Summations Only

I have never liked or advocated the tactics utilized by individuals such as Dawkins and Harris, which are every bit as dogmatic as the ones they preach against. That is the hypocritical irony of the situation for the hardliner's.Tyson has pointed this out and publicly addressed this to Dawkins. I think Tyson's position is the most effective. If you provide mounds of unbiased evidence refuting creationism (unbiased being the key) slowly they may turn in the other direction.The problem with many creationists and evolutionists is that the only ones speaking on the matter are truly passionate about the subject. And that's great insofar as they care enough about science. BUT, it has turned in to one gigantic game for both of them, so that no headway is being gained. In fact, all the hardline tactics make it so that it is not safe to concede the others points.Each make it seem as if believing in their version will save your mortal soul, each offers salvation in its own way. Science, though, cannot have an agenda. The reality, however, is that the philosophy of science has taken the forefront.I think if evolutionists saw creationists more as victims rather than enemies, a true outreach would be available and many would turn from fables.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Yeah, the problem is one is so enmeshed with the other that few can separate the two. As much as either side might want to disassociate themselves with their philosophies to focus on the science (or feign as if doing so in some cases), it almost always comes up anyhow.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Evolution is a biological theory that should no more indicate the arrival or absence of God than gravity. In theory God could have caused evolution, but God could also cause the clouds to rain. But what the hell good does that do for the field of meteorology? There's no need for it to either be synonymous with God or opposing God. Whether or not god is the ultimate cause, or the First Cause, seems almost irrelevant to the natural reason why something occurs.That tells me that the only reason creationists are so against the theory is that it contradicts the Bible. And if the Bible ain't infallible, then they are left with nothing. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Atheism and agnosticism have little to do with one another. An Agnostic Atheist? That's a contradiction in terms. That's like saying someone is an Agnostic Theist. It makes no sense. No, that would simply make him an agnostic. An atheist simply declares they don't believe in God(s). An agnostic simply says that they don't possess the knowledge to either deny or declare a belief in the supernatural. It can, but it could also go in the other direction too.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Well said. Mmmmmmmmm, don't agree with this. Atheism is incapable of proving itself. It may be the more logical deduction based on inference and a lack of evidence, but not provable in any kind of classical sense.You can't disprove God if God in fact does not exist, just like you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, if it in fact does not exist.That's circular.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

No, I agree with Rahvin on this one. Atheism seems to be the natural default position due to a lack of evidence. Verifiable proof, though, seems to be logically impossible for the sole reason that no one can disprove the non-existence of a deity.Agnosticism seems to be the most honest position even though it has the explanatory power of a gnat.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Then how would they have come to any belief in the first place without some sort of foundation? I've always objected to the terms strong or weak atheists because it seems to be a way to manipulate what their meanings really are. A strong atheist is an atheist, in my opinion. A weak atheist is simply an agnostic. I believe it was Russell or Hume who understood that it is illogical to actively prove the non-existence of something. It was therefore necessary to atheism to try and incorporate a more agnostic approach so that they would not commit a philosophically fatal flaw. I'm gonna have to disagree here too. I think I have a strong grasp on both philosophies. That is not its only definition and therefore does not always mean that agnostics believe that knowledge is unattainable. That's obviously completely self-refuting. For having the knowledge that all knowledge is unattainable is a fatal contradiction to itself. How better might I be able to explain what I'm saying? I know what you're saying, but perhaps I'm not articulating my objections as clearly as I could.Let me ask you: Is it possible to a Buddhist Muslim? I say, fundamentally, no. That's because the very tenets that make each what they are, are fundamentally opposing one another. To maintain one view point counters the other, so that to refer to oneself as such is actually nonsensical. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : fixed typos

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

I'm referring to belief. How can you even come to believe without some sort of primer that might initially allow someone to believe? So then all good atheists would exclusively be agnostic atheists? This is about my third post detailing how it is contradictory and nonsensical to be an atheist agnostic. It's just one of several invented attempts by dogmatic atheists to not seem so dogmatic, like strong and weak atheism. There are several definitions for agnosticism, and yes, one of them include ALL knowledge. Secondly, I'm an agnostic and have been for a long time. I, however, don't believe that all knowledge is unattainable. I simply believe that ultimate causation is not known and I doubt sincerely that it ever can be known. I also cannot discount the possibility of a deity. More importantly I think atheists are generally condescending prigs who are every bit as sanctimonious as fundies. There are always exceptions to the rule though. The real problem is that not everyone does know what an agnostic is. There has always been a lot of ambiguity about agnostics. There's always those questions where people ask what the difference is between atheists and agnostics. They only do so because each is distinguished from the next. I'm referring to the fact that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of god. In fact, I've said it several times throughout the thread. It's not irrelevant if it helps allow you to see that being an atheist agnostic is philosophically contradictory.But whatever... No need to respond. We can simply agree to disagree. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Had to fix some typos

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

What you stated makes no sense. I'm trying to understand how two contradictory positions can be held at the same time. And my gaining/losing ground is completely subjective, so.... Yeah, sure... But that's theists. What does that have to do with agnostic atheists? All right, well, then help me distinguish something. You keep asserting that you can be an agnostic and an atheist, but you also allege that someone can be an agnostic theist. If the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge cannot be achieved, then how would one become theistic in any sense? Yes, I know who and what the Gnostics were, which is why I am completely perplexed, even more so than about atheist agnostics, but now you say that there are gnostic atheists?!?!? What do Gnostics have to do with the conversation, aside from the word gnostic (know) and agnostic (not knowing)? I never defined it any differently than you have. You provided an impromptu definition, none of which I disagreed with. At most I corrected you on a lack of one definition for agnosticism.Here ya go:Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
-SOURCEWhat I am disagreeing with is, specifically, atheist agnostics in conjunction with one another. I'm not disagreeing with your definitions for each separately. Understand now? I hope so because I'm not going over it again. I don't know either way... Spoken in true agnostic fashion. I don't even know what the hell we're discussing anymore. It's gone off a few tangents, but don't care enough to argue about it anymore. Atheists are distinguished from agnostics, would you agree? Agnostics take a neutral position when it comes to the supernatural, would you agree? Well, atheists and theists don't. How can you have someone denying the existence of God and also not denying or defending a belief in God simultaneously? Think it through before you condescend to me.You think you can just mash words together and supply meaning to them. That is not always the case, as it is the case here. In the event you respond to me, I will not be replying to you because I honestly don't care enough about the subject to be arguing with someone I just met. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add source

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

No, but one takes a neutral position while the other doesn't. Too many people assume that agnostics are basically atheists, but that is not some arbitrary rule that all of them adhere to. I know I don't. While it may be very likely that most agnostics lean more towards atheism than theism, that does not negate that it in effect fosters neutrality on the subject. Precisely my point! These terms strong or weak are just senseless distractions from the obvious. It's almost insulting to affix strong or weak to it as if it were going to somehow make it better. If you're an atheist, then be an atheist. If you're a theist, then be a theist. If you're an agnostic... Just keep fighting the good fight. You don't need to feel pressured to come to such a grand decision in haste. Shit, life is mysterious enough with the even the most basic of epistemological mysteries. No need to open up Pandora's Box. Let that open on its own. Be honest and inquisitive, I say. Perhaps... But I can only speak about personal experience as a way to measure something just like everyone else, really... And I sure as shit didn't assign the stereotype. People do that to themselves without the least bit of help from me. So... *shrug* Take that to heart or with a grain of salt. It is what is.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--