Can you simply be Agnostic?

yawha

From my understanding of the term "agnostic", it's not something that you can be independent of a position on theism. To be gnostic or agnostic about something is a statement about the certainty or uncertainty of a particular belief or lack of one.

But so many people seem to think that to be "agnostic" is to be half way between theism and atheism. Indeed, that's the first definition I heard of, but on further reflection, it doesn't make any sense. Belief in something is binary - you either believe in something or you don't, but the level of certainty regarding whether a particular belief or lack of is correct is not. I see it as a continuum ranging from gnostic to agnostic. So you might have a (a)theist who is very agnostic about their belief/lack of belief, or a (a)theist who is very gnostic about it, but one is not simply "agnostic" alone.

I reckon that most who call themselves agnostic would be atheists with a high level of uncertainty regarding their lack of belief.

Thoughts?

sink

I agree, this discussion has been had many times before on this forum.

There is also a third option which is ignostic. It is basically the rejection of current assumptions about god and without a coherent falsifiable definition of god the question as to whether it exists is not cognitively meaningful. Which is the position I would take. So I would be a ignostic atheist.

Dades

yawha wrote: »

I reckon that most who call themselves agnostic would be atheists with a high level of uncertainty regarding their lack of belief.

I agree.

I think an awful lot of self-confessed agnostics are so because they misunderstand the term atheism, and what it actually entails. (i.e. They think it involves saying or knowing there are no gods).

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I think an awful lot of self-confessed agnostics are so because they misunderstand the term atheism, and what it actually entails. (i.e. They think it involves saying or knowing there are no gods).

Well, when you consider that not a week goes by without someone coming into the forum and telling us what an atheist is (they are almost always completely wrong), maybe we should pop up a sticky thread with the definition?

Denerick

I'm currently reading Contact by Carl Sagan. Here is a particularly relevant sentance:

You could just as well say that an agnostic is a deeply religious person with at least a rudimentary knowledge of human fallibility.

I'm still waiting for the evidence to pile up before I make a decision either way

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

Well, when you consider that not a week goes by without someone coming into the forum and telling us what an atheist is (they are almost always completely wrong), maybe we should pop up a sticky thread with the definition?

You're presuming a definition could be agreed!

For instance, there are those who think there is a world of difference between

"I believe God does not exist"

"I do not believe God does exist"

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

"I do not believe God does exist"

This one!

sponsoredwalk

pH wrote: »

"I believe God does not exist"

Arrogant atheist :mad:

pH wrote: »

"I do not believe God does exist"

Brainwashed by Hitchens/Dawkins to be a "Skeptic" :rolleyes:

yawha

Denerick wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the evidence to pile up before I make a decision either way

And thus, in the meantime, you lack a belief in any god?

Denerick

yawha wrote: »

And thus, in the meantime, you lack a belief in any god?

I assume there is no God. If there is a God, I'm confident she would be horrified by organised religions at present. Until some evidence emerges to either confirm or deny the supposition I shall remain healthily skeptical of both atheism and theism.

El_Duderino 09

Denerick wrote: »

I assume there is no God. If there is a God, I'm confident she would be horrified by organised religions at present. Until some evidence emerges to either confirm or deny the supposition I shall remain healthily skeptical of both atheism and theism.

Do you mean you will remain healthily skeptical of both theism and anti theism? Thus making you my friend, an atheist?

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

I assume there is no God. If there is a God, I'm confident she would be horrified by organised religions at present. Until some evidence emerges to either confirm or deny the supposition I shall remain healthily skeptical of both atheism and theism.

Hello, atheism.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

I think an awful lot of self-confessed agnostics are so because they misunderstand the term atheism, and what it actually entails. (i.e. They think it involves saying or knowing there are no gods).

Denerick wrote: »

Until some evidence emerges to either confirm or deny the supposition I shall remain healthily skeptical of both atheism and theism.

I rest my case.

robindch

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Brainwashed by Hitchens/Dawkins to be a "Skeptic" :rolleyes:

How, uh..., uncharitable!

strobe

bluewolf wrote: »

Hello, atheism

This is going to sound very very OCDish......but is there any chance you could edit that post and put a full stop at the end of it Blue?

ArtSmart

yawha wrote: »

I reckon that most who call themselves agnostic would be atheists with a high level of uncertainty regarding their lack of belief.

Thoughts?

true. nuthin worse than a backsliding agnostic

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

How, uh..., uncharitable!

One of them!

There you go, strobe.

bnt

The OP is right in saying that (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are different questions. Maybe it's time I posted this again, from irreligion.org:


One thing that occurs to me, however, is that not all positions on that 2-axis system are logical. If you are an agnostic, then you think there can never be answer to these questions (on the existence of gods); but to be a theist means that you think you have the answer! (The idea of "some kind of god out there somewhere" is not theism, it's deism: to be a theist is to take a specified faith position.)

In all cases, though, I think certainty is unwarranted. I'm not certain that there are no gods, but I don't need to be. To be certain, when there is no evidence to support certainty, would also be a faith position. You sometimes see religious types accusing atheists of this kind of thing, but if they actually asked the atheists what they thought, they might learn something new. :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Well, I’ve argued elsewhere that Catholics get to self-define. So, I reckon, do atheists and agnostics.

The words “atheism” and “atheist” only entered the English language in the second half of the sixteenth century. Initially the concept of “atheism” embraced three things:

- Denial of the existence of god(s)

- Lack of any belief in the existence of god(s)

- “Practical” atheism - i.e. disregard of duties to god(s), regardless of belief.

At first, the sense of practical atheism seems to have predominated. Pretty soon, however, that meaning came to be mostly expressed by other words, e.g. godlessness, impiety. So “atheism” came to signify the two philosophical senses.

It’s obvious that those who deny the existence of god(s) are a subset of those who lack belief in the existence of god(s).

“Agnostic” and “agnosticism” don’t turn up for another three hundred years or so. In fact, we know who coined the words; it was Thomas Huxley, in about 1869. Huxley intended the words for those who (like himself) not only didn’t know whether god(s) existed or not, but argued that we couldn’t know this. He believed, essentially, that the existence of anything beyond or behind material phenomena was unknown and unknowable.

It seems that, to Huxley, “denial” atheism was a faith-based position just as much as theism was. In his view denial atheists were asserting as true something which could not be known to be true. (Huxley, perhaps, would have said that a denial atheist who completed the current census by ticking “other religion” and then writing “Atheist” would be correct.)

Very quickly, a large number of people who might previously have been described as atheists began to self-describe as agnostics. This included not only people who shared Huxley’s conviction that we cannot know if god(s) exist, but also those who simply felt that they themselves were uncertain about the existence of god(s) as well as, in time, a group who simply weren’t greatly interested in the question of whether god(s) exist. “Atheist” soon came to refer mainly to the hard-core denialists.

I suspect that what may have driven this fairly rapid change in meaning was the fact that up to that time “atheist” was mostly used in a pejorative sense. The newly-coined agnostics were seeking to affirm themselves and their position as socially and intellectually respectable by embracing this new label.

The end result of these shifting meanings is that we have two fairly clearly-defined philosophical positions for which only one label is appropriate - those who assert that god(s) do not exist, who are always “atheist”, and those who assert that we cannot know whether god(s) exist, who are always “agnostic”.

In between we have what I suspect is a larger group of people who we can characterise only in negative terms - they don’t have a belief in the existence of god(s), they don’t assert that god(s) do not or cannot exist, they don’t assert anything about the limits to human knowledge in this respect. They can be described (or they can self-describe) as either “atheist” or “agnostic” according to preference, or fashion, or to which of the other two groups they prefer to tog out with. Arguments about whether they are more accurately described as “atheist” or “agnostic” are not much use (except, perhaps, that they tend to cast light on the position of the person making the argument). (FWIW, my entirely subjective and unreliable impression is that, in recent years, people who lack any belief in god(s) have become more prone than formerly to self-identify as “atheist”.)

I think this does have some implications for discussions about how the non-religious ought to complete the census, or about what options the census form ought to offer them. Because the boundary between atheism and agnosticism is movable, getting people to classify themselves as atheist or agnostic is of limited value. People with identical positions might classify themselves differently, and changes from census to census in the numbers classifying themselves as one or the other might point to shifting positions, but they could equally point to unchanged positions which are simply being differently described or labelled, and we would have no way of knowing which phenomenon was at work. I suspect that information about the aggregate number identifying as non-religious is probably more meaningful than any attempt to analyse the non-religious between atheism and agnosticism.

dead one

second law of thermodynamics gives, universe is running out of energy, It implies universe can't be eternal, it is also proved by mathematic and philosophy that it can't be possible a universe with infinite number of events. Thus it is proved by modern science that the universe began to exist. The fact "universe began to exist which has cause, To deny this cause is absurd and to ignore this cause makes one agnostic. The universe began to exist, What is its cause? Answering this question lead us to the nature and reality of God. God's existence is simple logic to "cause" the universe. Only an uncaused and omnipresent cause is enough on account for universe. Therefore such supernatural being exist. Many agnostic and atheist say that God needs a first cause because they redefined God in term of matter and energy, But there is no one like God in whole universe.

Quran - ‘There is nothing like Him, He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing (Ash-Shura – 11).

Improbable

dead one wrote: »

second law of thermodynamics gives, universe is running out of energy, It implies universe can't be eternal, it is also proved by mathematic and philosophy that it can't be possible a universe with infinite number of events. Thus it is proved by modern science that the universe began to exist. The fact "universe began to exist which has cause, To deny this cause is absurd and to ignore this cause makes one agnostic. The universe began to exist, What is its cause? Answering this question lead us to the nature and reality of God. God's existence is simple logic to "cause" the universe. Only an uncaused and omnipresent cause is enough on account for universe. Therefore such supernatural being exist. Many agnostic and atheist say that God needs a first cause because they redefined God in term of matter and energy, But there is no one like God in whole universe.

That's not what the second law of thermodynamics means at all. This argument is either a poor attempt to misrepresent scientific facts to suit your own argument or an argument stemming from an ignorance of scientific fact. Thus, everything following your statement that "the universe is running out of energy" is a logical fallacy and can be discounted. Much like all god theories.

dead one

Improbable wrote: »

That's not what the second law of thermodynamics means at all. This argument is either a poor attempt to misrepresent scientific facts to suit your own argument or an argument stemming from an ignorance of scientific fact. Thus, everything following your statement that "the universe is running out of energy" is a logical fallacy and can be discounted. Much like all god theories.

You don't say. The indication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The system of universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. It is logical to conclude that universe isn't eternal. The universe had a limited beginning.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

also entropy has proved invalidity of evolution.

dead one

dead one wrote: »

You don't say. The indication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The system of universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. It is logical to conclude that universe isn't eternal. The universe had a limited beginning.


also entropy has proved invalidity of evolution.

I love when people use one scientific fact to try argue against another :rolleyes:
It's really funny.
Why don't you start arguing against the 2nd law with all your "to err is human" rubbish?

housetypeb

dead one wrote: »

also entropy has proved invalidity of evolution.

How does it do that?

I like how you're able to switch to believing in science when you think it agrees with your particular holy book.

dead one

bluewolf wrote: »

I love when people use one scientific fact to try argue against another :rolleyes:
It's really funny.
Why don't you start arguing against the 2nd law with all your "to err is human" rubbish?

I also love when people use Fun to avoid the truth and reason.
It's really funny.:P
What's so funny??

housetypeb wrote: »

How does it do that?

macro evolution of complex living things from single cell, You know something about disorder ?

Improbable

dead one wrote: »

You don't say. The indication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The system of universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. It is logical to conclude that universe isn't eternal. The universe had a limited beginning.

You can't "lose" energy. The energy "loss" you're describing is merely the transformation of one type of energy into another. If the universe is of an open configuration, it is possible there will be a point of maximum entropy, which only means that all of the available energy will be uniformally distributed and will not be able to do any work, not that there is no energy. That doesn't mean that the universe will stop existing...

Do you have any scientific rebuttals to that?

dead one wrote: »

also entropy has proved invalidity of evolution.

Explain how.

b318isp

dead one wrote: »

You don't say. The indication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The system of universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. It is logical to conclude that universe isn't eternal.

The 2nd law is about equilibrium. From Wiki: "differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system."

I'd also point out that it is only a theory, not a true law.

And your comment runs contrary to the conservation of energy "law" too.

And even e=mc^2 would require you to demonstrate where all the mass is as energy reduces.

b318isp

dead one wrote: »

also entropy has proved invalidity of evolution.

Entropy does indeed describe the reduction of energy in a system, but you're not suggesting that living things don't consume energy over their lifetimes? We consume energy to (partly) organise simpler forms into the complex organism that we are. When we die, no further energy is consumed and we decay.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

The system of universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining.

I mentioned this to JC a while ago, but there's a source of energy in the Universe which you can actually see with you own eyes. Here's what you have to do:

1. Go into some open space during the daytime
2. If it's a cloudy day, wait until the skies are clear.
3. Tilt your head upwards and find the bright, hot, large, round, yellow thing
4. That's it!

Let us know how you get on, or if you need a hand out. Common mistakes with this experimental protocol include trying to do it at night, with a cloudy sky or with your eyes closed.

raah!

This pushing of "atheism is just a lack of belief" is definitely not something which is universally accepted as the definition of atheism. If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist". If you're able to speak english, you'll see quite easily the difference between the two statements. There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief". This is not how the word is used today, and infact it was used soley in the "belief of non-existence" sense before people started to be offended by agnostics claiming a firmer epistemological footing.

It's clear that under the "I believe that god does not exist" definition, one can indeed be an agnostic but not an atheist.

The second Law would only be broken by evolving organisms if they could be considered to be closed/isolated systems. They are not unfortunately.

Peregrinus

raah! wrote: »

This pushing of "atheism is just a lack of belief" is definitely not something which is universally accepted as the definition of atheism . . .There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief".

I have to say that I know quite a number of self-described atheists who insist that the term means precisely that. Anyone who lacks a belief in god(s) is, in their view, an atheist. For them, the term embraces both those who affirm that there is no god(s) and those who do not go so far, but simply lack any belief in god(s).

I'm not saying that this is a universally accepted definition; just that it's a reasonably common one, and a perfectly defensible one.

oldrnwisr

raah! wrote: »

This pushing of "atheism is just a lack of belief" is definitely not something which is universally accepted as the definition of atheism. If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist". If you're able to speak english, you'll see quite easily the difference between the two statements. There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief". This is not how the word is used today, and infact it was used soley in the "belief of non-existence" sense before people started to be offended by agnostics claiming a firmer epistemological footing.

It's clear that under the "I believe that god does not exist" definition, one can indeed be an agnostic but not an atheist.

The second Law would only be broken by evolving organisms if they could be considered to be closed/isolated systems. They are not unfortunately.

So is it your contention that the only choices are belief in a god or belief in no god? Where does the position of belief just being switched off fit in in your view? The term atheist simply means without god. The problem in the derivation of the term is that it was originally coined it as a pejorative for those who denied the gods. Since those who invented the term took the existence of god as an assumed fact, the whole basis of the definition could be said to be faulty.
I don't know, raah!, if you're a christian or atheist or whatever but I can't understand why people are perfectly happy to differentiate between different branches of Christianity (33000, to be precise) and yet assume that all atheists have a common set of principles or beliefs. There is a big difference between a passive lack of belief and a positive assertion that there are no gods and plenty of people out there who fall into both categories.
As for some specific comments you made:

"There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief"."

