concepts, such as the following: the way human behavior affects human happiness. This is what I am interested in. This is the concern of ethics, as I define it. If you define ethics some other way, that's fine, but in that case you're just talking about another concept. At that point we are having an argument about definitions, not concepts, and certainly not values. Regardless of how you want to think of the word "ethics," it doesn't change the fact that the concept I've outlined is subject to objective facts."

We don't know exactly how human behavior affects human happiness. That's part of the problem. Humans can't always predict the long-term consequences of their actions, but no one here would deny that those consequences exist. We can go the utilitarian route, but we have very limited knowledge, which means that things that seem to have an immediately positive effect may cause more suffering than was prevented in the long run.

Quote :

"In other words, your understanding of ethics is based on the cockamamie notion that nature takes an interest in human affairs, though I doubt you really buy into this pseudo-pacifism. I'd be willing to bet you are perfectly fine with coercion, so long as it is used in ways you deem justified."

I don't buy into pacifism. I believe that the initiation of force is never okay. I will never start a fight, but I will fight when it becomes necessary. The only time that coercion becomes okay is when it is used against someone that used coercion against peaceful individuals. Even then, if you use coercion as a means to "rally forces" against the offender, that's wrong, because those that you coerced do not necessarily believe it is in their best interests.

Quote :

"Rights are not actions. That is just idiotic."

Familiarize yourself with the concept of negative rights. When I talk about rights, that's what I'm referring to.

7/6/2011 3:01:44 PM

Why don't you just call it "freedom from coercion" instead of "natural rights"? Said freedom is a social construct, not something that comes from nature. That would be less confusing.

7/6/2011 3:14:02 PM

Quote :

"Except I'm not saying "there is no God." I'm saying, "I don't believe in God.""

same thing. no ultimate difference between the two. it is speculation either way.

Quote :

"And not only what destroyer says, science has built in checks to address sensory deception. "

Which only works at the point of a better observation. Thus, my point stands.

Quote :

"Not even Richard Dawkins makes this claim if you'd bothered to read something once in a while."

I have no need to ready ANYTHING by that raging douchebag.

7/6/2011 3:15:23 PM

Quote :

"same thing. no ultimate difference between the two. it is speculation either way"

One is making an assertion, and one isn't. Thats huge in the context of this thread.

7/6/2011 3:20:43 PM

no, not really. both are speculation. Belief, by it's very nature, is speculative

7/6/2011 3:22:23 PM

Quote :

"Harris defines moral actions as those that increase the flourishing (or decrease the suffering) of conscious creatures. With that definition agreed on, there is not a moral question that exists that cannot be objectively studied. Either gender equality increases human flourishing, or it doesn't. Either female genital mutilation increases human suffering, or it doesn't."

This is one of the first and most obvious approaches to the problem. I've very often tried thinking of things in these terms due to arguments related to things like environmental stewardship and social issues.

But not so fast.

The next obvious step to take is "how do you know?" How do we know the flourishing of advanced life is better than the alternative? Cue evil villain who tries to destroy the Earth! Also cue like 90% of philosophical anime. Obviously, we can just try that option. So kill yourself. What are we left with? Those who didn't kill themselves. Even worse, imagine that the people who ask the question selectively die. Then only people who don't get existentialist propagate. So what is better for the universe, a bunch of dumb animals who don't think or an intelligent society with the one drawback that they're all goth? I think a commitment to the truth favors the latter.



Let's be honest though, the above arguments are logical, but this is actually an emotional battleground. I'm not saying it's not also a logical discourse, but it matters more to us as emotional. We have some good senses about what causes depression and what cures depression in terms of an individual's lifestyle and outlook (although we could stand to know these better, myself included). Churches, honestly, have a lot of these down pat. These triggers for will to live or not are clearly biological. To a major extent, we can say that evolution itself has been cracking at the problem of life-purpose for millions of years, since it had to somehow convince intelligent beings to continue to exist, and it encoded its results into us. Maybe the search for happiness itself is really just pulling back the layers and peaking into the answers that evolutions has already made for us.

This is still subjective, if an alien race like the buggers in Ender's Game evolved, they would posses a very different sense of self and life-purpose. But while there are multiple solutions for life-purpose, there are also those that don't work, be them rational or not.

