COSMOS....General discussion thread.

[habsheaven]

Well, he has said he doesn't call himself an atheist.

What does that have to do with what I said?

[JustAlex]

a believer in the multiverse.

And, how is that a problem?

Multiverse is not yet to the level of a solid scientific theory.....but I don't think Neil has expressed his belief or whatever you want to call it the same way he speaks about the big bang for example.....

BTW, thy DID mention briefly the possibility that a multiverse COULD exist on the first episode of Cosmos.

I personally think that a multiverse COULD exist as well....but until I get sufficient evidence I'll stay agnostic on that front.

[Wickabee]

What does that have to do with what I said?

He's obviously not a man easily willing to label himself. Why, did you take it to mean something else? Not everything I say is confrontational, no matter how you Decide to take it.

[Wickabee]

And, how is that a problem?

Multiverse is not yet to the level of a solid scientific theory.....but I don't think Neil has expressed his belief or whatever you want to call it the same way he speaks about the big bang for example.....

BTW, thy DID mention briefly the possibility that a multiverse COULD exist on the first episode of Cosmos.

I personally think that a multiverse COULD exist as well....but until I get sufficient evidence I'll stay agnostic on that front.

But are you an agnostic a believer or an agnostic-atheist towards multiverse?

(That actually hurt to type.)

[habsheaven]

He's obviously not a man easily willing to label himself. Why, did you take it to mean something else? Not everything I say is confrontational, no matter how you Decide to take it.

Okay so he isn't. I didn't take it as confrontational. I took it as irrelevant to what I said. I didn't see the connection between him not wanting to label himself an Atheist and his willingness to admit he believes in a scientific hypothesis. I can't read your mind, nor do I attempt to.

[habsheaven]

We are all agnostic. Believers or not.

[Wickabee]

Okay so he isn't. I didn't take it as confrontational. I took it as irrelevant to what I said. I didn't see the connection between him not wanting to label himself an Atheist and his willingness to admit he believes in a scientific hypothesis. I can't read your mind, nor do I attempt to.

Your question was, essentially, would he call it an interesting hypothesis, or would he call (label) himself a believer. Not a difficult connection to make, if a small amount of thought is put into it.

There is no mind reading involved. Just the basic dignity of a little simple thought.

[Wickabee]

We are all agnostic. Believers or not.
[INAPPROPRIATE VIDEO]

DEBUNKED!

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC


1

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


2

: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

— ag·nos·ti·cism noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Thank you Merriam-Webster.
You can't just change the meanings of words arbitrarily because a somewhat pretty girl on YouTube said so. You should make sure there's no offensive language before you post videos, also.

You post that, yet tell me about using roundabout logic and nonsensical arguments. Come on, man.

[habsheaven]

Your question was, essentially, would he call it an interesting hypothesis, or would he call (label) himself a believer. Not a difficult connection to make, if a small amount of thought is put into it.

There is no mind reading involved. Just the basic dignity of a little simple thought.

Here's the problem. I used the phrase "believe in something". You changed it to "label yourself something". If I do not accept that those phrases are interchangeable (which I don't) I cannot make the jump from your one-line response to the explanation you provided after. No amount of simple thought would get me there. I saw his explanation for not wanting to be labeled an atheist. Not everyone would assume he is reluctant to express a belief in everything else for fear of being labeled.

[habsheaven]

DEBUNKED!


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Thank you Merriam-Webster.
You can't just change the meanings of words arbitrarily because a somewhat pretty girl on YouTube said so. You should make sure there's no offensive language before you post videos, also.

You post that, yet tell me about using roundabout logic and nonsensical arguments. Come on, man.

I removed the video. Don't recall the offensive language but I will take your word for it.

You can't take the only meaning you agree with and post it as fact. I can provide a dozen sources that give the meaning of agnostic to be "without knowledge". It has NOTHING to do with BELIEF. Other than believing you have no knowledge.

Here are a few:

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable


ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs′tĭk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.


2.

agnostic
Someone who is not arrogant enough to
think they KNOW whether God exists or not.


ag·nos·tic

[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature ofthings are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.


Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable


If someone believes they cannot know whether or not God exists, label them anagnostic.

agnostic

noun [C] /æɡˈnɒs.tɪk/ /-ˈnɑː.stɪk/
› someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a godexists:


Notice what they all have in common: knowledge, not belief