I would say that quite a lot of the people here and on other forums use the word atheist in that sense including myself.


"This is not how the word is used today"

You may want to read these before making such a comment:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


"If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist"."

What are you basing that assumption on? The first statement is merely a comment on plausibility. Obviously in situations like the origin of the universe for example, there are many possible explanations. It could have been a spontaneously created universe, a cyclical universe, it could have been created by God, it could have been created by an alien who blew up his apartment trying to make beer etc. In the presence of competing explanations it is necessary to rank them according to the supporting evidence. An atheist would conclude that on the basis of the evidence for individual explanations that it is probable that God did not create the universe. At no point here is there a comment on belief.

dead one

robindch wrote: »

I mentioned this to JC a while ago, but there's a source of energy in the Universe which you can actually see with you own eyes. Here's what you have to do:

1. Go into some open space during the daytime
2. If it's a cloudy day, wait until the skies are clear.
3. Tilt your head upwards and find the bright, hot, large, round, yellow thing
4. That's it!

Let us know how you get on, or if you need a hand out. Common mistakes with this experimental protocol include trying to do it at night, with a cloudy sky or with your eyes closed.

It isn't enough that earth is open to Sun, There must be a mechanism which converts that energy into complexity. When energy enters into an open system, it increases its entropy, It won't decrease it's energy. If you look at the system of Earth with your own eyes. Here's what you have to do:
1. If you sleep or sit in sun, you skin will get older
2. If you park car in Sun, Paint job will get bad.
3. That's it!

There is an assumption by evolutionist which is proved wrong by "Second law of thermodynamic. The evolutionist assume There is tendency of nature from disorder to order. The real tendency as pointed by "Second law of thermodynamic is from order to an organization to disorder. Life wasn't evolve it was designed and it is true in case of earth.

Improbable wrote:

You can't "lose" energy. The energy "loss" you're describing is merely the transformation of one type of energy into another. If the universe is of an open configuration, it is possible there will be a point of maximum entropy, which only means that all of the available energy will be uniformally distributed and will not be able to do any work, not that there is no energy. That doesn't mean that the universe will stop existing...

Do you have any scientific rebuttals to that?

The amount of disorder in any closed system increases with increase in time. Things go from order to disorder or from an available energy state to an unavailable energy state. Take example of hot cup of cofee in an insulated room. The coffee cools off. The total amount of energy in room remain same as per first law of thermodynamics. When coffee is hot, due to difference between coffee and air, there available energy. The available energy turn into unavailable energy when coffee cools down. When there is no temperature difference between coffee and air, it shows energy is all in available state. The room and coffee suffered what they call "heat death" because there is no more available energy to work. Second law of thermodynamic gives, the reverse can't happen, because coffee won't hot by itself. Because this would require to turn unavailable energy into available energy
Now take whole universe as "a giant closed system". Resemble stars with cup of coffee. The hot star in cooler space represents state of available energy. According to law of thermodynamics this available energy is constantly turning into unavailable energy . In other words Entire universe is running out of energy. It shows someone has given universe enough energy to function, Like wind - up clock. This is enough proof for existence of God if you believe. All the evolutionary theories seems fake before above argument.

[He is] the Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, “Be!” and it is.
(Qur’an, 2:117)

b318isp wrote:

Entropy does indeed describe the reduction of energy in a system, but you're not suggesting that living things don't consume energy over their lifetimes? We consume energy to (partly) organise simpler forms into the complex organism that we are. When we die, no further energy is consumed and we decay.

thermodynamics says the total entropy of a system always tend to increase. Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)
There must be an intelligent designer who is designing the complexity of system. That designer can only violate law of thermodynamic who created these laws of physics.

seamus

dead one wrote: »

Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)

Most tenuous explanation ever.

By your logic, I violate the second law of thermodynamics every time I clean my house.

Improbable

You'd think that in the 152 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, at least 1 qualified physicist would have come to that conclusion dead one. Since they haven't, and since they know a lot more about it than you do, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that you're just flat out wrong?

dead one

dead one wrote: »

thermodynamics says the total entropy of a system always tend to increase. Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)
There must be an intelligent designer who is designing the complexity of system. That designer can only violate law of thermodynamic who created these laws of physics.

Stop making things up and just go learn some physics
and biology

robindch

dead one wrote: »

There must be a mechanism which converts that energy into complexity.

Yes, it's called "Evolution".

dead one wrote: »

The amount of disorder in any closed system increases with increase in time.

The Earth is not a closed system.

Remember what I said a few days back about the big, hot yellow thing up the sky?

Well, that's the thing that what makes the Earth an "open system".

b318isp

dead one wrote: »

The hot star in cooler space represents state of available energy. According to law of thermodynamics this available energy is constantly turning into unavailable energy . In other words Entire universe is running out of energy.

What you misunderstand is that the energy of the star reduces but the energy in the universe rises by an equivalent amount (ignoring mass fluctuations). The net energy doesn't change. When equilibrium is reached, then there is a state of unavailable energy in the thermodynamics. This does NOT mean there is no energy.

