Eydawn Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It interests me that many particle physicists acknowledge a higher power, or are agnostic. Many I've read are not atheist. Just says a lot to me about that which we don't fully understand in the universe. I particularly like the quote "Quit looking at the electron like it's a phucking particle!" I don't do well with the math, but I do love the conceptual aspect of physics (which my physics inclined friends say is impossible to truly understand without getting into the math... but then again, they live in another dimension I think...) Good thread, Dwayne! Wendy CO EMT-B RN-ADN Student Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Agnostic was basically a PC term developed by Darwin's pit bull that essentially means atheist. Personally, I don't think there exist many atheists and prefer the term agnostic. AK, finish reading before commenting. Most rational people who are skeptical and believe in the scientific method would agree that they would believe in a conscious, divine mechanism if good, reproducible, peer reviewed evidence existed. This way of believing epitomises the contemporary understanding of the term agnostic. Therefore, there really is little difference between the terms agnostic and atheist other than an interpretation bias. In fact, the terms skeptic and humanist may better describe what people believe. Bottom line: There is little to no fundamental difference between a contemporary agnostic and a contemporary atheist. Dwayne, Khan academy will be your best bet. Download his free videos for all your learning needs. Edit: Download when you get home or find somebody who can provide you with decent Internet access. Edited October 3, 2012 by chbare 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Agnostic was basically a PC term developed by Darwin's pit bull that essentially means atheist. Personally, I don't think there exist many atheists and prefer the term agnostic. AK, finish reading before commenting. Most rational people who are skeptical and believe in the scientific method would agree that they would believe in a conscious, divine mechanism if good, reproducible, peer reviewed evidence existed. This way of believing epitomises the contemporary understanding of the term agnostic. Therefore, there really is little difference between the terms agnostic and atheist other that an interpretation bias. In fact, the terms skeptic and humanist may better describe what people believe. Bottom line: There is little to no fundamental difference between a contemporary agnostic and a contemporary atheist. Dwayne, Khan academy will be your best bet. Download his free videos for all your learning needs. Edit: Download when you get home or find somebody who can provide you with decent Internet access. In a practical sense Agnostic and Atheist may have the same end result, but agnostics do not deny the existence of deity, but hold to the position that said deity cannot be understood or known. I think you said that but am not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I would disagree. Many agnostics in fact do not believe. The understanding of belief can be made with a useful analogy: Do you believe a magic unicorn lives under your bed? -Most would answer no. However, if you found evidence that could be validated to the rest of the world, then most would agree with the unicorn hypothesis. I dare say this same logic could be applied to religion and people who identify as both atheist and agnostic would agree. Again, no difference other than an interpretation bias. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 As one who learned long ago, not to discuss Politics or Religion with friends, or they won't be your friends for too much longer, I'm scared to bring this sort of commentary, but... Per my understanding, Agnostics believe in God, but not in any organized religion to worship God. Atheists, on the other hand, don't believe in God, period. If I just rephrased something someone else has already posted, I apologize. (Just as a reminder, in the event of a Nuclear War Attack, the laws about praying in Public Schools will be temporarily suspended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The nature of the contemporary agnostic is that you cannot have definitive belief without evidence. Therefore, I would argue most agnostics do not have a definite belief in any God or organised religion unless said evidence were to be discovered. As I've said, most people who define themselves as atheist would come to the same outcome under the same circumstances. Additionally, I believe the term that both agnostics and atheists agree on is skepticism. To that end, both beliefs are fundamentally the same. This really smart man explains the debat in exactly the way I see it: This really smart man has a different interpretation: However, both of these smart men would probably agree with this smart man: Debate over IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think that it was Carl Sagan who said that "you can't profess to be an Athiest (if it is defined as a belief that there is no "higher power") and also a lover of science. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't have it both ways." (Paraphrased from memory as I can't find the original quote.) Sorry chbare, I can't view anything but the text in your post. No disrespect if redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm not sure I understand Dwayne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Which part? I'm thinking the apology? That was a dorky way for me to phrase it. At the end of your post you said, "Debate over..." I was pretty confident that when you make a statement such as that that you've probably covered it pretty thoroughly, to include the subject of my statement. I'd started the post and a visiting doc sat down at my desk for several hours, so when I got back to post, you'd posted in the meantime. Wanting to make my point anyway, as it's one of my favorite points in the religious wars (my only point, really), I went ahead and posted. Basically I kind of felt like I was being purposely redundant despite not being able to see your content.. :-) Kind weird, right? But there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think I had some difficulty interpreting your statement. He did say something vaguely like that. In essence, he said we would have to know a hell of a lot more about the universe to definitely say there is no God. However, he was a skeptic nonetheless. Again, I go back to my unicorn analogy. It would not be possible to say definitely, that no unicorn exists unless you looked under your bed and made good measurements that could be verified. This whole concept applies to the evolving debate at hand. Is there a chance God exists? Absolutely. Even the most hardened atheists would agree we don't know everything and there may be some sort of divine mechanism if you will. However, when we look at the evidence, not only does it not point to a God, much of what we know is completely inconsistent with the traditional "American" view of a personal, interventional supreme being. Most skeptics would argue this is not an absence of evidence situation but rather the evidence points to un-intelligent mechanisms. So, the question of belief and the atheist/agnostic view still comes down to a bias in interpretation and I suspect part of this bias is due to the inflammatory nature if the word atheist. If religious people like to use words to stir up heated dialogue, their secular counterparts do as well. Another example is the following: A quantum consequence know as tunnelling exists. Basically, objects have a chance of tunnelling through a seemingly impenetrable barrier to exist on the other side due to their wavelike nature. However, macroscopic objects have virtually no chance of doing this. Yet, there is still an unimaginably small chance that I could run at a brick wall and tunnel through it. However, does anybody believe in any "real" sense that I would ever be able to do it? This is much like the difference between the atheist and agnostic. As stated earlier, in a real, practicle sense, neither believe in a God. However, most are prepared to believe in the even of evidence to the contrary. In fact, humans are hard wired to believe and have "faith" in some sense. For example, the faster than light neutrino issue that occurred. Many people were on board with throwing out Einstein in spite of over 100 years of some of the most accurate predictions ever known. Unfortunately, this was ultimately found to be wrong due to a cable connection issue. The same applies to religion. Even the hardest atheists such as the outgoing Dawkins admit that they want to believe in everlasting life, but cannot due to the concepts that we have already discussed. Therefore, it's natural to have slightly different interpretations of terminology, but the bottom line remains the same when it comes to most atheists and agnostics. Some people such as my pal (not literally) say that agnostic beliefs are the pre-requisites for being an atheist. Again, pretty much the same underlying beliefs IMHO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts