COSMOS....General discussion thread.

[Wickabee]

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

It did. Absolutely no offense to you, but if you pay attention and watch it, it's really easy to catch.

You can't take the only meaning you agree with and post it as fact.

I took the dictionary definition. It's not "something I agree with" it's the definition of a word.

As for knowledge, agnosticism is, simply put, the BELIEF that God is unknowable, and so is his existence. Yes, it is about knowledge, but it is a BELIEF about the potential for knowledge, not knowledge itself.

It is also a term for someone who simply takes neither side. Either way, anyone who believes God can be known, or disproved, or takes any side in that argument is NOT agnostic. NDG is, by accepted definition, because he simply takes no side.

[Wickabee]

Here's the problem. I used the phrase "believe in something".

No you didn't. You said:

I wonder, would Neil Degrasse Tyson describe himself as a "believer" in the multiverse? Or would he say it is an interesting hypothesis?

You changed it to "label yourself something".

Pretty clear you're wondering if he would put the label "believer" on himself. That is your entire question. You even put quotation marks around "believer".

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.

You could read your own post and realize what you actually said.

No amount of simple thought would get me there.

I would say, as close to no amount of thought as one can get is necessary. Step one, know what you said. Step two, don't lie about what you said.
You're guilty of at least one.

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.

If you saw it, you would have noticed that was the entire reasoning he put forth for not identifying as an atheist, so I'm going to say if you did see it, you paid zero attention to what he said.

[habsheaven]

It did. Absolutely no offense to you, but if you pay attention and watch it, it's really easy to catch.


I took the dictionary definition. It's not "something I agree with" it's the definition of a word.

As for knowledge, agnosticism is, simply put, the BELIEF that God is unknowable, and so is his existence. Yes, it is about knowledge, but it is a BELIEF about the potential for knowledge, not knowledge itself.

It is also a term for someone who simply takes neither side. Either way, anyone who believes God can be known, or disproved, or takes any side in that argument is NOT agnostic. NDG is, by accepted definition, because he simply takes no side.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. The BELIEF talked about in the definition relates to knowledge, NOT the subject of the knowledge.

This is basic reading. Find me one more person that frequents these boards that doesn't know that.

[Wickabee]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. The BELIEF talked about in the definition relates to knowledge, NOT the subject of the knowledge.

This is basic reading. Find me one more person that frequents these boards that doesn't know that.

It is the belief that God is unknowable. An agnostic is one who BELIEVES that. I'm not having this discussion anymore. Show you the dictionary definition and you show me a whiney, swearing teenager and figure it's just as legitimate a source.

You'd argue that "is" means "could be" if it suited your argument. Seriously.

I can't help but notice a YouTube video is your only source, and everything else you've come up with is a roundabout argument. Not a single actual definition. Nothing but a video with the most roundabout logic I've ever heard.

If agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of God is unknowable.
Agnosticism is the belief. The agnostic is the believer.

[habsheaven]

No you didn't. You said:





Pretty clear you're wondering if he would put the label "believer" on himself. That is your entire question. You even put quotation marks around "believer".


You could read your own post and realize what you actually said.


I would say, as close to no amount of thought as one can get is necessary. Step one, know what you said. Step two, don't lie about what you said.
You're guilty of at least one.


If you saw it, you would have noticed that was the entire reasoning he put forth for not identifying as an atheist, so I'm going to say if you did see it, you paid zero attention to what he said.

You are right I did phrase it that way. Makes more sense now. However I still contend that a reluctance to label yourself an atheist with all the negative connotations that go with it, is vastly different than labeling yourself a believer in a scientific hypothesis that doesn't have a lot of baggage.

[Wickabee]

You are right I did phrase it that way. Makes more sense now. However I still contend that a reluctance to label yourself an atheist with all the negative connotations that go with it, is vastly different than labeling yourself a believer in a scientific hypothesis that doesn't have a lot of baggage.

I really don't think it matters. I accept your apology only after pointing out that you had no idea what you yourself even said.

This is the problem I have with a couple of posters. They say things and have no idea what the words they're using mean, or sometimes even are. This was the most blatant example I've seen in awhile, and I sincerely hope you take this as the friendly show of example it is. Please stop doing this, and please stop arguing against the dictionary.

Oh, and if you mean a scientific theory, make sure you say scientific theory.

All these things are confusing, and only because two people make them so. The fact it's only two people who do this to the rest of us, and the fact that it continues to happen ad nauseum, leads me to believe it is entirely deliberate. This is why I'm asking you stop. It's killing true discussion.

