Sadly, many people turn “science” into a worldview rather than what it really is, a tool whereby to explore the material realm. A tool which was historically premised upon Judeo-Christian theology and which due to its purpose cannot come to conclusions which are not materialistic such as, for example, that “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.” His statements about the grandeur of his view is merely an expression of his esthetic preferences.
@wwwTrueFreethinker That would be a representation of his propensity for factually based truths. Btw, he also said the universe is beautiful, which also is not a scientific statement.
Sadly, Sagan had a propensity towards non-sequiturs & self-serving conclusions as his “science” suffered from his adherence to atheism: it was constantly biased towards his materialistic ends. For example, he claims to know the universe as it “really is” but held that “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be,” which is not a scientific statement.
Read "Contact" recently. Such a good book for a man who was much more of a scientist than a novelist. Sagan demonstrated a very sophisticated understanding of people, and of humanity.
Sagan knew the workings of the universe as well as anyone of his time, but far from diminishing his appreciation for the sparks of life and consciousness we have, his understanding of the universe seemed to have augmented his "belief in [man's] dignity," if not his uniqueness and irreplaceability.
Nice piece there. It was weird when I heard the part about mankind making "a bargain strongly in our favor" because I just finished explaining to someone how accepting scientific theory is like making a safe bet, and this is the first time I've been to you're channel in a long while... maybe I have subconscious ESP! lol.
Math works, folks. +1=believes the claim is true, -1=believes the claim is false, 0=no belief (the default state). And you can choose to stay at 0, or you can make an effort to arrive at +1 or -1, and whatever criteria is used to get there is where it gets personal.
But in addition, the trend is to qualify it by whether you believe (agnostic theism) or do not believe (agnostic atheism). What I don't like about that is there doesn't seem to be a term for agnostic-someone-who-believes-there-is-no-god. Many people erroneously equate no belief with negative belief.
It appears people need clarification. Agnostic means not knowing, and by itself lacks meaning. One would have to ask, "agnostic about what?" The topic here seems to be about god(s), so it's agnostic about whether or not there is a god, regardless of what you do or do not believe.
Would you be interested in doing some analysis video(s) of fitness related research? Like the relationship between meal size/frequency and metabolism (bodyrecomposition(dot)com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html) and also the health effects of oxidized and heated oils.
the problem is that you have an right for ignorance. You can not know everything humanity knows, so you have the right to not know. This also means that if you take this right, you may not preach. You may not claim to know the truth, as you do not know it. If you tought you did enough reseach, you have to take the heat, and that is something mens ego can barely bear
It doesn't seem reasonable to believe in things that are made up. I can make up any number of unprovable/undisprovable ideas. Does my position make my disbelief a belief even when the object of my disbelief has not been thought up yet?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Reading some of the comments I can see that there is a lot of "god" debate going on. Just freaking face it folks, there is no proof that there is or isn`t a creator. Therefore atheism is also a belief and the only thing that distinguishes you from christians is that you don`t have your own bible.
But the best thing is, truth doesn`t care, truth just is and it`s humanities most important goal to keep looking for it.
This is a very popular criticism, but atheism is not a belief system, any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. I have the same position on the divinity of Jesus as I have on UFOs and Bigfoot: I await an adequate case to be made. In the absence of evidence, I simply suspend judgement. It can neither be proven nor disproven on current evidence, therefore it is not something I invest belief in. You'll find this a common, but not universal, position in atheism.
"Asymmetrical" means not being symmetrical. "Atheist" means not being a theist (believer in gods).
Here's a simple one: are you a believer in Bigfoot (Sasquatch)? If not, we'll call you an a-sasquatchian. Do you have to actively disbelieve in Bigfoot, or is her nonexistence your default state? Is a-sasquatchianism a belief system, or just a general refusal to invest in belief?
You can not reject something if you can`t prove that it`s wrong. You can only say "I believe that this is wrong".
The only way of escaping the circle of belief is to say. "I DO NOT KNOW".
Trust me it`s the most difficult path to live with but it`s the true state of reality that humans are in right now. Deep within everybody knows this but it`s much easier to believe and I don`t blame them.
2) Do your research. You are arguing a strawman. Atheists are most commonly agnostic. Atheist and agnostic deal with two completely different questions.
@jaykgrey Welcome to the round table of BS and now read your last two sentences loudly to yourself.
You can`t be two things at once.
A christian who still has doubts is not a agnostic believer! It just states that he is confused/not sure.
I perfectly realize that peoples thoughts and beliefs can have endless variations but this does not change the logical concept it`s logically impossible to say "No" or "Maybe" or "Yes" at the same time.
@KeskinTRS "You can`t be two things at once." - No, but you can hold different positions on different questions, ie" do you know if there are any gods?" and "do you believe that there are any gods?"
@KeskinTRS "Trust me"? I think that's the problem. You're being rather intellectually lazy. There is no reason to say "I don't know" when there is no evidence for something; if everything indicates a certain state of affairs, it is ridiculous to assume an extra bit. It is therefore ridiculous to assume that we have to be ambivalent about the extra bit. Don't be so condescending when the level of your rhetoric is so low.
@KeskinTRS When you turn on a light switch, do you believe that a lamp somewhere in the room will begin emitting light? You can't say you know it will, because it doesn't always happen. But at least you have experienced the event of turning on a light switch and seeing a light come on. Until I see such evidence that something indicates the presence of a god, I cannot develop any belief in the matter, much less know anything about it.
@KeskinTRS I believe the moon is there, because I can see it and study it. But when the moon is not visible, do you still know it is there? I mean, truly? You believe it is, based on repeated experience with it becoming visible again. But it could get obliterated by an asteroid. Of course, you'd find out about that soon enough, but until then, you cannot say that you KNOW the moon is there. As for my other points, do they frighten you because you know them to be true?
@JamesMorlan Don`t digress by bringing in the time or place factor. If I can`t see the moon at day somebody else can see it somewhere else on the other side of the planet and he can broadcast it live to the whole world. Besides that our scientists would know about a asteroid that size in advance but that`s not the point.
The point is that as soon as a truth is confirmed it banishes every kind of belief or thought. Truth and belief can not exist together, it`s impossible.
@KeskinTRS You're missing the point. Truth is relative and may be transient. You cannot KNOW anything for certain. We only have certain senses that allow us to perceive and interpret what we experience. But what we experience is solely within us, regardless of what we are actually observing. Truth is contextual and subjective and is something that can never actually be known. All we have is conviction of understanding, relative to what and how we perceive things to be.
@KeskinTRS EVERYTHING is a belief. EVERYTHING. That's all we have. We consider some beliefs as knowledge or fact or law because no test has ever been devised to show those observations to differ under any circumstances or have found that certain things can only exist a certain way. But ultimately all understanding is, is a construct in our minds based on associations and concepts and inferences. We can only ever PERCEIVE the universe, no matter how we are able to look at it. Ever. Fact.
@JamesMorlan Maybe you`re right but maybe not. I respect your belief but think about this possibility:
All modern things around you were invented since the industrial revolution in the last 150 years. Now imagine humanity in 1billion years. By then we could have the brain power or at least the technological means to exactly know what matter is and how the universe works. And if we know and understand everything and I mean EVERYTHING, we`d know the ultimate truth.
@KeskinTRS It doesn't matter if we come to "understand everything" because we will only ever process, conceive, perceive and interact with everything in the universe in accordance with how our brains work. We may come to understand how everything works and how to use it, but we will never truly know that what we KNOW, is what IS, as we can only ever see, conceive or perceive as our brains allow within our perception of reality. Try to find TWO PEOPLE that see things exactly the same way.
@KeskinTRS In fact, the more we learn through science, the more we realize how much we don't know, and the more we come to understand that it just might not be possible to truly KNOW anything. Everything is relative, and we exist in a sort of pocket between infinities where what we perceive as "matter" exists, with certain properties that allow it to come together in various ways, from atomic particles up to complex intelligent life forms. We don't have to know everything to make use of it.
@KeskinTRS We don't even really have to really know WHAT something truly is in order to make use of it. Look at electricity and magnetism. We understand how certain properties interrelate - power, voltage, current, resistance, capacitance, resonance, impedance, etc. - but what, exactly, truly *IS* electricity. We may never truly know, as the deeper we dig, the stranger it gets. So we draw useful conceptual limits, and are bound to physical limits, because we are a product of this reality.
@JamesMorlan If your belief turns out to be right, humanity will cease to exist. Because earth will be hit by asteroids, the sun will destroy the earth in 3-5 billion years, we might get hit by gamma ray bursts, a black hole might come our way and ultimately the current studies indicate that the universe will destroy itself.
This means that if we want to survive all this we have to learn to manipulate the universe or create a new one.
@KeskinTRS There are four possible positions that could be simplified as:
1. Gnostic theism: "I know there is a god"
2. Agnostic theism: "I don't know if there's a god, but I believe there is"
3. Agnostic atheism: "I don't know if there's a god; I don't believe there is"
4. Gnostic atheism: "I know there is no god"
The vast majority of atheists hold position 3. There's no "unsure" middle ground between 2 and 3 - you either believe a claim or you don't (although you can change your mind).
@CloserEnd At this point in human history there can only be 3 positions because:
Our current state of knowledge is = "We don`t know" and this concludes the knowledge/truth part.
This means position 1 is: "We don`t know"
And now you can either say "Yes, I believe" OR "No, I don`t believe" but remember!!! They are both beliefs because the knowledge/truth part is already clear and can only be changed by the absolute truth.