Finally, I think that one thing that we do, in fact, find in our emotional programming is a dark side. Encouraging someone to acknowledge and embrace their dark side is the stuff of self-help and relationship books. We can go on ultimately concluding that a conventional life-purpose is the best, but to ignore the other sides of it is denying our own humanity, at least a little bit.

7/6/2011 3:31:58 PM

Quote :

"no, not really. both are speculation. Belief, by it's very nature, is speculative"

aaron, we've essentially granted this.

The problem with religious faith is that it is THEN compounded with even more faith while science compounds with reason and evidence.

7/6/2011 3:39:01 PM

Quote :

""no, not really. both are speculation. Belief, by it's very nature, is speculative""

Speculation has nothing to do with it. We're talking about belief vs a lack of belief.

"There is no god" is a belief
"I don't believe there is a god" is a lack of belief

Do you know why they take away points on the SAT if you fill in the wrong answer instead of leaving it blank?

7/6/2011 3:47:35 PM

Quote :

""There is no god" is a belief "I don't believe there is a god" is a lack of belief"

THEY ARE THE SAME GOD DAMNED THING!!! jesus. and disco accuses ME of equivocating, lol

^^ so you are now trying to explain why YOUR beliefs are better. how cute. you sound like a Christian more and more every day

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 3:49:38 PM

It's not difficult. Beliefs which align with observed reality are better than beliefs which are not. Just because the foundation of empiricism is an assumption that what we are observing is real doesn't make believing any of the supernatural bullshit in Christianity any more valid or justified.

7/6/2011 3:54:29 PM

Quote :

"Beliefs which align with observed reality are better than beliefs which are not."

And 100 years ago, a Baptist would have made the same statement against a Methodist. A Christian against a Muslim. The irony is thick. I love it.

btw, where am I saying that belief in Christianity is justified? You love to argue against things I've never said

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 4:04:55 PM

Quote :

"no, not really. both are speculation. Belief, by it's very nature, is speculative"

Quote :

"THEY ARE THE SAME GOD DAMNED THING!!!"

Earth and Mars are both planets. But they're not the same god damned thing. Wtf are you talking about?

Quote :

"But not so fast. The next obvious step to take is "how do you know?" How do we know the flourishing of advanced life is better than the alternative? Cue evil villain who tries to destroy the Earth!"

It's an assumption. It's the only one you have to make to move forward. You have to make similar assumptions in many fields.

Quote :

"Ok, well what about well-being? Well the... er-er... the well being of conscious creatures, and the link between that and morality. may seem open to doubt, but it shouldn't. Ok, this is the only assumption you have to make: imagine the universe in which every conscious creature suffers as much as it possibly cu-cuh... as much as it possibly can for as long as it can. Ok, I call this the "worst possible misery for everyone". Ok: the worst possible misery for everyone... is "bad". Ok... if-if-if the word "bad" applies anywhere, it applies here. Ok, if you think "the worst possible misery for everyone" isn't "bad"... or maybe it has a "silver lining", or maybe it's "worse"... I don't know what you're talking about. And what's more, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about either."

and

Quote :

"Notice that no one is ever tempted to attack the philosophical underpinnings of medicine with questions like, well, who are you to say that not-always-vomiting is healthy? What if you meet someone who wants to vomit, and we he wants to vomit until he dies? How could you argue that he is not as healthy as you are?"

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 4:25 PM. Reason : asfasdf]

7/6/2011 4:13:46 PM

Quote :

"THEY ARE THE SAME GOD DAMNED THING!!! jesus. and disco accuses ME of equivocating, lol"

They aren't the same, and that's something you seem unwilling to grapple with.

Within the statement "There is no God" is an embedded claim: that, in all of the universes that exist, there is no entity that could be described as "God." Certainly, this is a baseless claim. No one has enough knowledge to support that claim. Now, if you define "God" as the creator described by the bible, then I can say that there is no God using purely deductive reasoning. The bible describes a God that is unchanging, yet God does change throughout the bible, therefore "God" as the bible describes it cannot exist.