[habsheaven]

It is the belief that God is unknowable. An agnostic is one who BELIEVES that. I'm not having this discussion anymore. Show you the dictionary definition and you show me a whiney, swearing teenager and figure it's just as legitimate a source.

You'd argue that "is" means "could be" if it suited your argument. Seriously.

I can't help but notice a YouTube video is your only source, and everything else you've come up with is a roundabout argument. Not a single actual definition. Nothing but a video with the most roundabout logic I've ever heard.

If agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of God is unknowable.
Agnosticism is the belief. The agnostic is the believer.

I posted half a dozen definitions, all that include the KNOWLEDGE portion of the meaning. You just said it; "knowledge of God is unknowable." Not GOD is unknowable, knowledge of him is. It is elementary school reading comprehension to understand those meanings.

[Wickabee]

I posted half a dozen definitions, all that include the KNOWLEDGE portion of the meaning. You just said it; "knowledge of God is unknowable." Not GOD is unknowable, knowledge of him is. It is elementary school reading comprehension to understand those meanings.

You skip the part where agnosticism is the belief that god is unknowable. What you're saying is that the the knowledge that god is unknowable is "agnosticism".

You said yourself that knowledge and belief are two different things. Agnosticism is a belief regarding knowledge and god. You literally see the word "knowledge" and take it to be the entire definition. You again pick and choose regarding your own ideas, not reality. Agnosticism is a belief regarding knowledge of god. There's no way around it, unless you skip por tions, which you've done.

And you want to talk grade school reading...

[shrewsbury]

alex, I have no issue with this being a possibility. forms of this theory have been around for a long time. I wish I can remember the article, I read about a mathematician you spoke on how it had to exist, it is the only way things could work when viewed from his discipline. It was a good read, but it was years ago, I might never find it again.

back to topic

my point is you are open to this but not creation? any creation? alien creation? anything?

I find it weird that for many an open mind exists except when it comes to creation.

I find recently (yes I am weird) been trying to apply Occam's Razor to my beliefs. I am unsure if between the two, Creation of any kind or the Big Bang with human evolution, which one is really the simplest, both can be quite complex when looked at from any angle.

I think both are very worthy of study and thought. Religion will never bring the tangible evidence needed to "prove" it. Science will never be able to reproduce or create it, so many will not see theories, no matter how empirical it may be, as fact of proof. We see that now.
So, though I believe both should be studied, I do not believe either can ever truly produce an answer that everyone will agree upon. But, I don't really care what everyone agrees about, I just want to have answers I THINK are right and to keep trying to prove to myself they are right by using any information and as much thought as I can put into it. That doesn't mean stick with one idea and make everything fit into it, it means looking at it from as many angles as possible and see how much of it mike just be an illusion or delusion.

(hopefully you'll get this)
so you do believe that a clown made of candy version of Sheldon does exist!

[Wickabee]

alex, I have no issue with this being a possibility. forms of this theory have been around for a long time. I wish I can remember the article, I read about a mathematician you spoke on how it had to exist, it is the only way things could work when viewed from his discipline. It was a good read, but it was years ago, I might never find it again.

back to topic

my point is you are open to this but not creation? any creation? alien creation? anything?

I find it weird that for many an open mind exists except when it comes to creation.

I find recently (yes I am weird) been trying to apply Occam's Razor to my beliefs. I am unsure if between the two, Creation of any kind or the Big Bang with human evolution, which one is really the simplest, both can be quite complex when looked at from any angle.

I think both are very worthy of study and thought. Religion will never bring the tangible evidence needed to "prove" it. Science will never be able to reproduce or create it, so many will not see theories, no matter how empirical it may be, as fact of proof. We see that now.
So, though I believe both should be studied, I do not believe either can ever truly produce an answer that everyone will agree upon. But, I don't really care what everyone agrees about, I just want to have answers I THINK are right and to keep trying to prove to myself they are right by using any information and as much thought as I can put into it. That doesn't mean stick with one idea and make everything fit into it, it means looking at it from as many angles as possible and see how much of it mike just be an illusion or delusion.

(hopefully you'll get this)
so you do believe that a clown made of candy version of Sheldon does exist!

Personally, I think looking at the findings of science and saying god doesn't exist is as bad as reading the bible and saying science lies. I'll never understand why so many just close themselves off to the idea that god may simply be different. I guess new ideas scare most people.