@KeskinTRS You are still confused. Someone told you this already, but I'll repeat it: atheism/theism and gnosticism/agnosticism deal with two DIFFERENT questions, the former with the "do you believe" and the latter with the "do you know". That is why a single human being can have a position on both those questions. And if you are honest, there's no middle ground between believing and not believing.
I can claim I have a 20 inch cock. You do not know if that's true. Do you believe me?
@CloserEnd Of course I´m confused, I´m an agnostic :) But I dare you to show me 1 human being who isn`t confused, it is our state of mind and will be till we know the truth.
As for your 20 inch cock, I do neither believe nor disbelieve you. I choose not to believe anything about your cock until you show it to me.
Truth is Ace and tops every belief/thought, in this case the truth is "I don`t know the size of your cock" so I choose not to believe anything about it!
@KeskinTRS You seem to think atheism implies an active denial of gods - that's inaccurate. Atheism means solely the lack of belief in gods. We both agree that knowing whether or not there are gods is impossible, thus we are both agnostics.
Now, do you believe in gods, yes or no? (You cannot "maybe" believe.) If you answered "yes", you're an agnostic theist. If you answered "no", you're an agnostic atheist, like most of the people you've been arguing with here.
@CloserEnd I didn`t say that it`s impossible, what I say is that right now "Nobody knows". Based on which knowledge can anybody say that it`s unknowable?
Fact is, there is an absolute truth out there and there is a "chance" that we might find it one day.
So the only true thing we can say right now is "We don`t know".
Nobody has to answer the "Do you believe in gods yes or no" question because both answers are beliefs. I choose to rely purely on knowledge.
@KeskinTRS "Nobody has to answer the "Do you believe in gods yes or no" question because both answers are beliefs. I choose to rely purely on knowledge."
Considering that our knowledge is extremely limited, I find that statement very dishonest. We have to deal with millions of belief-based claims in our lives.
You cannot possibly know what I'm just eating, I claim I'm eating icecream. Do you believe my claim? If you answer "yes" that's a belief. If you answer "no" that's a LACK OF BELIEF.
@KeskinTRS "Yes I believe that you`re eating ice cream is the color white."
In this analogy, indeed, all the other colors are a-icecreamist positions.
You do NOT have to believe that I DON'T eat icecream to be an a-icecreamist. But unless hold the specific belief that I'm eating icecream, the white position, you are indeed an a-icecreamist.
Once again: atheism means lack of belief in gods - NOT belief that gods don't exist.
@KeskinTRS "Ok then please tell me where to place the "lack of belief" on the scale:"
Obviously, it covers all the other options except "I believe".
Once again, you either hold a belief (I'm a believer), or you don't (I'm not a believer). It doesn't mean you have to hold the opposite belief (I'm a disbeliever).
If you're not a believer in gods, you're an atheist, regardless of what else you might know or believe.
@KeskinTRS There are some atheists who believe "there are no gods" - but these people are just a tiny minority among atheists. The vast majority of atheists simply lack belief in gods - and you seem to be one of them.
@KeskinTRS "Then it´s really surprising that all the atheists I can remember act like they are denying god."
Considering that in this very discussion pretty much every atheist has claimed otherwise, it seems your memory is not working very well. In his very first reply to you COncOrdance expressed this very clearly. Perhaps you haven't recognized all the atheists you've been talking to? It wouldn't surprise me, considering you refuse to recognize yourself as an atheist.
@KeskinTRS I´m talking about atheists who were arguing with religious people.
And who exactly gave you the right to label anybody outside a religion as an atheist? Did you receive this divine right from god? :)
So if you`re an atheist you can just go around saying "I can be little of this but mostly this and that, Oh and please also put some of this in it" you can do this in life but not when it comes to logic.
@KeskinTRS "And who exactly gave you the right to label anybody outside a religion as an atheist?"
It's not my definition and I'm not the one who thought it up. It's you who wants to change the definition.
Atheism is not a philosophy or a belief-system and it doesn't dictate who you are. It's simply a negative answer to one question: Are you a believer in god(s)?
As stated before, most atheists are also agnostics. Many atheists are also sceptics. Some are also humanists. And so on.
@KeskinTRS "And here is my answer:"...........................""
That's what I call dishonesty. You do know whether or not you are a believer.
"So please respect other peoples beliefs just like I respect the beliefs of atheists"
Sorry, I just can't respect your belief that words have different meanings to you than other people. Sure, you can call yourself what you want, but at least acknowledge that the rest of the world understands the words "atheist" and "agnostic" differently.
@CloserEnd Oh no my friend, I´m not gonna give you or anybody else the mental ground I´m standing on because I have logic on my side. You only have a definition that tries to label everybody, even unborn children into your belief system.
If I would accept your definition, everybody that isn`t a theist would be an atheist but no thanks buddy.
Whow, I really can`t believe that it`s not obvious to you that this is exactly what believers which you try to separate yourself from do.
Unfortunately, your logic fails in the theis/atheist question.
"If I would accept your definition, everybody that isn`t a theist would be an atheist"
Yet that's exactly what the word says. The prefix "a" means "not". A-theist = not-theist. That's ALL it means.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure our positions on the two god-related questions are exactly the same: we both agree that we don't know if a god exists and neither of us is a theist.
@CloserEnd I know that it means "not a THEIST" but don`t you see that it`s perverted to call a stone atheist? That definition is way too broad.
It´s like saying that every element that is not "hydrogen" is "ahydrogen". But we still call helium helium and not "ahydrogen" because it`s different.
Can you explain why it is "perverted" to call a stone an atheist? The detailed logic? I think you might be able to answer your own argument.
For example, a stone can be a "non-stamp collector"... but when would that label ever be needed? It's an irrelevance. We are talking about people, and only people, with these labels.
@C0nc0rdance If everybody would be identified by what he/she istn`t, it would be a pretty perverted world.
There clearly is confusion about the definition of atheism on an emotional and logical level. It`s label is too broad, the word "weak" is problematic and there should be a instantly noticable distinction from "strong atheists". After you said "I´m an atheist" people usually don`t ask again if you`re the "weak" or "strong" type.
That's why I don't go around saying I'm an atheist. Labels are inadequate descriptors for our very dynamic inner thoughts. We all have doubts and faith.
Not being a theist says about as much about me as your not collecting stamps, and requires as much effort. You didn't reject stamp collecting as a hobby, you just didn't decide to start. Same thing with not believing in the supernatural... it's doesn't require an active rejection... I just don't see a reason to believe in it.
@KeskinTRS "You only have a definition that tries to label everybody, even unborn children into your belief system."
Considering that you and I both share the same views in this matter, how can you call my position a "belief system" and then claim you have none? I'm not "doubtful" in any way, I simply do not hold any beliefs in this matter, and I agree that if the truth ever becomes known the question about belief becomes meaningless.
And that's what millions of people call "agnostic atheism".
@CloserEnd There is just truth based knowledge which currently is "Nobody knows" and as soon as you say this sentence, you`re an agnostic!
An agnostic in it`s true sense is completely separated from the belief level on which theists and most atheists are still on.
It`s simple, the knowledge/truth level can not argue or answer any belief related questions but it`s place is currently filled by the actual state of truth which is the sentence: "currently unknown".
@KeskinTRS "An agnostic in it`s true sense is completely separated from the belief level on which theists and most atheists are still on."
Once again, the "most atheists" bit is wrong. As I've said repeatedly, the vast majority of atheists are also agnostics. Do you finally agree that there are millions of people who identify themselves as agnostic atheists and that it's you who's trying to mislabel them as "true agnostics"?
You also seem to purposely ignore the existence of agnostic theists.
@KeskinTRS "There is just truth based knowledge which currently is "Nobody knows" and as soon as you say this sentence, you`re an agnostic!"
Here I agree 100%.
And when the next thing I say is: "I don't know if there are gods, and I can't see any reason to believe in them" I'm an atheist.
I'd like to remind you that it was YOU who began by telling people that atheists cannot also be agnostics. How about you admit your strict childhood definitions are misleading (if not outright false)?
@CloserEnd 1. Nobody has to answer a belief based question, especially one that tries to force you to say "yes" or "no".
2. If an agnostic should choose to answer anyway, the only thing he can say is "I don`t know".
3. If he says "I can`t see any reason to believe in them" then he`s not an agnostic anymore. The correct answer should be "I can`t see any reason to believe or not to believe in them".
@CloserEnd The day we hopefully find out the truth about this god matter will be the day when every belief based definition will vanish. Even truth`s placeholder "currently unknown" which is not belief based will vanish and take agnosticism with it.
And the best part is that even if we`d have proof that there is no god, I wouldn`t have to call myself an atheist because that term would also be gone automatically :)
@KeskinTRS I urge you to do a search for agnostic/atheist and see all the different definitions that pop up and then come back and lie again that the world has a unified definition which prooves that mine is wrong.
You`re even trying to consume the positions of agnostics as if it were yours but making up dozens of definitions just because you`re 8,69% more doubtful than someone else doesn`t mean that it`s logical and right.
@KeskinTRS "I urge you to do a search for agnostic/atheist and see all the different definitions that pop up and then come back and lie again that the world has a unified definition which prooves that mine is wrong."
The fact that there are others who are just as confused as you does not change the actual meaning of the word "atheist". Please look a bit further into the matter, apparently a mere cursory google-search won't reveal that the definition I'm using is the most widely accepted.