A simple test for this is to connect two drums together with a hose or pipe. Fill one with water quickly. Over time the, water will fill the other drum too (via the pipe) until the water level is the same in each. At this point equilibrium is reached and no more water will move between the drums. What is important now to understand that this does NOT mean there is no energy. If one drum is lowered, the process will restart.

The same trial can be done by connecting the positives (+ to +) and negative (- to -) of two equal voltage batteries together with an ammeter. You will see no current flow. Connect the respective positive to the negatives and you will (+ to - and + to -).

dead one wrote: »

thermodynamics says the total entropy of a system always tend to increase.

Have you not stated that it decreases?

dead one

robindch wrote: »

Yes, it's called "Evolution"..

You don't say because evolution violates second laws of Thermodynamic. So what is difficult in understanding. Now think about mechanic and his mechanism.

robindch wrote: »

The Earth is not a closed system.

You misunderstood, I didn't said "Earth is closed system", I took the whole universe as closed system. Now tell me from where universe is getting energy. Can there be a universal sun who is feeding the universe. I guess not. There ain't no universal sun but universal truth that is called God again a clear evidence if you think.

robindch wrote: »

Remember what I said a few days back about the big, hot yellow thing up the sky?

Remember order and disorder that is called entropy. God is controlling the energy of sun and making it usable for earth.

blue Wolf wrote:

Stop making things up and just go learn some physics
and biology

A learner argues as i m arguing. Only a dictator dictates when he/she runs out of argument. Isn't it true??:rolleyes: . Hence it is proved some of evolutionist are dictators:eek:. So stop dictating me I am rebellious.

Improbable wrote:

You'd think that in the 152 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, at least 1 qualified physicist would have come to that conclusion dead one. Since they haven't, and since they know a lot more about it than you do, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that you're just flat out wrong?

publications can be wrong because "to err is to human" and it is also true most of human are selfish. They are selfish in spreading truth. Some time they spread lies to defend truth. But even in the book of lies sometime you find the truth.

seamus wrote:

By your logic, I violate the second law of thermodynamics every time I clean my house.

Nah! you prove law of thermodynamic whenever you clean your house. The more you clean your house the more it will become dirty next time.:cool:

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)

Explain crystals then. Jumbled molecules rearrange into incredibly ordered macro structures. Notice the person in this picture:

Geologist Juan Manuel García-Ruiz calls it "the Sistine Chapel of crystals," but Superman could call it home.

A sort of south-of-the-border Fortress of Solitude, Mexico's Cueva de los Cristales (Cave of Crystals) contains some of the world's largest known natural crystals—translucent beams of gypsum as long as 36 feet (11 meters).
From here. All these crystals are are huge ordered lumps of calcium sulfate. By your idea of thermodynamics they shouldn't exist, except they do and not only that, but you can make crystals like these (ok, it takes a while for crystals of that size) of quite a lot of materials, I do so regularly in my lab (a very simple example you can do at home is to take some sea water and boil all the water off it you are left with crystals of salt).

yawha

dead one wrote: »

You misunderstood, I didn't said "Earth is closed system", I took the whole universe as closed system. Now tell me from where universe is getting energy. Can there be a universal sun who is feeding the universe. I guess not. There ain't no universal sun but universal truth that is called God again a clear evidence if you think.

Does entropy apply to God?

If not, why not?

raah!

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say that I know quite a number of self-described atheists who insist that the term means precisely that. Anyone who lacks a belief in god(s) is, in their view, an atheist. For them, the term embraces both those who affirm that there is no god(s) and those who do not go so far, but simply lack any belief in god(s).

I'm not saying that this is a universally accepted definition; just that it's a reasonably common one, and a perfectly defensible one.

My point is that this shift of the word atheist to mean "lack of belief" has come about for a reason. It is a reaction to the agnostics saying "I'm on a firmer epistemic footing". Since pretty much every person who posts here falls into the category of "believes god does not exist", it's not difficult to draw this conclusion.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The problem in the derivation of the term is that it was originally coined it as a pejorative for those who denied the gods. Since those who invented the term took the existence of god as an assumed fact, the whole basis of the definition could be said to be faulty.

This is exactly it, the term originally meant "belief that gods do not exist". The shift to "lack of belief" can be viewed in a way similar to the catholic church saying "you can't sign out of the catholic church". It's not linguistically helpful, and destroys the actual distinction between "lack of belief" and "belief in non-existance". Changing the meaning a word so that it is more ambiguous is not a good thing. And as I've said before, this was obviously done deliberately as a response to agnostics.

There is a big difference between a passive lack of belief and a positive assertion that there are no gods and plenty of people out there who fall into both categories.

Yes, there is a big difference.

As for some specific comments you made:

"There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief"."

I would say that quite a lot of the people here and on other forums use the word atheist in that sense including myself.

And I am saying that you are politically, rather than linguistically motivated. The meaning has been changed, to suit an argument. It has been changed in a way such that this big distinction you mentioned earlier has become blurred.

"This is not how the word is used today"

You may want to read these before making such a comment:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Everything I've said previously applies to any atheist made definition of atheism. The meaning of the word has changed. It originally meant "denying existence". I've given good reasons for why this is not a helpful conceptual change, and why it can be seen as a political act.

"If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist"."