Some god could exist. Problem is, it has never made itself apparent to me, and as such, I'm not in a position to make any claims about it. That isn't speculation on my part - I seriously don't know anything about God. Haven't seen it, haven't heard from it, at least to my knowledge. I've heard other humans talk about God a lot, and there is certainly some speculation going on there, but they haven't supported their claims.

Will you at least recognize that there is a difference between saying, "There is no God" and "There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that God exists," or do you simply refuse to address that distinction?

7/6/2011 4:23:40 PM

Quote :

"And 100 years ago, a Baptist would have made the same statement against a Methodist. A Christian against a Muslim. The irony is thick. I love it."

So what? And you don't know what irony is.

Quote :

"btw, where am I saying that belief in Christianity is justified? You love to argue against things I've never said"

You haven't in this thread yet, but the implication of your "science is faith" canard is that "science is no better than religious faith". Which is patently false.

Quote :

"Will you at least recognize that there is a difference between saying, "There is no God" and "There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that God exists," or do you simply refuse to address that distinction?"

He's abstracting all the way to the epistemological level. "There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that God exists" is essentially a belief. Every conclusion you make is essentially a belief. It's obtuse and not useful to the conversation except for being obtuse and implying that reason and evidence are no better for understanding reality than religious faith.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 4:24:50 PM

Quote :

"They aren't the same, and that's something you seem unwilling to grapple with."

they are the same, and I'm sorry that you can't see that.

Quote :

"Earth and Mars are both planets. "

too bad I wasn't talking about specifically named instances of speculation. DOH!

Quote :

"Now, if you define "God" as the creator described by the bible, then I can say that there is no God using purely deductive reasoning."

false reasoning, yes. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, GOD DOESN'T DO WHAT I WANT HIM TO DO!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote :

"So what?"

hehehe. it's hilarious.

Quote :

"You haven't in this thread yet"

where have I EVER. right.

Quote :

"but the implication of your "science is faith" canard is that "science is no better than religious faith""

ooooh, implication. You know what we call that? STRAWMAN!!!

Quote :

"Which is patently false."

And a Baptist would say the same thing about Islam.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 4:27:36 PM

It is telling that burro has yet to ask a single question in this entire thread.

7/6/2011 4:27:42 PM

it is telling that all of you people get so bent out of shape when someone dares to even suggest that science could be wrong about something. Reminds me Kipling

7/6/2011 4:30:22 PM

He thinks if he repeats himself enough, he will be right.

7/6/2011 4:30:29 PM

Quote :

"And a Baptist would say the same thing about Islam."

But what could a Baptist provide to prove his claim? Personal revelation and faith.

What can a scientist provide to prove that his views are closer to reality? Evidence and reason. OMG this is tough.

Quote :

"it is telling that all of you people get so bent out of shape when someone dares to even suggest that science could be wrong about something. Reminds me Kipling"

For someone who cries strawman....

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 4:34:54 PM

Why does it matter if atheism is a belief or not?


You guys know this thread is going to go into the oblivion of relativism.

7/6/2011 4:39:26 PM

It's pure semantics. *Everything* is a belief at some level, including non-belief in a claim.

The reason why it's important because it addresses the burden of proof. A non-believer does not have to explain why one should not believe a claim that hasn't been proven. No one is ever asked to prove a negative.

7/6/2011 4:41:25 PM

Quote :

"But what could a Baptist provide to prove his claim? Personal revelation and faith. What can a scientist provide to prove that his views are closer to reality? Evidence and reason. OMG this is tough. "

still not getting it. the more you argue it, the more you fall into it. MY BELIEF IS BETTER!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

7/6/2011 4:51:42 PM

Quote :

"it is telling that all of you people get so bent out of shape when someone dares to even suggest that science could be wrong about something. Reminds me Kipling"

You have done no such thing.

7/6/2011 4:54:29 PM

i know. I'm not getting bent out of shape when someone questions my beliefs. lol

7/6/2011 4:58:13 PM

Quote :

"still not getting it. the more you argue it, the more you fall into it. MY BELIEF IS BETTER!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!"

But it is better. Beliefs that align with reality more are inherently more aligned with reality. Better.