@CloserEnd Hitler was widely accepted in Germany. Jokes aside, I have no doubt that your definition is the one that`s accepted amongst atheists but I´d say that if you say "atheist", that most people on earth would think about it as "strong atheism".
And you know that most people think so because it pisses you off :)
But does that mean that the definition that most people have is correct? I don`t know but fact is that definitions are changed by people all the time.
@KeskinTRS Atheism also doesn't necessarily mean you're anti-religious (although some certainly are). Millions of Buddhists are also atheists - they don't believe in gods but they still follow their religion.
Anyways, I feel like I'm wasting my time explaining all this to you; please do some reading on the topic yourself - you can start with wikipedia, as suggested before already. Once you've done that, you can come back here and admit you're just another agnostic atheist, like millions of us.
@KeskinTRS "An agnostic is someone who aknowledges the proposition but does not commit to an answer because of insufficient evidence."
Wrong again. An agnostic acknowledges that s/he does not know if gods exist, nothing more.
There are many agnostics who believe in god(s) "just in case" - I happen to know at least a dozen personally. Pascal's wager is all about agnostic theism. Thus, if you want to be consistent with your earlier statement, you can't call yourself an agnostic either.
@KeskinTRS Theism is the "white" and atheism the "no white" option in your analogy. Atheism does not have to mean "black" - that's just a tiny subset of atheism (the so-called "strong atheism"), just like your gray is just another subset of atheism.
Thus, when you say you choose not to have any beliefs in this god-discussion, you reveal yourself to be just another atheist - a person who is not a theist.
@CloserEnd My grey is not a subset of atheism, grey stands for the current state of knowledge which is "We don`t know". It`s a place filler for the truth which is currently unknown.
People have many variations when it comes to beliefs/thoughts but I´m not willing to compromise logic just because people are confused. Logic states that either you accept the truth "I don`t know" or decide to believe "Yes" or "No". Everything in between is just human bullshit.
@KeskinTRS Why can't you just admit "I don't know" AND then state whether you believe or not? That's what most people do.
I do not know if there are over 1 billion stars in the universe (I've certainly not counted them). However, I do believe there are (I tend to trust scientific studies). Similarly, I do not know if a toothfairy exists. However, I do not believe in one (there's no evidence).
If you are not a believer in gods (which you apparently aren't), then you're an atheist, just like me.
@KeskinTRS I see you hold a very strong (and dare I say, illogical) dislike of the stigma of "atheism" that apparently prevents you from admitting you're one. Perhaps your experience with atheists has been very limited? It should be no news to anyone that in every topic the most extreme views tend to be the ones that get shouted out the loudest while the majority remains silent. Nevertheless, that doesn't change how things are: if you're not a theist, you're an atheist - it's really that simple.
@KeskinTRS You're a fucking idiot. Go look up atheism and agnosticism before before making such a stupid claim, you don't know what either of them are. Half atheist? Jesus Christ, you use the same logic as creatards.
@KeskinTRS "I don`t have to look up anything because I know the definition since my childhood."
So, could it be possible that you've been mistaken as a child?
If it's any consolation, I was too when I was a kid - these are not easy definitions for children.
Once you realize how wide a definition "atheist" is, you'll have much easier time arguing against the "strong atheism" sub-position, which seemed to be your original intent. If you fail to differentiate the two, you're only causing confusion.
@KeskinTRS Your logic is ... skewed, to put it politely. You cannot have a belief about a claim until a claim is presented to you. Once a claim is presented to you, you can remain unchanged and not form a belief as to its validity or invalidity. You can choose to examine the claim and form a belief one way or the other, you can ignore the claim and remain without belief. You do not AUTOMATICALLY have a belief, otherwise it would have to pre-exist before the claim is made.
@JamesMorlan THANK YOU, that is exactly what I´m saying. Atheists try to force you into their belief by asking "Do you believe in gods, yes or no?".
And as you put it so politely, NOBODY has to answer that question because it`s a TRICK QUESTION. If you answer "yes" you`re a theist, if you answer "no" you`re an atheist.
So I just don`t answer the question at all because I´m an agnostic.
@KeskinTRS Maybe you missed my earlier post, but to just say you're "an agnostic" doesn't make sense by itself. What are you agnostic about? Whether or not a god exists? I think all the labels are misused and misunderstood, because they're all biased around "theist" (believing a god exists). Atheism is simply not having a belief in a god, but it doesn't distinguish between those who do not have a belief in a god, and those who believe there is no god. I, for one, am an apatheist.
@JamesMorlan "Atheism is simply not having a belief in a god, but it doesn't distinguish between those who do not have a belief in a god, and those who believe there is no god."
And this is where the error lies. It should distinguish between those two because they are clearly different.
This is the point which causes so many misunderstandings amongst people.
"What are you agnostic about? Whether or not a god exists?"
That doesn't make sense.
You don't seem to understand the difference between theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. One deals with "belief", the other with "knowledge". Agnosticism (without knowledge) is the position that it is impossible to know if God exists. It doesn't define whether one believes he does..that would be atheism/theism. You can be any combination. Agnostic atheist/theist, Gnostic atheist/theist.
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."
" Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)."
@OddityDK Precisely. Agnostic is about knowledge. When applied to theistic claims, it can be used to qualify "theist" or "atheist" to indicate whether one's chosen position is based on knowledge or not, as you described. For example, the agnostic theist who BELIEVES a god exists, but does not KNOW. It breaks down a bit, though, when applied to "atheist", because the "atheist" label can include people who believe there is no god, as well as people who do not have a belief about any god.
@KeskinTRS Please note that not believing a claim does not mean that you actively reject it and claim it to be false - you simply lack belief.
I'll try to rephrase my earlier question so that you can answer it: Are you a believer in gods? If you choose to say "no, I'm not a believer", then you're an atheist.
@KeskinTRS The only way you can NOT be an atheist is if you are a theist, that is you have a belief in gods. All other positions are atheistic positions. There's no other way around it. If you "choose to rely purely on knowledge" and you have no knowledge of gods, then you're obviously an atheist - even if you don't choose to identify yourself as one.
@CloserEnd Whow that is pretty arrogant and I´m certainly not an atheist. Atheists seem to get pretty agressive when it comes to religion or god and I think that it`s the wrong approach and too similar to how fundamentalists behave.
Give those atheists a written book, a own state and I`m pretty sure that people will be dying as a result.
@KeskinTRS "Whow that is pretty arrogant and I´m certainly not an atheist."
Once again, if you're not a theist, then you're an atheist BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD!
"Atheists seem to get pretty agressive when it comes to religion or god and I think that it`s the wrong approach and too similar to how fundamentalists behave."
You're making a ridiculous generalisation here. There are hundreds of millions of atheists in the world - you're speaking of perhaps 0.001% of atheists - the extremists.
@CloserEnd Actually, the default position is no belief, and you have a choice of either believing a claim to be true, or believing a claim to be false - or you can reject the choice all together and not form a belief either way. A belief cannot be the default position for anything, otherwise you would already have to have a belief about everything you don't even know about, yet. I, for one, am an apatheist - I think it's a waste of time to consider whether or not there is a god.
@JamesMorlan "Actually, the default position is no belief, and you have a choice of either believing a claim to be true, or believing a claim to be false - or you can reject the choice all together and not form a belief either way."
I think we might be arguing the same point, but just to clarify: In the case of theism/atheism, theism requires you to believe in the god-claim - any other position you choose is opposed to that, thus an atheistic position. Having no belief in gods is atheism.
@JamesMorlan "I, for one, am an apatheist - I think it's a waste of time to consider whether or not there is a god."
But with that statement you're not answering the question "do you believe in god". Apparently you don't (and this doesn't mean you believe there are no gods - you simply lack the belief in them), thus you're yet another atheist. Your further definition just puts you into another smaller sub-section among the vastly different atheist positions.
Of course, strictly speaking, we have no well-defined way to "grasp the universe as it really is." We can't have absolute TRUTH; but we CAN at least have INTEGRITY. Things like superstition and unwarranted belief LACK INTEGRITY--they are dishonest approaches to the world...specifically dishonest because we KNOW they are unreliable.
I think it's okay to think Man is special in some way, but we have to realize it came from ourselves, not god(s), myths, aliens, unicorns, or anything else. We don't have a special place in this universe; all we did was create a sparkling city atop a mound of useless, insignificant dirt. We should be proud of that, but only because we struggled to make it.
Truth is relative. The universe is vast, magnificent yes yes yes. I can accept this as truth. Are we not a part of this universe? What other observer, recorder and narrator have we encountered other than our fellow humans? When we as a species end, so too the universe...at least for us and who will know and who will remember? The human species is magnificent, even if we are but dust and dreams. I understand the lament and I understand Sagan's point, but they are separate truths and not my own.
I hate atheists even more than I hate people who 'have religion.'
I like to think that agnostics are truly superior to all other ways of thinking. Because we think, we do NOT believe anything! We are in constant doubt about the great issues.
I cannot say I believe in gravitiy but there's no reason for me to doubt gravity because I have learnt from own experience that the laws of nature we can directly see, hear or feel, are extremely plausible!
@AudieHolland I don't think you know what either of them are.
An agnostic is someone who says the knowledge of god is unknowable. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god. You sound like you're an agnostic atheist.
I'm an agnostic atheist myself.
A gnostic atheist or strong atheist is someone who not only lacks a belief in god but claims it to be fact.
Agnosticism says nothing about belief, just like atheism says nothing about knowledge.
People who don't know other people and say they "hate" them is wrong I agree.
"don't care" would be better.
