Me: >I'll accept and consider logical arguments >from any source. So far "god" has decided >not to offer any arguments, logical or otherwise. Of course on second thought, perhaps his absence from an athiest vs theist engagement on ET Chat could be presented as significant proof of his wisdom. ;-) It's been fun. Till next time. JB
I don't see what problem you have with their definition of weak atheism since it is the one you gave by quoting the dictionary and as for agnosctism it is the sense that Einstein used refering to God explicitely. Since I am talking about Science and God don't tell me that quoting Einstein is irrelevant in that case . It's like you're argumenting that I am talking in Degree centigrade and you are talking in Degree Farenheit: does it matter which definition is used as long as we refer to the same convention. So let's choose one and stop endlessly talking about two different references instead of dealing with the true nature of the question. So the true question is: is your so called weak atheism different or not from Einstein Agnosctism ? - I remind that he used that term himself it is not my interpretation that he is agnostic. He clearly says that he believes not in a personal God but still he is believer of the existence of an Intelligent Designer which is very strong belief although he is not sure since the question in Science is not closed of course but knowing what he knows he think it is rational to think so. So rationality is not absence of belief it is "reasonable hypothesis" to use the expression of another great scientist Henri Poincaré. Thinking that the question of God is purely reducible to syllogism is an error: science is also about facts and facts can't be deducted by pure syllogism - this is again the very reminder of Henri Poincarré in Science and Hypothesis.
About Einstein everybody knows that his view about Determinism is very strong notably he is against not Quantum Mechanics per se as one can often read but about ONE INTERPRETATION of Quantum Mechanics which is the so-called Copenhague School Interpretation. This interpretation has been used extensively by the French Sociologist School to justify abusively "free will" and "socialism" - and the French sociologist school has widespread all over the world - but they just omitted to say that it is only ONE INTERPRETATION and that even the inventor of the Schrödinger Equation doesn't agree with this interpretation. So those who are for this interpretation - which is also a belief as every interpretation - can be often much more atheist than Einstein and other scientists who still think that Determinism is fondamentally inherent to the Universe.
Here is the website quote you used: Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods... They gave the definition for weak atheism, and then claimed it was ACTUALLY AGNOSTICISM. Once again.... I point out that agnosticism does not fall in the realm of BELIEF, it falls in the realm of KNOWLEDGE. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They describe different aspects of an individual. If I do not posses god belief or if I disbelieve, then I am an atheist. If I dont KNOW if god exists, or posses KNOWLEDGE of gods existence then im an agnostic. Or if we use Huxelys definition, I dont think god is KNOWABLE. In any case... gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE not BELIEF. is your so called weak atheism different or not from Einstein Agnosctism ? You will have to provide a detailed cite of Einstein before I can answer this question. Quote Einsteins description of agnosticism in detail. He clearly says that he believes not in a personal God but still he is believer of the existence of an Intelligent Designer Again... you will have to provide supporting evidence with IN CONTEXT quotes by Einstein. Metaphorical quotes such as " "God doesn't play dice" do not count. peace axeman
I have already quoted Einstein it's funny that you didn't read it since the very reason I mentioned Agnostism is him: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=422543&highlight=einstein#post422543 This is Albert Einstein's quote: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. " Agnostic must not be confused with Atheism. Agnostic means the no-choice state as I said I choose myself. The concept of God for many scientists like Einstein is linked with Determinism or Spinoza's God, it is not the personal God of most Religions or "law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment". I have also quoted Hawkins comment about Laplace http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=423387&highlight=hawkins#post423387
"CONVINCED" and "VIVID CONCIOUSNESS" : are these expressions compatible with your "weak atheism" ? As for me I can't say that I am as convinced as Einstein although I am also agnostic and somehow a potential believer in something but not as intensively as him at least for the moment .
You quotes him many many many pages ago.... I didnt even realize it was in this thread. Anyway..... his quote: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. " Here he simply claims he is an agnostic, but gives no further details on what he means by agnostic. His second sentence simply states we do not require a "law giver" to have more principles. There are no impilcations of intelligence or god in his sentence. "vivid consciousness" refers to "the primary importance of moral principles", not to any intelligent entities, as clearly shown by his sentence structure. peace axeman
These are perfectly compatible with weak atheism within the context of his sentence since they do not refer to any godlike entities. peace axeman
nice job here , i really mean that. axe will pick up the ball from here turok (he'll fumble with it and make a complete mess but oh well )
WHO CARES about the freaking definition of an atheist. Man you theists are CLUTCHING AT STRAWS! FACT: Theists believe in a magical being that resides in a magical realm that created the world with magical means. I DO NOT. Call me whatever you want and it will not change the fact that theists believe in a magical being that resides in a magical realm that created the world with magical means whilst I DO NOT. Get it? It doesn't matter what you call me, I don't believe in this magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world using magical means. Theists do. And I don't believe in this magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world with magical means because, despite the very best efforts of theists, I have yet to come across one good reason to believe in a magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world with magical means and dozens of excellent, outstanding reasons NOT to believe in a magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world with magical means.