What are you basing that assumption on? The first statement is merely a comment on plausibility. An atheist would conclude that on the basis of the evidence for individual explanations that it is probable that God did not create the universe. At no point here is there a comment on belief.

Saying "This is probabilistically very unlikely" is the same as saying, in normal language "this isn't true". Your whole paragraph here just says that "atheists are just affirming the truth of the non-existence of god". You are mistaken in putting those things forward as competing hypotheses, I'm sure you've read some creationists or apologists, who can simply append a god to whatever scientific theory you want to think of. If not "append" then do somethign like "permeat throughout" or "sit outside".

Since there is no well defined probability, to say that god is improbable is a statement of belief.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

You don't say because evolution violates second laws of Thermodynamic.

Your religion, if it were true, would violate the Second Law.

Therefore, it is false.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

And I am saying that you are politically, rather than linguistically motivated. The meaning has been changed, to suit an argument. It has been changed in a way such that this big distinction you mentioned earlier has become blurred.

It didn't change so much as become defined to make sense.

raah! wrote: »

Everything I've said previously applies to any atheist made definition of atheism. The meaning of the word has changed. It originally meant "denying existence".

You would do well to read the links posted, Atheist comes from the latin "atheos", which means "without god". At the most basic level, all atheists lack a belief in god. A lot will go further and believe that god does not exist (the difference between implicit and explicit atheism). None deny the existence of god, because such a position, linguistically, presupposes that the existence is fact and that someone is in denial of such a fact or its implications.

seamus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You would do well to read the links posted, Atheist comes from the latin "atheos", which means "without god"....

When explaining it, I find it easier to refer to other uses of the a- prefix which don't have any emotional undercurrent.

Such as asexual. A sexual creature is one which reproduces sexually. An asexual creature does not. The asexual creature does not "deny" the act of sexual reproduction, rather it simply exists without it.

oldrnwisr

dead one wrote: »

It isn't enough that earth is open to Sun, There must be a mechanism which converts that energy into complexity. When energy enters into an open system, it increases its entropy, It won't decrease it's energy. If you look at the system of Earth with your own eyes. Here's what you have to do:
1. If you sleep or sit in sun, you skin will get older
2. If you park car in Sun, Paint job will get bad.
3. That's it!

There is an assumption by evolutionist which is proved wrong by "Second law of thermodynamic. The evolutionist assume There is tendency of nature from disorder to order. The real tendency as pointed by "Second law of thermodynamic is from order to an organization to disorder. Life wasn't evolve it was designed and it is true in case of earth.


The amount of disorder in any closed system increases with increase in time. Things go from order to disorder or from an available energy state to an unavailable energy state. Take example of hot cup of cofee in an insulated room. The coffee cools off. The total amount of energy in room remain same as per first law of thermodynamics. When coffee is hot, due to difference between coffee and air, there available energy. The available energy turn into unavailable energy when coffee cools down. When there is no temperature difference between coffee and air, it shows energy is all in available state. The room and coffee suffered what they call "heat death" because there is no more available energy to work. Second law of thermodynamic gives, the reverse can't happen, because coffee won't hot by itself. Because this would require to turn unavailable energy into available energy
Now take whole universe as "a giant closed system". Resemble stars with cup of coffee. The hot star in cooler space represents state of available energy. According to law of thermodynamics this available energy is constantly turning into unavailable energy . In other words Entire universe is running out of energy. It shows someone has given universe enough energy to function, Like wind - up clock. This is enough proof for existence of God if you believe. All the evolutionary theories seems fake before above argument.


thermodynamics says the total entropy of a system always tend to increase. Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)
There must be an intelligent designer who is designing the complexity of system. That designer can only violate law of thermodynamic who created these laws of physics.

What a load of garbled nonsense. Yet another creationist raising yet another tired argument against evolution. You know dead one, it really would help if you actually attempted to understood science before shamelessy mangling it to suit your warped sense of reality.


"The evolutionist assume There is tendency of nature from disorder to order."

Well I would say we observe such a tendency. There is no need to assume it. You can even see it for yourself.

Before:



After:

[Embedded Image Removed]

"Now take whole universe as "a giant closed system"."

It is incorrect to assume the universe as a closed system for the purposes of a discussion on entropy. The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant. Note the important part of that sentence. The universe does not have a fixed volume. It is in a state of expansion. So any discussion on overall entropy change in the present universe is redundant. The universe is not expected to reach a state of heat death for at least another 10^100 years so there is plenty of scope for entropy to be produced until then.

"The real tendency as pointed by "Second law of thermodynamic is from order to an organization to disorder."

In a word, no. The equating of disorder with entropy is a misconception.
Entropy is not the same as disorder. There have been observed instances of an increase in order corresponding with an increase in entropy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5426/394.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5358/1849.short

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v68/i12/p1090_s1?isAuthorized=no


"Entire universe is running out of energy. It shows someone has given universe enough energy to function, Like wind - up clock. This is enough proof for existence of God if you believe."

It would be really helpful if you didn't start mixing your apples and oranges. Or in this case your first and second laws of thermodynamics. The formation of the universe is not necessarily a violation of the first law as your garbled argument suggests. Since the gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is always negative, it is possible that if we were able to calculate all such energies then they would balance out with the energy of the universe.