I don't care about religious people, be they atheists or whatever. If they stopped existing it would not make much difference. But then that goes for most people.
For all I know, 'god' could be a geek in a white labcoat while 'satan' is his fellow geek who tries to disrupt god's experiment. "Ooh, that's a nice little hamster: Jacob... Bet he will keep his faith in me?"
@urantivirus You are talking BS, please get your facts right. An agnostic is someone who says "I don`t know, there could or could not be a creator"
And this is the only truth humanity has right now. It`s also the hardest mindset to live with but like I said, it`s our current truth and everything else is BELIEF.
Also there can be no half atheist and half agnostic or BS like that. Either one or the other.
@KeskinTRS "Also there can be no half atheist and half agnostic or BS like that. Either one or the other."
Or BOTH. As has been stated before, the vast majority of atheists in the world are also agnostics (whereas the vast majority of theists tend to be gnostics).
I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I do not know if gods, dragons or fairies exist - they might very well, but I've never seen any reliable evidence for them. Thus, I do not believe in any of them. What's your position?
@AudieHolland You hate people just because they dont believe in the supernatural? Even more than those that do? Hating murderers, rapists etc I can understand, but to hate someone for a lack of belief in that which is unprovable is just plain sad. I suggest you think a bit a harder about your view people.
Unfortunately not nearly all scientists are such positive persons as Dr. Sagan. Think about all thoses who think up better ways to control and manipulate the people. Better and efficient ways to kill people or even cause genocide.
Then of course there are a lot of frauds and hoaxes still taken as truth. Look at all the spacecraft footage in geostationary orbit: great. Compare that to the moon footage and ask yourself if that could really be the moon. Just dare to wonder: could that be faked?
@LiberalsUtopian Atheist can believe whatever they chose to. Thats the beauty of atheism. But unlike a christian we dont need to ignore facts and evidence to justify what we believe. We are independent thinkers who can believe what ever we imagine to be possible about the universe and life. I call that free thought. If you never learnt free thought I guess it isnt your fault. But in the end you know you're wrong and its much braver to come out and face. Then discover freedom to think.
This guy was a terrific orator, that skill no doubt helped him convey some very complicated scientific concepts in a way that's easy enough for the laymen to understand. Even more so, he inspired the imagination of the laymen and made them excited about science, bringing forth a new generation of Carl Sagans.
Good stuff! Eventhough the world has lost a visionaire an wonderful human being, seeing how many people still hold him in great esteem, like myself, has for me restored some faith in humanity
@BlueSuperNova88 If it is a blind belief it is not science. Science is a method for finding ideas we can trust. Ideas that are more reliable than we have found by any other manner. If someone has blind belief by definition they have abandoned science.
No one has encountered Jesus. There is no proof of his actual existence. There was 40-50 gospels,cut down to four,with made up names (no signatures). Bible written 50+ years after Jesus supposedly existed. 613 original commandments,cut down to ten. No proof of Moses and the flight out of egypt. Historically,Noah and the flood was only 100 years before the pyramids.Eight human survivors must of had a lot of kids in that time to have all those slaves building the pyramids. Grow up people.
And you know this how? Oh, you are all knowing and you know everything right? No you don't. You don't know if anyone has encountered Jesus. You should just admit that you just don't know. If you were honest you would admit that you don't if anyone has encountered Jesus. But you are not being honest. You are lying to assert something that you don't know. If I have encountered Jesus and I have then you are a liar. You have no authority to base your claim.
Let's put it this way -- no one who might have encountered Jesus has ever produced objective verifiable evidence to support the claim. Jesus might speak to you, but that would be purely subjective and not a basis for anyone else to believe in him. Your personal experiences of Jesus wouldn't count as reliable evidence. So it is reasonable to say that no one has encountered Jesus.
@rickuj I agree with you of course, but the pyramids were not built by slaves. The latest evidence shows they were well looked after workers in the service of their king.
@rickuj It's a historical fact the pyramids weren't built by slaves.
Anyway, there's some egyptian traces that predate the flood by something like 600 years. So basically it turns every single animal into a fossile, but doesn't do anything to a fragile mummy... Damn those creationist morons.
@jappud I still some Sam Harris book I have to read. I read atheist's book for comic relief, it's amazing how unintelligent they are and yet they are so highly esteemed among men. Oh well.
excellent tribute. He really was such an introspective and intelligent communicator of science. I am thankful that I heard of him recently, and have had the pleasure of reading his a few of his works. Carl is obviously el mero chingon.
Demon-Haunted World, great book.
guwest2 5 days ago
The world became a lot poorer the day Carl Sagan died.
Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Laoch111 2 weeks ago
Great reading! Thank you very much for posting this.
eriksports 1 month ago
Sadly, many people turn “science” into a worldview rather than what it really is, a tool whereby to explore the material realm. A tool which was historically premised upon Judeo-Christian theology and which due to its purpose cannot come to conclusions which are not materialistic such as, for example, that “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.” His statements about the grandeur of his view is merely an expression of his esthetic preferences.
wwwTrueFreethinker 2 months ago
@wwwTrueFreethinker That would be a representation of his propensity for factually based truths. Btw, he also said the universe is beautiful, which also is not a scientific statement.
Pitfytr 1 month ago
Sadly, Sagan had a propensity towards non-sequiturs & self-serving conclusions as his “science” suffered from his adherence to atheism: it was constantly biased towards his materialistic ends. For example, he claims to know the universe as it “really is” but held that “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be,” which is not a scientific statement.
wwwTrueFreethinker 2 months ago
fucking goosebumps... i feel like i just experienced a progressive metal transition...
crankycactus 3 months ago
I dont like this narration.
WlNDMlLL 3 months ago
<3 Carl Sagan
Read "Contact" recently. Such a good book for a man who was much more of a scientist than a novelist. Sagan demonstrated a very sophisticated understanding of people, and of humanity.
Sagan knew the workings of the universe as well as anyone of his time, but far from diminishing his appreciation for the sparks of life and consciousness we have, his understanding of the universe seemed to have augmented his "belief in [man's] dignity," if not his uniqueness and irreplaceability.
airandfingers 3 months ago
Nice piece there. It was weird when I heard the part about mankind making "a bargain strongly in our favor" because I just finished explaining to someone how accepting scientific theory is like making a safe bet, and this is the first time I've been to you're channel in a long while... maybe I have subconscious ESP! lol.
NobleDelusions 3 months ago
Math works, folks. +1=believes the claim is true, -1=believes the claim is false, 0=no belief (the default state). And you can choose to stay at 0, or you can make an effort to arrive at +1 or -1, and whatever criteria is used to get there is where it gets personal.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
But in addition, the trend is to qualify it by whether you believe (agnostic theism) or do not believe (agnostic atheism). What I don't like about that is there doesn't seem to be a term for agnostic-someone-who-believes-there-is-no-god. Many people erroneously equate no belief with negative belief.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
It appears people need clarification. Agnostic means not knowing, and by itself lacks meaning. One would have to ask, "agnostic about what?" The topic here seems to be about god(s), so it's agnostic about whether or not there is a god, regardless of what you do or do not believe.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
thank you, thunderf00t, for bringing me here
InnerFood 3 months ago
Would you be interested in doing some analysis video(s) of fitness related research? Like the relationship between meal size/frequency and metabolism (bodyrecomposition(dot)com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html) and also the health effects of oxidized and heated oils.
kyebean 3 months ago
the problem is that you have an right for ignorance. You can not know everything humanity knows, so you have the right to not know. This also means that if you take this right, you may not preach. You may not claim to know the truth, as you do not know it. If you tought you did enough reseach, you have to take the heat, and that is something mens ego can barely bear
lompeluiten 3 months ago
At least we all agree in our belief that we are smart.
victorloplame 3 months ago
It doesn't seem reasonable to believe in things that are made up. I can make up any number of unprovable/undisprovable ideas. Does my position make my disbelief a belief even when the object of my disbelief has not been thought up yet?
victorloplame 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Reading some of the comments I can see that there is a lot of "god" debate going on. Just freaking face it folks, there is no proof that there is or isn`t a creator. Therefore atheism is also a belief and the only thing that distinguishes you from christians is that you don`t have your own bible.
But the best thing is, truth doesn`t care, truth just is and it`s humanities most important goal to keep looking for it.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS
This is a very popular criticism, but atheism is not a belief system, any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. I have the same position on the divinity of Jesus as I have on UFOs and Bigfoot: I await an adequate case to be made. In the absence of evidence, I simply suspend judgement. It can neither be proven nor disproven on current evidence, therefore it is not something I invest belief in. You'll find this a common, but not universal, position in atheism.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@C0nc0rdance Sorry but that doesn`t make any sense. Atheists do not believe in god and you`re saying that you`re an atheist until proven otherwise?
The answer lies right in your own sentence: Something still has to be proven because there is no definitive knowledge.
Can you understand that knowing and believing can not exist together?
You have 3 choices my friend:
1. You know the truth
2. You`re a believer
3. You`re not sure
And atheism falls into the category of belief.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS
"Asymmetrical" means not being symmetrical. "Atheist" means not being a theist (believer in gods).
Here's a simple one: are you a believer in Bigfoot (Sasquatch)? If not, we'll call you an a-sasquatchian. Do you have to actively disbelieve in Bigfoot, or is her nonexistence your default state? Is a-sasquatchianism a belief system, or just a general refusal to invest in belief?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 12
@C0nc0rdance How can you not see this?
