A civil war thread: Atheists vs Agnostics.

Post Reply New Topic

If we are awake, we think. We might not think profound thoughts, but think, we do.

ruveyn

Arguing about semantics is nothing to do with PPR

In short, any definition can be second guessed or redefined on a personal level. So what?

The sciences regularly redefine common words to be more precise in heir specific uses. Work, energy, etc. are common words that are not permitted to wander so that scientists may know exactly what they are communicating. Good philosophers do the same thing. Semantics is important.

Yes but neither are philosophy or science. Have you not heard of the phrase "philosophy is not words"? In the case of natural laws those are linked to phenomena. So if somebody uses say "energy" in a vague sense then a scientist can point out that is not equivalent to "Energy". However the difference between "Atheiest" and "Agnostic" are less important because they are subjective anyway. There never was a fixed definition in mind, like the majority of etymology.

I find the OP silly because, people's beliefs are people’s beliefs. If you are arguing about these labels then effectively you are making a religion/sect out of them.

I am an atheist, but I care less whether my definition of atheist is correct. In fact words are inadequate to describe such a thing in my head (and who is to say it is fixed?)

If you use the scientific method then, you cannot completely rule something out until you have conclusively proven it is not the case. However things that are very far fetched needn’t be considered, you should prioritise your hypotheses from most likely to least. However there is no restriction on what you consider a hypothesis, if you don't worry about you reputation.

The problem with Intelligent Design research, is it works backwards. It is like being dealt some cards thensaying it is not possible to be dealt those cards randomly.

No. And this is partially because modern philosophy has become very much an issue of the analysis of particular words used.


Well, the issue is that a lot of science is mathematical, and mathematical science really is dependent upon a lot of technical issues. I mean, there might be a bunch of phenomena that physics can relate back to, but there are a lot of mathematical formulations that physics theories are often based upon.


Well, a lot of things are unimportant, however, I suppose what is being gotten at is the reality of the mindset of those who call themselves agnostics.


I don't see how that's an issue. I mean, if one argued that (let's say) reductionists are effectively nihilists in denial, then that is a real debate that a person can have.

In Archeology, there is a lot of argument about where different archeological periods start and end. This might seem a bit irrelevant, but one has to remember that such definitions are quite important in how they communicate their ideas with others. "Incorrect" use of semantics can cause confusion, after all.