7/6/2011 5:02:05 PM

Are you arguing that somehow being an atheist makes you a better person? Better be careful with absolutes. I could make the same argument about Christianity. And would probably have better evidence to support it. Of course it would be establishing an absolute and wouldn't take into account outliers and falsehood. When it comes down to it, it is always a person deciding how to act, hence why God gives us free will, the question is where that person derives the basis for their action from.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 5:09:54 PM

Nope, I'm arguing that beliefs based on evidence and reason are inherently better than beliefs not based on evidence and reason.

I realize I'm defining 'better' as more in line with reality, but I think that's a pretty obvious definition in this context. We don't listen to people whom are cracked out and hallucinating for advice about what is real.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 5:12:51 PM

Well my beliefs are certainly based on reason, as I have shown before there is reason with scripture, as is there evidence in scripture. I mean you could say, the whole book is a lie, but it has been confirmed by a variety of manuscripts. I fail to see how me being an atheist would contribute more to society than that which I am now?

7/6/2011 5:16:28 PM

I believe burro is a troll

Burro steers arguments towards "You got mad, so I win"

Thus, I can make the assertion: "Burro is a troll"

7/6/2011 5:18:32 PM

Disco totally thinks he's better than religious people. Hot-shot atheist mofo

7/6/2011 5:22:31 PM

^lol, I was about to write something along the lines of


Disco's prideful.

I'm impatient.

and

Burro raises contention.


Victory in The Soap Box.

7/6/2011 5:25:40 PM

Quote :

"Well my beliefs are certainly based on reason, as I have shown before there is reason with scripture, as is there evidence in scripture. I mean you could say, the whole book is a lie, but it has been confirmed by a variety of manuscripts."

God is as the bible describes him. How do I know? Well, men wrote it, so it must be true. How do I know it's true? Because other men wrote that it was true.

Grats, man. You converted me.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 5:46:50 PM

Quote :

"Well my beliefs are certainly based on reason, as I have shown before there is reason with scripture, as is there evidence in scripture. I mean you could say, the whole book is a lie, but it has been confirmed by a variety of manuscripts. "

Every other holy book is supported by a variety of manuscripts. None of the miraculous claims in any of them are supported by anything other than the books themselves.

Quote :

"I fail to see how me being an atheist would contribute more to society than that which I am now?"

I never said this. I'm not implying that by having beliefs less in tune with reality that you'd be automatically a worse person. There are plenty of skeptic atheist nihilists that don't give a shit about society. Again, atheism itself has nothing to to do with worldviews or lifestyles. It's the lack of belief.

However, let me expand on my point about better beliefs. The reason why beliefs grounded in reality are better is because beliefs inform actions and actions affect other people. Praying instead of taking your kid to the hospital, trusting reiki or homeopathy instead of science based medicine, etc are actions informed on beliefs that are false.

This doesn't imply that all theists are terrible people nor do no good for society. In actuality, theism also has very little to do with actual morals. Someone may have convinced themselves that they're really nice to people solely because God commands it, but I doubt there are very many people that are actually like this. They'd be moral people independent of religion because they have empathy for other humans, and not because an ancient manuscript says so.

Quote :

"Disco totally thinks he's better than religious people. Hot-shot atheist mofo"

Quote :

"Disco's prideful."

I hope I've addressed both of these points above. Better beliefs do not automatically a better for society person make.

What I don't get about religious people is how you can be skeptical and trust science's predictive and innovative powers for everything except religious claims. You don't just will the words to appear on this message board. You don't choose faith healing over science based medicine. You don't sit on a magic carpet and hope it flies you to work.

7/6/2011 7:47:00 PM

So I need to accept every scientific prediction to not be a hypocrite when I use innovative technologies.


"Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by selective breeding, using the same techniques that farmers used to breed a superior strain of cattle. In the formulation of his racial policies, he relied heavily upon the Darwinian evolution model, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. They culminated in the “final solution,” the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged were “inferior races.”


No Thanks.

7/6/2011 8:01:44 PM

No, you don't need to accept any scientific prediction without evidence that the prediction is true. Scientific predictions are falsifiable and reproducible for this very reason.

But what your example is missing is that you do need to accept their scientific predictions regarding selective breeding. It works. Chihuahuas are evidence of that. Now whether it was right or moral is entirely another question, because just because science predicts something doesn't mean you *should* do it.