You can not reject something if you can`t prove that it`s wrong. You can only say "I believe that this is wrong".
The only way of escaping the circle of belief is to say. "I DO NOT KNOW".
Trust me it`s the most difficult path to live with but it`s the true state of reality that humans are in right now. Deep within everybody knows this but it`s much easier to believe and I don`t blame them.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS
If you don't know if Bigfoot is real, are you a believer in Bigfoot? No.
That makes you an agnostic a-sasquatchian.
I don't know if Zeus is real. That makes me an agnostic a-Zeusian.
I don't know if Jehovah is real. That makes me an agnostic a-Jehovian.
"Not believing in gods" is just as active an endeavor as "not collecting stamps".
Are you getting this?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 7
@C0nc0rdance he's a thickheaded buffoon, dont waste your time.
Krauserowns 3 months ago
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat."
Read more at the Wikipedia page detailing the difference between strong and weak; as well as implicit and explicit atheism.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 3
@KeskinTRS
1) Don't be so condescending.
2) Do your research. You are arguing a strawman. Atheists are most commonly agnostic. Atheist and agnostic deal with two completely different questions.
jaykgrey 3 months ago
@jaykgrey Welcome to the round table of BS and now read your last two sentences loudly to yourself.
You can`t be two things at once.
A christian who still has doubts is not a agnostic believer! It just states that he is confused/not sure.
I perfectly realize that peoples thoughts and beliefs can have endless variations but this does not change the logical concept it`s logically impossible to say "No" or "Maybe" or "Yes" at the same time.
It just doesn`t compute.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "You can`t be two things at once." - No, but you can hold different positions on different questions, ie" do you know if there are any gods?" and "do you believe that there are any gods?"
SerenityNoww 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS
Bullshit.
The questions are: what do you believe? Are you reasonably certain?
They are independent of each other.
jaykgrey 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "Trust me"? I think that's the problem. You're being rather intellectually lazy. There is no reason to say "I don't know" when there is no evidence for something; if everything indicates a certain state of affairs, it is ridiculous to assume an extra bit. It is therefore ridiculous to assume that we have to be ambivalent about the extra bit. Don't be so condescending when the level of your rhetoric is so low.
UnOxonien 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS When you turn on a light switch, do you believe that a lamp somewhere in the room will begin emitting light? You can't say you know it will, because it doesn't always happen. But at least you have experienced the event of turning on a light switch and seeing a light come on. Until I see such evidence that something indicates the presence of a god, I cannot develop any belief in the matter, much less know anything about it.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS You actually have four choices:
1. Believe a claim is true (whether or not that belief is based on knowledge or experience).
2. Believe a claim is false (usually based on contrary evidence).
3. Have no belief about a claim (i.e. suspend belief).
4. Reject the claim all together, deeming it unworthy of your consideration one way or the other.
All knowledge is, is a strong belief based on a preponderance of empirical evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is belief without evidence.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan Quote: "1.Believe a claim is true (whether or not that belief is based on knowledge or experience)"
If something is based on knowledge it isn`t belief anymore, it is the truth.
Example: Everybody can see the moon, everybody can measure the moon, people have walked on the moon, the moons gravity causes tides on earth etc...
Now would you say that you "believe" that there is a moon? No, you have to say "I know there is a moon".
I won`t even comment on the other points.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Look up the definition of belief.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS I believe the moon is there, because I can see it and study it. But when the moon is not visible, do you still know it is there? I mean, truly? You believe it is, based on repeated experience with it becoming visible again. But it could get obliterated by an asteroid. Of course, you'd find out about that soon enough, but until then, you cannot say that you KNOW the moon is there. As for my other points, do they frighten you because you know them to be true?
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan Don`t digress by bringing in the time or place factor. If I can`t see the moon at day somebody else can see it somewhere else on the other side of the planet and he can broadcast it live to the whole world. Besides that our scientists would know about a asteroid that size in advance but that`s not the point.
The point is that as soon as a truth is confirmed it banishes every kind of belief or thought. Truth and belief can not exist together, it`s impossible.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS You're missing the point. Truth is relative and may be transient. You cannot KNOW anything for certain. We only have certain senses that allow us to perceive and interpret what we experience. But what we experience is solely within us, regardless of what we are actually observing. Truth is contextual and subjective and is something that can never actually be known. All we have is conviction of understanding, relative to what and how we perceive things to be.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan That is just what you believe and is currently unproven.
- It might be possible that we can understand everything with our current capabilities.
- Maybe in 3 billion years we`ll be so evolved that we can understand.
- Maybe we have to alter ourselfes witch technology to expand our capabilities to understand.
- Maybe we can invent technology that can understand it for us and give us the answer.
etc.. etc..
So keep believing but don`t say it as if it were a fact.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS EVERYTHING is a belief. EVERYTHING. That's all we have. We consider some beliefs as knowledge or fact or law because no test has ever been devised to show those observations to differ under any circumstances or have found that certain things can only exist a certain way. But ultimately all understanding is, is a construct in our minds based on associations and concepts and inferences. We can only ever PERCEIVE the universe, no matter how we are able to look at it. Ever. Fact.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan Maybe you`re right but maybe not. I respect your belief but think about this possibility:
All modern things around you were invented since the industrial revolution in the last 150 years. Now imagine humanity in 1billion years. By then we could have the brain power or at least the technological means to exactly know what matter is and how the universe works. And if we know and understand everything and I mean EVERYTHING, we`d know the ultimate truth.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS It doesn't matter if we come to "understand everything" because we will only ever process, conceive, perceive and interact with everything in the universe in accordance with how our brains work. We may come to understand how everything works and how to use it, but we will never truly know that what we KNOW, is what IS, as we can only ever see, conceive or perceive as our brains allow within our perception of reality. Try to find TWO PEOPLE that see things exactly the same way.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan I think that you`re having a monologue here because you`re actively refusing the points and examples I made.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Interesting response.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS In fact, the more we learn through science, the more we realize how much we don't know, and the more we come to understand that it just might not be possible to truly KNOW anything. Everything is relative, and we exist in a sort of pocket between infinities where what we perceive as "matter" exists, with certain properties that allow it to come together in various ways, from atomic particles up to complex intelligent life forms. We don't have to know everything to make use of it.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS We don't even really have to really know WHAT something truly is in order to make use of it. Look at electricity and magnetism. We understand how certain properties interrelate - power, voltage, current, resistance, capacitance, resonance, impedance, etc. - but what, exactly, truly *IS* electricity. We may never truly know, as the deeper we dig, the stranger it gets. So we draw useful conceptual limits, and are bound to physical limits, because we are a product of this reality.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan If your belief turns out to be right, humanity will cease to exist. Because earth will be hit by asteroids, the sun will destroy the earth in 3-5 billion years, we might get hit by gamma ray bursts, a black hole might come our way and ultimately the current studies indicate that the universe will destroy itself.
This means that if we want to survive all this we have to learn to manipulate the universe or create a new one.
We have no other choice but to hope and try.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS By your own words, you have just stated that is it impossible to believe in the truth. Now ask yourself, does that really make ANY sense?
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan Yes it makes perfect sense.
- When the truth is "unknown" you`re free to believe till the cowes come home.
but
- As soon as you know the absolute truth beyond any doubt there is no more room for even the slightest belief.
So either you know the truth or believe in it but not both at the same time.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS There are four possible positions that could be simplified as:
1. Gnostic theism: "I know there is a god"
2. Agnostic theism: "I don't know if there's a god, but I believe there is"
3. Agnostic atheism: "I don't know if there's a god; I don't believe there is"
4. Gnostic atheism: "I know there is no god"
The vast majority of atheists hold position 3. There's no "unsure" middle ground between 2 and 3 - you either believe a claim or you don't (although you can change your mind).
CloserEnd 3 months ago 2
@CloserEnd At this point in human history there can only be 3 positions because:
Our current state of knowledge is = "We don`t know" and this concludes the knowledge/truth part.
This means position 1 is: "We don`t know"
And now you can either say "Yes, I believe" OR "No, I don`t believe" but remember!!! They are both beliefs because the knowledge/truth part is already clear and can only be changed by the absolute truth.
1. "I don`t know"
2. "Yes, I believe"
3. "No, I don`t believe"
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS You are still confused. Someone told you this already, but I'll repeat it: atheism/theism and gnosticism/agnosticism deal with two DIFFERENT questions, the former with the "do you believe" and the latter with the "do you know". That is why a single human being can have a position on both those questions. And if you are honest, there's no middle ground between believing and not believing.
I can claim I have a 20 inch cock. You do not know if that's true. Do you believe me?
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Of course I´m confused, I´m an agnostic :) But I dare you to show me 1 human being who isn`t confused, it is our state of mind and will be till we know the truth.
As for your 20 inch cock, I do neither believe nor disbelieve you. I choose not to believe anything about your cock until you show it to me.
Truth is Ace and tops every belief/thought, in this case the truth is "I don`t know the size of your cock" so I choose not to believe anything about it!
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KeskinTRS "I choose not to believe anything about your cock until you show it to me."
That makes you an a-cockist.
I choose not to believe anything about gods until someone shows one to me. That makes me an atheist.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS You seem to think atheism implies an active denial of gods - that's inaccurate. Atheism means solely the lack of belief in gods. We both agree that knowing whether or not there are gods is impossible, thus we are both agnostics.
Now, do you believe in gods, yes or no? (You cannot "maybe" believe.) If you answered "yes", you're an agnostic theist. If you answered "no", you're an agnostic atheist, like most of the people you've been arguing with here.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd I didn`t say that it`s impossible, what I say is that right now "Nobody knows". Based on which knowledge can anybody say that it`s unknowable?
