Behaviour report by the London school of economics

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

Interesting - why?

To me, it highlights that there are different ways we can look at the world.

It is all about perspective, & given some of your comments, I'd have thought it were something you'd go with, rather than dislike? (shrug smiley)

I dunno,its... instinctual.....no rationale...jI just don't. I don't disagree it does all of that you say to a degree. :D

edit: did you know I am notoriously difficult to buy presents for for just this sort of reason...

edit again: I actually prefer to get nothing. Gifts are so confusing......

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

I dunno,its... instinctual.....no rationale...jI just don't. I don't disagree it does all of that you say to a degree. :D

edit: did you know I am notoriously difficult to buy presents for for just this sort of reason...

You do suprise me!;)

Cleaver

Originally Posted by Cleaver
I don't agree with this. I am an atheist (although I don't really like having to use a term like this) and it's not a belief as such, I'm just not beliving in something that there is no evidence for existing.

wigglebeena wrote: »

That isn't atheism, it's agnosticism. Atheists actively believe in the non-existence of god. Sorry to get into semantics, but it matters. (Since agnostics are smart and atheists aren't, but keep trying to get in on the act by borrowing agnostic stances.)

Sorry, I probably didn't explain myself very well there. If you take the definitions in their simplist forms:

Atheism: "There is no God."
Agnosticism: "I'm not sure if there is a God or not."
Theism: "There is a God."

I am firmly in the first camp. However, if you take it to an extreme then there is no way of proving the concept of God either way, so in a sense everyone is agnostic. But that's a bit of a cop out in my eyes. There's lots of concepts that people believe in: Gods, karma, fairies, ghosts, spirits etc. etc. As with any abstract concept, it's impossible to prove either way whether they exist or not. My personal view is that I can't believe in a concept that there is no evidence for, and I don't see any evidence for a God. So I'm an atheist. The reason I don't like the term is that I don't need to 'define' myself with a badge that states I don't believe in karma, or a term for myself that shows that I don't believe in ghosts. I put the belief in God in the same realm as this, but that does have a label: atheism.

By the way, your phrase in bold. Why are agnostics smart and atheists aren't?

ninky_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Why are agnostics smart and atheists aren't?

the clue might be in his own position.....

Mr.Brown_4

Cleaver wrote: »

By the way, your phrase in bold. Why are agnostics smart and atheists aren't?

Maybe the argument is that believers and deniers have their eyes shut to the possiblity of an alternative. It is therefore more intelligent to leave your stance open. Previously, if asked, I would have said atheist. I realise now I meant to say agnostic. I have personally grown as a result of this thread.

ninky_2

would those who say they are agnostic about god also say they are agnostic about particular religions and religious beliefs. e.g. the virgin birth, jesus as son of god, koran as word of god, moses parting the red sea etc etc?

i agree that dawkins arguments are quite theological (particularly the god delusion...i read chapter 1 and felt i didn't need to read it all). he argues mainly against abrahamic faiths. which i don't think is necessarily an argument about the existence of god.

Sir_Humphrey

Cleaver wrote: »

However, if you take it to an extreme then there is no way of proving the concept of God either way, so in a sense everyone is agnostic. But that's a bit of a cop out in my eyes.

My point is that the idea of God as the creator of the Universe is meaningless. How can logical meaning apply if you are arguing about something beyond the realm of logic (or even the realm of illogic)?

Stephen Hawking it sums up; what is South of the South Pole? It cannot be conceived. Likewise, asking what happened before the Big Bang is equally impossible to conceive. If time only applies to the actual universe, how can even say that something was before the universe? You can neither believe nor disbelieve something that is inconceivable.

This is totally different to a flying spaghetti monster, which is a coherent concept, even if absurd.

Really, this is not a question that is worth wasting your time over IMHO.

wigglebeena

Cleaver wrote: »

Originally Posted by Cleaver

By the way, your phrase in bold. Why are agnostics smart and atheists aren't?

Cuz it's funny to annoy folks. But probably true anyway. Who's sharper, someone who takes a position on faith without evidence (e.g. atheist) or someone who is willing to accept what current knowledge can and can't prove and live in that grey area.

wigglebeena

Oh yes, and because atheists do seem to borrow technically agnostic arguments rather a lot when challenged in debate (and suffering the embarrassment of having no logical rigour to cover their nakedness). If our arguments are so good, we must be pretty smart...

treliac

wigglebeena wrote: »

Oh yes, and because atheists do seem to borrow technically agnostic arguments rather a lot when challenged in debate (and suffering the embarrassment of having no logical rigour to cover their nakedness). If our arguments are so good, we must be pretty smart...

You're one smart lady, wiggle. Love the way you've been expressing yourself in this thread.