"There must be a mechanism which converts that energy into complexity."

There are several. Photosynthesis for example.

"Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)"

Wrong again. The energy from the sun is used by organisms on earth to account for the increase in order. The local increase in order on earth is offset by a decrease in order within the sun. The overall effect on the universe, even were it to be considered a closed system, is thus zero.

Still, though I don't suppose you're going to take any of these arguments on board. I expect you will do what all other creationists do and stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the same old tired rhetoric. In the end, we're not here to actually convince you of the ridiculousness of your arguments. That would be futile. It is important, however, to counter such bull**** with facts and evidence so that any innocent parties are not drawn in by your tired crap.

oldrnwisr

raah! wrote: »

My point is that this shift of the word atheist to mean "lack of belief" has come about for a reason. It is a reaction to the agnostics saying "I'm on a firmer epistemic footing". Since pretty much every person who posts here falls into the category of "believes god does not exist", it's not difficult to draw this conclusion.



This is exactly it, the term originally meant "belief that gods do not exist". The shift to "lack of belief" can be viewed in a way similar to the catholic church saying "you can't sign out of the catholic church". It's not linguistically helpful, and destroys the actual distinction between "lack of belief" and "belief in non-existance". Changing the meaning a word so that it is more ambiguous is not a good thing. And as I've said before, this was obviously done deliberately as a response to agnostics.


Yes, there is a big difference.


And I am saying that you are politically, rather than linguistically motivated. The meaning has been changed, to suit an argument. It has been changed in a way such that this big distinction you mentioned earlier has become blurred.



Everything I've said previously applies to any atheist made definition of atheism. The meaning of the word has changed. It originally meant "denying existence". I've given good reasons for why this is not a helpful conceptual change, and why it can be seen as a political act.




Saying "This is probabilistically very unlikely" is the same as saying, in normal language "this isn't true". Your whole paragraph here just says that "atheists are just affirming the truth of the non-existence of god". You are mistaken in putting those things forward as competing hypotheses, I'm sure you've read some creationists or apologists, who can simply append a god to whatever scientific theory you want to think of. If not "append" then do somethign like "permeat throughout" or "sit outside".

Since there is no well defined probability, to say that god is improbable is a statement of belief.

"It is a reaction to the agnostics saying "I'm on a firmer epistemic footing"."

"And as I've said before, this was obviously done deliberately as a response to agnostics."

These statements show that you fundamentally misunderstand agnosticism almost as much as atheism. For your benefit you may want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Agnosticism is a commentary on the knowledge or truth of a certain statement. It is not pertinent to a discussion, in this case, on the meaning and change therein of the word atheism.


"This is exactly it, the term originally meant "belief that gods do not exist". The shift to "lack of belief" can be viewed in a way similar to the catholic church saying "you can't sign out of the catholic church". It's not linguistically helpful, and destroys the actual distinction between "lack of belief" and "belief in non-existance"."

On the contrary it is, linguistically speaking, quite common and very helpful. The change in the meaning of atheism is one of the categories of semantic change known as amelioration. For example, the Old English word hlafweard, were it rendered in modern English would be spelled loafward, literally, keeper of the bread. Changes in spelling of the original word over time lead to the word being shortened to hlaford and eventually lord which we now use as a title of nobility. Atheism is a similar example and is motivated, not by politics as you claim but simply a move from an imposed pejorative to a self-description.
Of course, it could also be argued that the category of semantic change into which atheism falls in generalisation. An example of this would be the latin word platea meaning broad street. Over time, the spelling and pronunciation of the word changed and became place, which can describe more than just a street. It can be argued that the definition of atheism similarly became more expansive, to include different manifestations of the same broad description.

"Changing the meaning a word so that it is more ambiguous is not a good thing."

As I have explained above, the change in meaning of words is a fact of life. It is rarely, if ever, as you are trying to suggest, the result of a conscious action. Language, like all other aspects of culture, evolves.

I've given good reasons for why this is not a helpful conceptual change, and why it can be seen as a political act.

Thank you for that. It's always nice to see an argument from incredulity rephrased in a new way. How things seem and how they are are two very different things.

Saying "This is probabilistically very unlikely" is the same as saying, in normal language "this isn't true".

Nonsense. What I was describing is the ranking of competing hypotheses according to the level of evidence. I used the restricted example of the origin of the universe and I said that it could be concluded that on the strength of the evidence that God is unlikely to have created it. That is in no way commenting on the actual truth of the proposition.
Let me put it another way. If you're going to (intelligently) put a bet on a horse in a race then you examine the form in order to determine which horse will win. On this basis, odds are determined. On the strength of various factors, including form, the horses are ranked on the basis of how likely they are to win the race. So you can say that a horse which is 100-1 is unlikely to win, but that does not equate to saying he won't win. After all Spanish Don, for example, won the 2004 Cambridgeshire Handicap with odds of 100-1.

raah!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"It is a reaction to the agnostics saying "I'm on a firmer epistemic footing"."

"And as I've said before, this was obviously done deliberately as a response to agnostics."

These statements show that you fundamentally misunderstand agnosticism almost as much as atheism. For your benefit you may want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Agnosticism is a commentary on the knowledge or truth of a certain statement. It is not pertinent to a discussion, in this case, on the meaning and change therein of the word atheism.