Fact is, there is an absolute truth out there and there is a "chance" that we might find it one day.
So the only true thing we can say right now is "We don`t know".
Nobody has to answer the "Do you believe in gods yes or no" question because both answers are beliefs. I choose to rely purely on knowledge.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "Nobody has to answer the "Do you believe in gods yes or no" question because both answers are beliefs. I choose to rely purely on knowledge."
Considering that our knowledge is extremely limited, I find that statement very dishonest. We have to deal with millions of belief-based claims in our lives.
You cannot possibly know what I'm just eating, I claim I'm eating icecream. Do you believe my claim? If you answer "yes" that's a belief. If you answer "no" that's a LACK OF BELIEF.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd If I answer "no" it`s a belief too because I`m basing my decision on the same thing as the "yes" answer.
Lets say the truth ("I don`t know") is the color grey.
Yes I believe that you`re eating ice cream is the color white.
No I don`t believe that you`re not eating ice cream is the color black.
According to your logic the color black would be called "no white".
But it still is a color and it`s clearly black. So saying "No" is still a belief that`s just on the opposite side.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "Yes I believe that you`re eating ice cream is the color white."
In this analogy, indeed, all the other colors are a-icecreamist positions.
You do NOT have to believe that I DON'T eat icecream to be an a-icecreamist. But unless hold the specific belief that I'm eating icecream, the white position, you are indeed an a-icecreamist.
Once again: atheism means lack of belief in gods - NOT belief that gods don't exist.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Ok then please tell me where to place the "lack of belief" on the scale:
Yes:I "believe"..........Truth:I don`t know............No I don`t "believe"
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KeskinTRS "Ok then please tell me where to place the "lack of belief" on the scale:"
Obviously, it covers all the other options except "I believe".
Once again, you either hold a belief (I'm a believer), or you don't (I'm not a believer). It doesn't mean you have to hold the opposite belief (I'm a disbeliever).
If you're not a believer in gods, you're an atheist, regardless of what else you might know or believe.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS There are some atheists who believe "there are no gods" - but these people are just a tiny minority among atheists. The vast majority of atheists simply lack belief in gods - and you seem to be one of them.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Then it´s really surprising that all the atheists I can remember act like they are denying god.
And this is another reason why I don`t let anyone define what I am.
I refuse to stand under a label that contains believers even if it`s as you claim a minority.
So I stand right in the middle with "I don`t know", not a little right or left of it but right in on it in the middle.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "Then it´s really surprising that all the atheists I can remember act like they are denying god."
Considering that in this very discussion pretty much every atheist has claimed otherwise, it seems your memory is not working very well. In his very first reply to you COncOrdance expressed this very clearly. Perhaps you haven't recognized all the atheists you've been talking to? It wouldn't surprise me, considering you refuse to recognize yourself as an atheist.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS I´m talking about atheists who were arguing with religious people.
And who exactly gave you the right to label anybody outside a religion as an atheist? Did you receive this divine right from god? :)
So if you`re an atheist you can just go around saying "I can be little of this but mostly this and that, Oh and please also put some of this in it" you can do this in life but not when it comes to logic.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "And who exactly gave you the right to label anybody outside a religion as an atheist?"
It's not my definition and I'm not the one who thought it up. It's you who wants to change the definition.
Atheism is not a philosophy or a belief-system and it doesn't dictate who you are. It's simply a negative answer to one question: Are you a believer in god(s)?
As stated before, most atheists are also agnostics. Many atheists are also sceptics. Some are also humanists. And so on.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Here is your statement: It´s simply a negative answer to "are you a believer in gods?".
And here is my answer:"..........................."
Did your eyes sent the information to your brain that I didn`t give a negative answer? I really hope they did just for sake of your health.
So please respect other peoples beliefs just like I respect the beliefs of atheists
and
Please stop trying to force people into labels, I like my self determination.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "And here is my answer:"...........................""
That's what I call dishonesty. You do know whether or not you are a believer.
"So please respect other peoples beliefs just like I respect the beliefs of atheists"
Sorry, I just can't respect your belief that words have different meanings to you than other people. Sure, you can call yourself what you want, but at least acknowledge that the rest of the world understands the words "atheist" and "agnostic" differently.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Oh no my friend, I´m not gonna give you or anybody else the mental ground I´m standing on because I have logic on my side. You only have a definition that tries to label everybody, even unborn children into your belief system.
If I would accept your definition, everybody that isn`t a theist would be an atheist but no thanks buddy.
Whow, I really can`t believe that it`s not obvious to you that this is exactly what believers which you try to separate yourself from do.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS ""I have logic on my side."
Unfortunately, your logic fails in the theis/atheist question.
"If I would accept your definition, everybody that isn`t a theist would be an atheist"
Yet that's exactly what the word says. The prefix "a" means "not". A-theist = not-theist. That's ALL it means.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure our positions on the two god-related questions are exactly the same: we both agree that we don't know if a god exists and neither of us is a theist.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd I know that it means "not a THEIST" but don`t you see that it`s perverted to call a stone atheist? That definition is way too broad.
It´s like saying that every element that is not "hydrogen" is "ahydrogen". But we still call helium helium and not "ahydrogen" because it`s different.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS
Can you explain why it is "perverted" to call a stone an atheist? The detailed logic? I think you might be able to answer your own argument.
For example, a stone can be a "non-stamp collector"... but when would that label ever be needed? It's an irrelevance. We are talking about people, and only people, with these labels.
Coincidentally, do you collect stamps?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance If everybody would be identified by what he/she istn`t, it would be a pretty perverted world.
There clearly is confusion about the definition of atheism on an emotional and logical level. It`s label is too broad, the word "weak" is problematic and there should be a instantly noticable distinction from "strong atheists". After you said "I´m an atheist" people usually don`t ask again if you`re the "weak" or "strong" type.
And no, I don`t collect stamps.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS
That's why I don't go around saying I'm an atheist. Labels are inadequate descriptors for our very dynamic inner thoughts. We all have doubts and faith.
Not being a theist says about as much about me as your not collecting stamps, and requires as much effort. You didn't reject stamp collecting as a hobby, you just didn't decide to start. Same thing with not believing in the supernatural... it's doesn't require an active rejection... I just don't see a reason to believe in it.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "You only have a definition that tries to label everybody, even unborn children into your belief system."
Considering that you and I both share the same views in this matter, how can you call my position a "belief system" and then claim you have none? I'm not "doubtful" in any way, I simply do not hold any beliefs in this matter, and I agree that if the truth ever becomes known the question about belief becomes meaningless.
And that's what millions of people call "agnostic atheism".
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd No we don`t share the same view. In another post you stated that absolute knowledge/truth is impossible and that is a belief.
There is no evidence that prooves that.
I on the other hand say "it might or might not be possible". The only way to know for sure is to try.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@CloserEnd There is just truth based knowledge which currently is "Nobody knows" and as soon as you say this sentence, you`re an agnostic!
An agnostic in it`s true sense is completely separated from the belief level on which theists and most atheists are still on.
It`s simple, the knowledge/truth level can not argue or answer any belief related questions but it`s place is currently filled by the actual state of truth which is the sentence: "currently unknown".
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "An agnostic in it`s true sense is completely separated from the belief level on which theists and most atheists are still on."
Once again, the "most atheists" bit is wrong. As I've said repeatedly, the vast majority of atheists are also agnostics. Do you finally agree that there are millions of people who identify themselves as agnostic atheists and that it's you who's trying to mislabel them as "true agnostics"?
You also seem to purposely ignore the existence of agnostic theists.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd I don`t give a damn about what you call yourself I´m just stating that somebody who:
- Does not answer a belief based question like "Do you believe in god, yes or no?"
- Or does answer the same question with "I don`t know", "I have no evidence to believe OR not to believe".
Is a pure agnostic.
If someone answers with "No I don`t believe because there is no proof" then he`s not a pure agnostic anymore and you can call him whatever you want.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "There is just truth based knowledge which currently is "Nobody knows" and as soon as you say this sentence, you`re an agnostic!"
Here I agree 100%.
And when the next thing I say is: "I don't know if there are gods, and I can't see any reason to believe in them" I'm an atheist.
I'd like to remind you that it was YOU who began by telling people that atheists cannot also be agnostics. How about you admit your strict childhood definitions are misleading (if not outright false)?
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd 1. Nobody has to answer a belief based question, especially one that tries to force you to say "yes" or "no".
2. If an agnostic should choose to answer anyway, the only thing he can say is "I don`t know".
3. If he says "I can`t see any reason to believe in them" then he`s not an agnostic anymore. The correct answer should be "I can`t see any reason to believe or not to believe in them".
4. So how do you like them apples?
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@CloserEnd The day we hopefully find out the truth about this god matter will be the day when every belief based definition will vanish. Even truth`s placeholder "currently unknown" which is not belief based will vanish and take agnosticism with it.
And the best part is that even if we`d have proof that there is no god, I wouldn`t have to call myself an atheist because that term would also be gone automatically :)
Aaaaa logic is fun.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS I urge you to do a search for agnostic/atheist and see all the different definitions that pop up and then come back and lie again that the world has a unified definition which prooves that mine is wrong.