Science predicts the kinetic force of a bullet passing through a human skull, that doesn't make the action right.

7/6/2011 8:12:27 PM

Quote :

"German scientists judged were “inferior races.”"

So are you saying that the Jews were inferior races, that could be taken out by selective breeding?

7/6/2011 8:16:03 PM

Quote :

"But it is better."

WAAAAAAAAAAAH! DON'T CHALLENGE MY BELIEF SYSTEM!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! You do realize that Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, right? And nowhere have I ever said to espouse Christianity over science. You are CONTINUING to argue against something I've never even said. It's a hilarious defense put up by someone who is having his beliefs challenged.

Quote :

"Disco totally thinks he's better than religious people. Hot-shot atheist mofo"

Bingo. He's no better than those he despises.

Quote :

"God is as the bible describes him. How do I know? Well, men wrote it, so it must be true. How do I know it's true? Because other men wrote that it was true. Grats, man. You converted me."

I don't know that that is exactly what Leon is saying... But that probably summarizes it. And lol.

Quote :

"Every other holy book is supported by a variety of manuscripts."

I don't know that all other holy books have the same kind of support. A religious scholar writing a complementary piece doesn't really seem to be what Leon is saying "supports" the Bible.

Quote :

"The reason why beliefs grounded in reality are better is because beliefs inform actions and actions affect other people."

The reason Christianity is better is because God loves people and people following God is a good thing... I, too, can make claims that circular in nature.

Quote :

"Praying instead of taking your kid to the hospital, trusting reiki or homeopathy instead of science based medicine, etc are actions informed on beliefs that are false."

Funny how you bring up thinks that very few people do, much less Christians. There are some nutjobs out there, but I doubt Leon is gonna be praying instead of taking his kid to the hospital. Hell, some Christians think that our medical progress comes, at least somewhat, from God. And this doesn't even take into account the studies that show some benefit from prayer. Positive thinking, at the very least, can be a powerful thing.

Quote :

"Someone may have convinced themselves that they're really nice to people solely because God commands it, but I doubt there are very many people that are actually like this."

Unfortunately, a lot of people are. It sucks.

Quote :

"What I don't get about religious people is how you can be skeptical and trust science's predictive and innovative powers for everything except religious claims."

Because science can't, and hasn't, tested those claims? Call me crazy, but I haven't exactly seen the Discovery Channel do a special on how science proved God was a myth. Moreover, Christianity says very little about how the universe works. It's wholly unlike other mythologies in that respect, so to say "science has disproved Christianity's claims about the world" is to say "science has disproved two or three absurd claims that no one believed in the first place".

Quote :

"So are you saying that the Jews were inferior races, that could be taken out by selective breeding?"

No, he wasn't saying that at all. btw, GODWIN'S LAW!

7/6/2011 8:25:18 PM

I never knew about Godwin's Law.


Nazis!

7/6/2011 8:30:40 PM

I wish people wouldn't engage aaronburro. You all should know that it'll end up with him denying reality in some way.

7/6/2011 10:08:18 PM

Quote :

"Are you arguing that somehow being an atheist makes you a better person? Better be careful with absolutes. I could make the same argument about Christianity. And would probably have better evidence to support it. Of course it would be establishing an absolute and wouldn't take into account outliers and falsehood. When it comes down to it, it is always a person deciding how to act, hence why God gives us free will, the question is where that person derives the basis for their action from."

You are talking to a herd of cats and your question is inappropriately phrased given that. A strong form of atheism can be as far from a theistic agnosticism as Christians are from Muslims. Probably more. You know that there are agnostic Christians, right?

But then again, maybe I'm in the wrong thread b/c this is about "Skepticism or Atheism". I would say skepticism is a person disposition.

Atheism is a lack of belief or a belief, I wouldn't quite call that
Agnosticism is a lack of complete belief, one way or the other

Quote :

"Again, atheism itself has nothing to to do with worldviews or lifestyles. It's the lack of belief."

I certainly agree with this. Both atheism and agnosticism are only statements of one's position. Possibilianism I would classify as entailing a world view.

7/6/2011 10:24:18 PM