Do you see how if the meaning of the word "atheism" were restricted to "afrimation of non-existence" then one could "simply be agnostic". Which is actually the title of the thread?

On the contrary it is, linguistically speaking, quite common and very helpful.

In what sense is this helfpul? In terms of describing things?

Atheism is a similar example and is motivated, not by politics as you claim but simply a move from an imposed pejorative to a self-description.

It's actually a less accurate self description. The original pejorative meaning of the term more accurately describes the type of people who would like to see its meaning expanded to included anyone who does not possess belief.

Of course, it could also be argued that the category of semantic change into which atheism falls in generalisation. An example of this would be the latin word platea meaning broad street. Over time, the spelling and pronunciation of the word changed and became place, which can describe more than just a street. It can be argued that the definition of atheism similarly became more expansive, to include different manifestations of the same broad description.

This does not address in anyway that the meaning of the word may have been changed deliberately. To say that it was "to distance from the pejorative" is actually support to the idea that it was changed to suit the purposes of a groupe. I.e. politically motivated.

As I have explained above, the change in meaning of words is a fact of life. It is rarely, if ever, as you are trying to suggest, the result of a conscious action. Language, like all other aspects of culture, evolves.

Well as far as I can see, from reading this forum, it's been a very recent, and rather rapid change, occuring entirely in those arguments where agnosticism has been brought up. Threads like this.

Thank you for that. It's always nice to see an argument from incredulity rephrased in a new way. How things seem and how they are are two very different things.

Would you care to show where an "argument from incredulity" comes anywhere into anythign I've said. All my points have been positive assertions. Based on how I've seen the use of the word change over time.

Saying "This is probabilistically very unlikely" is the same as saying, in normal language "this isn't true".

Nonsense. What I was describing is the ranking of competing hypotheses according to the level of evidence. I used the restricted example of the origin of the universe and I said that it could be concluded that on the strength of the evidence that God is unlikely to have created it. That is in no way commenting on the actual truth of the proposition.
Let me put it another way. If you're going to (intelligently) put a bet on a horse in a race then you examine the form in order to determine which horse will win. On this basis, odds are determined. On the strength of various factors, including form, the horses are ranked on the basis of how likely they are to win the race. So you can say that a horse which is 100-1 is unlikely to win, but that does not equate to saying he won't win. After all Spanish Don, for example, won the 2004 Cambridgeshire Handicap with odds of 100-1.

If you'd like to restrict truth to mean "analytic truth" then go ahead. I drew a distinction between "normal language" and "scientific language" for a reason.

Saying "the entropy of a system is very unlikely to decrease spontaneously" can be viewed on a similar footing to saying "it won't". In this case, making statements about probabilities of which you have no knowledge, can easily be called belief. Horses don't come into it.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You would do well to read the links posted, Atheist comes from the latin "atheos", which means "without god". At the most basic level, all atheists lack a belief in god. A lot will go further and believe that god does not exist (the difference between implicit and explicit atheism). None deny the existence of god, because such a position, linguistically, presupposes that the existence is fact and that someone is in denial of such a fact or its implications.

We are talking about the evolution of the use of the word. We can all go out and fish out archaic definitinos and etymologies, but if the word is being used differently in our time, then it means something else.

The point is that the word has been used for a very long time as "believing in non-existence". You can see yourself how the responses to the "atheists believe int higns recently" are divided in the "oh well it's just really really unlikely" to the newer "atheist just means lack of belief".

Even if "atheist just meant lack of belief", everyone on here would still be in the more specific sub category.

Note: According to Peregrinus' post, and fairly common knowledge; The word Agnostic was actually coined in opposition to the word atheist. These cross diagrams reflect only how the meaning of the word atheist has changed (been changed), or at least how people think thomas huxley's conception of it was wrong.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

We are talking about the evolution of the use of the word. We can all go out and fish out archaic definitinos and etymologies, but if the word is being used differently in our time, then it means something else.

Here now, you said "It [atheist] originally meant "denying existence"." You are wrong, it didn't originally mean that and it never has. You realise its very obvious when you try to strawman and your original post is still there, right?

raah! wrote: »

The point is that the word has been used for a very long time as "believing in non-existence". You can see yourself how the responses to the "atheists believe int higns recently" are divided in the "oh well it's just really really unlikely" to the newer "atheist just means lack of belief".

Even if "atheist just meant lack of belief", everyone on here would still be in the more specific sub category.

How can you say this and not understand the implication? If "believe that god doesn't exist" is a sub category of atheism, then it must have come after the main category was defined, the main category being "a lack of belief in god". Therefore, your notion that atheism originally meant "denied the existence of god" is wrong and isn't even correct now.

raah! wrote: »

Note: According to Peregrinus' post, and fairly common knowledge; The word Agnostic was actually coined in opposition to the word atheist. These cross diagrams reflect only how the meaning of the word atheist has changed (been changed), or at least how people think thomas huxley's conception of it was wrong.

These crosses just show that people who generally aren't atheist or agnostic actually dont understand what the hell they are talking about when they try to tell an atheist or agnostic what they believe. "Common knowledge" has problems with the word theory, so I dont see how much use it is in using it to correct peoples misconceptions of what the words atheist and agnostic actually mean.