Agnostics aren’t people who don’t know whether or not a god or gods exist. Agnostics are people who say it’s impossible to know whether a god or gods exist.
I’ll object to this, too. If the agnostics that you describe lack a belief in a god, then they are atheists. That’s the definition of “atheist” that seems to be most useful - someone who lacks a belief in a god.
As do pretty much all atheists.
Christians are people who knock on my door and try to convert me. Since no one on this board has done that, there are no Christians here.
Again, I know quite a few people who are atheists, and none of them are sure there’s no god. If you’re using that definition, it’s not very useful because it doesn’t fit the vast majority of people who self-identify with that term.
It used to be mean that, but it doesn’t seem to anymore. Rather irritating, there isn’t another word for it.
Would it really matter if every genius in history believed in God? When one provides some testable evidence, then I’ll be impressed.
I find myself convinced by your points, Discordia (et al). I think you’re right.
I’m not sure i’d go that far, however. You’re right about atheists, but i’d say there are plenty of theists (or pantheists, or whatever) who’d be happy to admit to the potential they’re wrong, too.
Nothing in that post is remotely similiar to anything I believe, which is not surprising, given that you made it all up.
Again, a completely incorrect statement of my beliefs. If you want to know what I believe, read my posts. Making up fictional versions of my beliefs is not going to lead to correct conclusions.
So what you’re saying is that if Einsten said “I’m not an atheist” but other people insist that he was an atheist, that does not matter. But if I insist that Einstein was not an atheist, that’s a misinterpretation that does matter. What’s your reasoning here? How do you classify certain things as mattering and others as not mattering?
I guess we’re just mattering mabobs of megativity.
As opposed to making up fictional versions of Einstein’s beliefs.
You might be interested in taking your own advice, since you seem to be assuming I am simply making up fictions out of whole cloth, rather than genuinely thinking it. If anything, I believe your version is worse, since while I believe your opinions are considerably biased by your initial premises, I at least honestly believe that you believe them. You apparently believe my opinions are the result of just making things up. Who is it that needs to trust who’s posts?
I believe that my interpretation of your views is a reasonable one, based upon reading your posts. If i’m wrong, then I will gladly change my opinions, and can at least point to things that lead me to believe them. Might I ask back to you what it is you’re basing your opinion that I am a liar upon? What leads you to believe that I am specifically making up things, rather than being genuinely mistaken?
You missed my point completely. In both of your examples, it would matter (to me) if it was a 3rd party’s misinterpretation of his belief.
If he’s truly atheist and people misinterpret him to be theist – it matters.
If he’s truly theist and they misinterpret him to be atheist – it matters.
It works both ways.
What I meant by saying “why does any of this Einstein trivia matter” is the following:
Einstein’s religious theories, wife beating, masturbation habits, etc are not relevant to the equation E=MC2.
Isaac Newton’s belief in God’s grace, alchemy, doomsday interpretations of Book of Revelation is irrelevant to “force = mass times acceleration”
To be fair, it’s possible to say you were only trying to respond to Dawkin’s possible misinterpretation, but IMO, you didn’t just stop there — you also layered Einstein’s vague quotes with the notion of a Christian God. When you editorialize like that, it undermines any pure motives of textual criticism and the longtimers on SDMB see right through it.
And the usual dancing area is laid out where strong and weak atheism can be interchanged at will, except when doing so doesn’t serve your purpose. Give me a break. And I’ve no need to read the link: IF, as one poster offered, Dawkins or anyone equates Atheism with Agnosticism, he or she is an idiot.
This is not true. There are two strains of Atheism, weak and strong. Strong is the affirmative belief that there is no God(s). Weak is the mere absence of belief in God(s). Agnosticism is the belief that whether or not God(s) exist is unknowable. Remove those distinctions and you’re not talking about what the words mean. And some people are Agnostic Theists (as well as Agnostic Atheists.) But that does not mean that Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism. It is not.
Right. Just like there are strong a-leprechaunists and weak a-leprechaunists.
:rolleyes:
It’s all sophistry. Atheism means you don’t believe in gods. It’s pretty simple, yet there is a certain subset of theists that somehow can’t understand it.
The question is what is meant by “god”? Is it a Creator God, a Prime Mover, or more. Like the Christian interventionist God. By assuming the latter and attacking it unnecessarily you ignore the possibility of the former. If Einstein was a novelist or poet concerned with human feelings, motives, and emotions, I think it would be sensible to talk about God in the Christian sense, as a source of our morality. But he wasn’t a novelist, he was a physicist/cosmologist. It should therefore be assumed that he was talking about a “God’s” role in the cosmos" it’s creation and operation.
I LOVE THIS. As if I invented these terms. I was introduced to them on these very boards by Atheists. And if you can’t see from what I posted, or a tour of Wiki or countless other sources, that there are, at least, the three distinct groups I mentioned, my explaining it to you again will hardly break through.
You can define things however you like, I don’t mind. The only common factor between all self-described atheists, however, is an absence of a belief in a god. Thus, I think that would be the most useful definition. Is there some point in making atheist = strong atheist instead of weak atheist? After all, the vast majority of atheists are the weak sort. There aren’t even the terms “weak theist” or “strong theist”, so I see no need for them for atheism. Just call all types of atheist “atheist”. If you want to elaborate you can just use more words.
And yes, under the old definition of agnostic I am myself an agnostic atheist, I know the old definition. Hardly anyone uses it like that anymore however, sadly. Perhaps because most people have probably never even heard of the word epistemology, let alone given it any thought.
It does make sense because there is a difference that is meaningful. One person, based on either paucity of evidence or an agnostic bent simply not adopt a belief in God. Others take more of a position with the affirmative claim, “there is no God”. So, the distinction can be quite meaningful, as I learned on these boards.
Read this somwhere long ago - and saved:
Only a man’s arrogance and pride forces him to invent God because he can’t accept the fact that neither his life nor his death are of importance or significance.
Einstein