You`re even trying to consume the positions of agnostics as if it were yours but making up dozens of definitions just because you`re 8,69% more doubtful than someone else doesn`t mean that it`s logical and right.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "I urge you to do a search for agnostic/atheist and see all the different definitions that pop up and then come back and lie again that the world has a unified definition which prooves that mine is wrong."
The fact that there are others who are just as confused as you does not change the actual meaning of the word "atheist". Please look a bit further into the matter, apparently a mere cursory google-search won't reveal that the definition I'm using is the most widely accepted.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Hitler was widely accepted in Germany. Jokes aside, I have no doubt that your definition is the one that`s accepted amongst atheists but I´d say that if you say "atheist", that most people on earth would think about it as "strong atheism".
And you know that most people think so because it pisses you off :)
But does that mean that the definition that most people have is correct? I don`t know but fact is that definitions are changed by people all the time.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Atheism also doesn't necessarily mean you're anti-religious (although some certainly are). Millions of Buddhists are also atheists - they don't believe in gods but they still follow their religion.
Anyways, I feel like I'm wasting my time explaining all this to you; please do some reading on the topic yourself - you can start with wikipedia, as suggested before already. Once you've done that, you can come back here and admit you're just another agnostic atheist, like millions of us.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd No I´m really wasting my time and if wikipedia is your only source of info then I pity you.
According to your BS you would even call a baby an atheist because it lacks belief.
- A theist is someone who says the proposition of god is true or probably true.
- An atheist is someone who says the proposition of god is false or probably false.
- An agnostic is someone who aknowledges the proposition but does not commit to an answer because of insufficient evidence.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "if wikipedia is your only source of info then I pity you."
It's not and I never said it was - I said it could be a good first bit of reading on the subject for you.
"you would even call a baby an atheist because it lacks belief"
Absolutely. Every human being is born an atheist, this is something that even most theists agree to.
"An atheist is someone who says the proposition of god is false or probably false."
Wrong. An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist - that's all.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "An agnostic is someone who aknowledges the proposition but does not commit to an answer because of insufficient evidence."
Wrong again. An agnostic acknowledges that s/he does not know if gods exist, nothing more.
There are many agnostics who believe in god(s) "just in case" - I happen to know at least a dozen personally. Pascal's wager is all about agnostic theism. Thus, if you want to be consistent with your earlier statement, you can't call yourself an agnostic either.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Theism is the "white" and atheism the "no white" option in your analogy. Atheism does not have to mean "black" - that's just a tiny subset of atheism (the so-called "strong atheism"), just like your gray is just another subset of atheism.
Thus, when you say you choose not to have any beliefs in this god-discussion, you reveal yourself to be just another atheist - a person who is not a theist.
I don't think I can make this any simpler to you.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd My grey is not a subset of atheism, grey stands for the current state of knowledge which is "We don`t know". It`s a place filler for the truth which is currently unknown.
People have many variations when it comes to beliefs/thoughts but I´m not willing to compromise logic just because people are confused. Logic states that either you accept the truth "I don`t know" or decide to believe "Yes" or "No". Everything in between is just human bullshit.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Why can't you just admit "I don't know" AND then state whether you believe or not? That's what most people do.
I do not know if there are over 1 billion stars in the universe (I've certainly not counted them). However, I do believe there are (I tend to trust scientific studies). Similarly, I do not know if a toothfairy exists. However, I do not believe in one (there's no evidence).
If you are not a believer in gods (which you apparently aren't), then you're an atheist, just like me.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS I see you hold a very strong (and dare I say, illogical) dislike of the stigma of "atheism" that apparently prevents you from admitting you're one. Perhaps your experience with atheists has been very limited? It should be no news to anyone that in every topic the most extreme views tend to be the ones that get shouted out the loudest while the majority remains silent. Nevertheless, that doesn't change how things are: if you're not a theist, you're an atheist - it's really that simple.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS You're a fucking idiot. Go look up atheism and agnosticism before before making such a stupid claim, you don't know what either of them are. Half atheist? Jesus Christ, you use the same logic as creatards.
Good luck with that. lol
urantivirus 3 months ago
@urantivirus Hey fuckwitt. I don`t have to look up anything because I know the definition since my childhood.
Looks like I hit a nerve there but it`s really not my fault that your brain stops computing when confronted with simple logical concepts.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "I don`t have to look up anything because I know the definition since my childhood."
So, could it be possible that you've been mistaken as a child?
If it's any consolation, I was too when I was a kid - these are not easy definitions for children.
Once you realize how wide a definition "atheist" is, you'll have much easier time arguing against the "strong atheism" sub-position, which seemed to be your original intent. If you fail to differentiate the two, you're only causing confusion.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Your logic is ... skewed, to put it politely. You cannot have a belief about a claim until a claim is presented to you. Once a claim is presented to you, you can remain unchanged and not form a belief as to its validity or invalidity. You can choose to examine the claim and form a belief one way or the other, you can ignore the claim and remain without belief. You do not AUTOMATICALLY have a belief, otherwise it would have to pre-exist before the claim is made.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan THANK YOU, that is exactly what I´m saying. Atheists try to force you into their belief by asking "Do you believe in gods, yes or no?".
And as you put it so politely, NOBODY has to answer that question because it`s a TRICK QUESTION. If you answer "yes" you`re a theist, if you answer "no" you`re an atheist.
So I just don`t answer the question at all because I´m an agnostic.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Maybe you missed my earlier post, but to just say you're "an agnostic" doesn't make sense by itself. What are you agnostic about? Whether or not a god exists? I think all the labels are misused and misunderstood, because they're all biased around "theist" (believing a god exists). Atheism is simply not having a belief in a god, but it doesn't distinguish between those who do not have a belief in a god, and those who believe there is no god. I, for one, am an apatheist.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesMorlan "Atheism is simply not having a belief in a god, but it doesn't distinguish between those who do not have a belief in a god, and those who believe there is no god."
And this is where the error lies. It should distinguish between those two because they are clearly different.
This is the point which causes so many misunderstandings amongst people.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan
"What are you agnostic about? Whether or not a god exists?"
That doesn't make sense.
You don't seem to understand the difference between theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. One deals with "belief", the other with "knowledge". Agnosticism (without knowledge) is the position that it is impossible to know if God exists. It doesn't define whether one believes he does..that would be atheism/theism. You can be any combination. Agnostic atheist/theist, Gnostic atheist/theist.
OddityDK 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan
From Wiki:
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."
" Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)."
And there is of course the Gnostic version too.
OddityDK 3 months ago
@OddityDK Precisely. Agnostic is about knowledge. When applied to theistic claims, it can be used to qualify "theist" or "atheist" to indicate whether one's chosen position is based on knowledge or not, as you described. For example, the agnostic theist who BELIEVES a god exists, but does not KNOW. It breaks down a bit, though, when applied to "atheist", because the "atheist" label can include people who believe there is no god, as well as people who do not have a belief about any god.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS Please note that not believing a claim does not mean that you actively reject it and claim it to be false - you simply lack belief.
I'll try to rephrase my earlier question so that you can answer it: Are you a believer in gods? If you choose to say "no, I'm not a believer", then you're an atheist.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS The only way you can NOT be an atheist is if you are a theist, that is you have a belief in gods. All other positions are atheistic positions. There's no other way around it. If you "choose to rely purely on knowledge" and you have no knowledge of gods, then you're obviously an atheist - even if you don't choose to identify yourself as one.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Whow that is pretty arrogant and I´m certainly not an atheist. Atheists seem to get pretty agressive when it comes to religion or god and I think that it`s the wrong approach and too similar to how fundamentalists behave.
Give those atheists a written book, a own state and I`m pretty sure that people will be dying as a result.
It´s just too similar to a religion for my taste
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "Whow that is pretty arrogant and I´m certainly not an atheist."
Once again, if you're not a theist, then you're an atheist BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD!
"Atheists seem to get pretty agressive when it comes to religion or god and I think that it`s the wrong approach and too similar to how fundamentalists behave."
You're making a ridiculous generalisation here. There are hundreds of millions of atheists in the world - you're speaking of perhaps 0.001% of atheists - the extremists.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@CloserEnd Actually, the default position is no belief, and you have a choice of either believing a claim to be true, or believing a claim to be false - or you can reject the choice all together and not form a belief either way. A belief cannot be the default position for anything, otherwise you would already have to have a belief about everything you don't even know about, yet. I, for one, am an apatheist - I think it's a waste of time to consider whether or not there is a god.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan "Actually, the default position is no belief, and you have a choice of either believing a claim to be true, or believing a claim to be false - or you can reject the choice all together and not form a belief either way."
I think we might be arguing the same point, but just to clarify: In the case of theism/atheism, theism requires you to believe in the god-claim - any other position you choose is opposed to that, thus an atheistic position. Having no belief in gods is atheism.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesMorlan "I, for one, am an apatheist - I think it's a waste of time to consider whether or not there is a god."
But with that statement you're not answering the question "do you believe in god". Apparently you don't (and this doesn't mean you believe there are no gods - you simply lack the belief in them), thus you're yet another atheist. Your further definition just puts you into another smaller sub-section among the vastly different atheist positions.
CloserEnd 3 months ago
Of course, strictly speaking, we have no well-defined way to "grasp the universe as it really is." We can't have absolute TRUTH; but we CAN at least have INTEGRITY. Things like superstition and unwarranted belief LACK INTEGRITY--they are dishonest approaches to the world...specifically dishonest because we KNOW they are unreliable.
GetMeThere1 3 months ago
I think it's okay to think Man is special in some way, but we have to realize it came from ourselves, not god(s), myths, aliens, unicorns, or anything else. We don't have a special place in this universe; all we did was create a sparkling city atop a mound of useless, insignificant dirt. We should be proud of that, but only because we struggled to make it.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception; the one who lies with sincerity."- Andre GIde
saxmanchiro 3 months ago
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."- George Orwell
saxmanchiro 3 months ago
Truth is relative. The universe is vast, magnificent yes yes yes. I can accept this as truth. Are we not a part of this universe? What other observer, recorder and narrator have we encountered other than our fellow humans? When we as a species end, so too the universe...at least for us and who will know and who will remember? The human species is magnificent, even if we are but dust and dreams. I understand the lament and I understand Sagan's point, but they are separate truths and not my own.
CelticValdyr 3 months ago
I hate atheists even more than I hate people who 'have religion.'
I like to think that agnostics are truly superior to all other ways of thinking. Because we think, we do NOT believe anything! We are in constant doubt about the great issues.
I cannot say I believe in gravitiy but there's no reason for me to doubt gravity because I have learnt from own experience that the laws of nature we can directly see, hear or feel, are extremely plausible!
Maybe there's a god(s), maybe not. Who cares?
AudieHolland 3 months ago
@AudieHolland I don't think you know what either of them are.
An agnostic is someone who says the knowledge of god is unknowable. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god. You sound like you're an agnostic atheist.
I'm an agnostic atheist myself.
A gnostic atheist or strong atheist is someone who not only lacks a belief in god but claims it to be fact.
Agnosticism says nothing about belief, just like atheism says nothing about knowledge.
urantivirus 3 months ago 2
@urantivirus
People who don't know other people and say they "hate" them is wrong I agree.
"don't care" would be better.
I don't care about religious people, be they atheists or whatever. If they stopped existing it would not make much difference. But then that goes for most people.
For all I know, 'god' could be a geek in a white labcoat while 'satan' is his fellow geek who tries to disrupt god's experiment. "Ooh, that's a nice little hamster: Jacob... Bet he will keep his faith in me?"
AudieHolland 3 months ago
@urantivirus You are talking BS, please get your facts right. An agnostic is someone who says "I don`t know, there could or could not be a creator"
And this is the only truth humanity has right now. It`s also the hardest mindset to live with but like I said, it`s our current truth and everything else is BELIEF.
Also there can be no half atheist and half agnostic or BS like that. Either one or the other.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "Also there can be no half atheist and half agnostic or BS like that. Either one or the other."
Or BOTH. As has been stated before, the vast majority of atheists in the world are also agnostics (whereas the vast majority of theists tend to be gnostics).
I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I do not know if gods, dragons or fairies exist - they might very well, but I've never seen any reliable evidence for them. Thus, I do not believe in any of them. What's your position?
CloserEnd 3 months ago
@AudieHolland You hate people just because they dont believe in the supernatural? Even more than those that do? Hating murderers, rapists etc I can understand, but to hate someone for a lack of belief in that which is unprovable is just plain sad. I suggest you think a bit a harder about your view people.
AstronomySetMeFree 3 months ago
Unfortunately not nearly all scientists are such positive persons as Dr. Sagan. Think about all thoses who think up better ways to control and manipulate the people. Better and efficient ways to kill people or even cause genocide.
Then of course there are a lot of frauds and hoaxes still taken as truth. Look at all the spacecraft footage in geostationary orbit: great. Compare that to the moon footage and ask yourself if that could really be the moon. Just dare to wonder: could that be faked?
AudieHolland 3 months ago
Atheists don't believe in truth. Atheists only believe in lies and deceit.
LiberalsUtopian 3 months ago
@LiberalsUtopian Atheist can believe whatever they chose to. Thats the beauty of atheism. But unlike a christian we dont need to ignore facts and evidence to justify what we believe. We are independent thinkers who can believe what ever we imagine to be possible about the universe and life. I call that free thought. If you never learnt free thought I guess it isnt your fault. But in the end you know you're wrong and its much braver to come out and face. Then discover freedom to think.
scottclements78 3 months ago
This world STILL feels a little emptier since Carl Sagan died =(
Thank Zues for philhellenes, he's truly captivating on Sagan's level. If you don't believe me, watch "Science Saved My Soul".
PainAddict666 3 months ago
We lost a great person
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
This guy was a terrific orator, that skill no doubt helped him convey some very complicated scientific concepts in a way that's easy enough for the laymen to understand. Even more so, he inspired the imagination of the laymen and made them excited about science, bringing forth a new generation of Carl Sagans.
Akira625 3 months ago
The Russians have a proverb that I enjoy a great deal and agree with. "I would rather have one harsh truth than a thousand comfortable lies."
tbdonnelly67 3 months ago
Good stuff! Eventhough the world has lost a visionaire an wonderful human being, seeing how many people still hold him in great esteem, like myself, has for me restored some faith in humanity
HENN3H 3 months ago 2
thank you carl indeed
wubbadubdub 3 months ago
a blind belief is science is just as bad as being a religious fanatic.
BlueSuperNova88 3 months ago
@BlueSuperNova88 There is no "blind belief" in science, science is a method, a tool, which we can use to understand the world around us.
danielmalpollitt 3 months ago
@BlueSuperNova88 everyone can clearly see which of those blind beliefs you hold to.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@BlueSuperNova88
Yes a blind belief is, but every religious belief is a blind belief.
Theres no reason to believe in Science if you don't understand it, thats why so many people are religious.
1SMF0F 3 months ago
@BlueSuperNova88 If it is a blind belief it is not science. Science is a method for finding ideas we can trust. Ideas that are more reliable than we have found by any other manner. If someone has blind belief by definition they have abandoned science.
michalchik 3 months ago
Big Thumbs Up!
gibozzo 3 months ago
WOW
CarlSagan6 3 months ago 2
No one has encountered Jesus. There is no proof of his actual existence. There was 40-50 gospels,cut down to four,with made up names (no signatures). Bible written 50+ years after Jesus supposedly existed. 613 original commandments,cut down to ten. No proof of Moses and the flight out of egypt. Historically,Noah and the flood was only 100 years before the pyramids.Eight human survivors must of had a lot of kids in that time to have all those slaves building the pyramids. Grow up people.
rickuj 3 months ago 21
@rickuj "No one has encountered Jesus."
And you know this how? Oh, you are all knowing and you know everything right? No you don't. You don't know if anyone has encountered Jesus. You should just admit that you just don't know. If you were honest you would admit that you don't if anyone has encountered Jesus. But you are not being honest. You are lying to assert something that you don't know. If I have encountered Jesus and I have then you are a liar. You have no authority to base your claim.
biblethink 3 months ago
@biblethink
Let's put it this way -- no one who might have encountered Jesus has ever produced objective verifiable evidence to support the claim. Jesus might speak to you, but that would be purely subjective and not a basis for anyone else to believe in him. Your personal experiences of Jesus wouldn't count as reliable evidence. So it is reasonable to say that no one has encountered Jesus.
dudev 3 months ago
@biblethink you claimed you were all knowing, you said you know jesus is real
You have no authority to base your claim.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 3 months ago
@biblethink Replace Jesus with Santa and your argument remains the same.
sonofdog1 3 months ago
@rickuj now do Mohammed
maidenkid84 3 months ago
@rickuj I agree with you of course, but the pyramids were not built by slaves. The latest evidence shows they were well looked after workers in the service of their king.
AstronomySetMeFree 3 months ago
@rickuj It's a historical fact the pyramids weren't built by slaves.
Anyway, there's some egyptian traces that predate the flood by something like 600 years. So basically it turns every single animal into a fossile, but doesn't do anything to a fragile mummy... Damn those creationist morons.
ivanlagrossemoule 3 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule Just curious, since you didn't elaborated...how were the pyramids built? And by whom?
drfitnessnow 3 months ago
Happy Birthday, Carl. I never knew you while you lived, but I can't forget you now that you're gone.
FiverBeyond 3 months ago
beautifuly spoken. a true tribute
007gumshoe 3 months ago
Happy birthday, Carl. You made the World a better place.
Christheatheist1 3 months ago
@jappud I still some Sam Harris book I have to read. I read atheist's book for comic relief, it's amazing how unintelligent they are and yet they are so highly esteemed among men. Oh well.
biblethink 3 months ago
@biblethink "it's amazing how unintelligent they are" what?
the people on your side cant even debate against Sam harris....
you are an example of living comic relief!
azmanabdula 3 months ago
roofle? he must have meant ruffle
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 months ago
excellent tribute. He really was such an introspective and intelligent communicator of science. I am thankful that I heard of him recently, and have had the pleasure of reading his a few of his works. Carl is obviously el mero chingon.
isisdron 3 months ago
@jappud Yup you right there :( I have Pale blue dot read in part by him and it's so good.
stramster1 3 months ago
@jappud Follow it up with Pale Blue Dot.
If you get them on audio book read by Carl you will never get sick of listening to them. His perfectly modulated voice is porn for your ears.
stramster1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's no god.
And that goes for all faiths.
It is called a religion .... and that's not knowing.
Faith is something you assume without any proof.
pumping them full with these lies. from childhood.
Until it appears as a truth, and the child becomes a defender of that truth the rest of his live, but that truth is realy a still a big lie.
Believing in it does not make it true.
TheEricthunder 3 months ago
Happy 77th Carl! Your brilliance is echoing through the cosmos!
JackeShanTwo 3 months ago 37
@JackeShanTwo His brilliance is echoing through time as well =]
zidex 3 months ago 2