What do atheists think of agnostics, and vice versa? (experience, Earth, verse)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by manygeese

Fruits of logic means what you have worked out using logic.

If you care to apply logic to space, begin by logically working out what space is when space is devoid of what you regard as matter.

A vacuum..isn't it?

It is true. Biblical scholars have assessed that god set adam and eve on earth on the 23rd of October a little over 6,000 years ago. (Interesting that you respect the bible with your use of eve denote an original woman)

I place more reliance on palaeontologists than on biblical scholars, myself.

The use of 'Motochondrial Eve' indicates the grip that Biblical myth has on even the scientific community.

This part of your reply is not really coherent with what I posted. Doesn't matter though. I was projecting an atheists response to a specific question. Not generalizing about what an atheist says.

Right...let's go back and see what you said.

manygeese
Anyway today is the birthday of Adam and Eve. It twas the 23rd of October when they were created according to modern interpretation. A little over 6,000 years ago.

An atheists says "that's wrong. Universe much older". And sets about debunking it.
An evolutionists says "That's intersting. Wonder why that idea evolved."
An evolutionist has a happier more interesting life than an atheist I would say. A life without venom against those who are wrong, just a life in wonder of it all, a life that ultimately says, well I dunno what an evolutionist ultimately says.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Nope. An atheist says 'there's no reason to believe in any god', and that is all an atheist says. As to what an evolutionist says, you better ask one. I don't know whether they are happier or not, but I do know their theory is pretty convincing.

manygeese
This part of your reply is not really coherent with what I posted. Doesn't matter though. I was projecting an atheists response to a specific question. Not generalizing about what an atheist says.

My reply was strictly correct as an 'atheist' (as such) does not speculate about the age of the universe, but I get your point. If a theist says the atheist is wrong because the universe is 6,000 years old, then yes, the atheist is likely to argue that the universe is much older, as you say. but that's hardly the fault of the atheist. It is the fault (if we are placing blame here, otherwise what's the point of you mentioning it?) of the theist for telling the atheists that they are wrong - in this instance because they don't accept the Genesis creation story.

But it seems we are just dickering about terms and humans being around earlier than 6,000 or even 10-13,000 B.C. ane we are getting off topic.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

A vacuum..isn't it?

What is this vacuum? Does this vacuum you envisage have length, width and breadth. If it does, it may not be a vacuum. If you are to be logical about space, AREQUIPA, you must really apply your self.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I place more reliance on palaeontologists than on biblical scholars, myself.

The use of 'Motochondrial Eve' indicates the grip that Biblical myth has on even the scientific community.

I place reliance the same way. Doesn't alter the fact that biblical scholars set the birthdate of adam and eve as last Friday. It was a comment in passing, not anything to debate.

I must say you have left me in wonder about the tactics of your fight (against thesism) when you employ the term eve. Like giving them a free kick. Perhaps you have a subtle plan and are just laying a trap that they will no answer to.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by manygeese

What is this vacuum? Does this vacuum you envisage have length, width and breadth. If it does, it may not be a vacuum. If you are to be logical about space, AREQUIPA, you must really apply your self.

Main Entry: 1vac·u·um
Pronunciation: \ˈva-(ˌ)kyüm, -kyəm also -kyü-əm\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural vac·u·ums or vac·ua \-kyə-wə\
Etymology: Latin, from neuter of vacuus empty, from vacare to be empty
Date: 1550
1 : emptiness of space
2 a : a space absolutely devoid of matter b : a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (as an air pump) c : a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure
3 a : a state or condition resembling a vacuum : void <the power vacuum in Indochina after the departure of the French — Norman Cousins> b : a state of isolation from outside influences <people who live in a vacuum…so that the world outside them is of no moment — W. S. Maugham>
4 : a device creating or utilizing a partial vacuum; especially : vacuum cleaner (Merriam - Webster

"a space absolutely devoid of matter" will do very well. The terms "length, width and breadth" will, of course apply to a finite vacuum contained in a bell - jar, for example. If we are talking about a vacuum existing say, beyond the material universe, it may well have no length, width and breadth and could be infinite so far as we'd define it. Which is why I'd say that I can imaging a material universe that never ends but I can imagine a finite universe with nothingness beyond. That could easily never end as it has no 'end'.

I place reliance the same way. Doesn't alter the fact that biblical scholars set the birthdate of adam and eve as last Friday. It was a comment in passing, not anything to debate.

Then, providing you accept that I have good reason not to accept either Adam or Eve or any birthdays that Biblical scolars might be pleased to assign to them, I am happy to leave the subject there.

I must say you have left me in wonder about the tactics of your fight (against thesism) when you employ the term eve. Like giving them a free kick. Perhaps you have a subtle plan and are just laying a trap that they will no answer to.

Not being a theist apologist I am quite up front and don't go in for subtle plans, though the theists, ever projecting their own methods onto others, constantly suspect that I am. As Gandalf said, 'the untrustworthy are ever mistrustful'. The fact is that the term 'Mitochondrial Eve' was coined by others and I do not have a problem with using the quite useful associative idea behind it as indeed I don't mind using the terms A.D. and B.C., provided that no-one tries to argue that this means that somehow I believe the Bible or should believe it.

[Laborum]

On the original subject: I'm an atheist and typically can talk just fine with agnostics without issue. My wife is more agnostic. I typically have very reasoning conversations with her and some of her agnostic friends. I don't see why there'd be much conflict, we're of nearly the same opinion.

It's those who bring up Jesus or God in nearly every conversation that I can't talk to long without just wanting to walk out the room. We had a couple guys come over to the house who wanted to talk to us about religion. We're nice people so invited them in. It was a fairly nice conversation till it turned to education and god in the classroom. The guy pulled out a pamphlet and showed me a picture of a teenager sitting in a classrom desk with a pacifier in his mouth to illustrate his "point" that if we don't teach "god did it" as a theory in the classrom, it's making our kids dumb. I kicked him out of my house as politely as possible.

[MaggieZ]

lots of agnostics eventually become atheists, I think, that's just from talking to a few..not a sure thing
Some seem afraid to take that final step, just in case there may be a god or upper type being they have to answer to. I went through a gradual shift to get to where I am, it didn't go overnight but after lots of thinking and reading and letting it all simmer, I was agnostic for a while there...You have to be Ok with it all, because just saying you are an atheist or an agnostic is not enough. You really have to be true to yourself and honest, otherwise the only one who gets burnt in the end is you. You should not do it for anyone else or just because you want to follow a group and belong..then you just resort to what mindless believers do..
I get along with agnostics so far because those I have met, seem open to things and that makes them OK to talk with.

[TRANSPONDER]

Agreed. Given that agnosticism is the...no I manfully resist...but I have said that a Deist is someone I could share a flat with and so is an agnostic. It is true that I take the view that an agnostic and perhaps even a deist is an atheist - in waiting. Though Anthony Flew appears to be an atheist who has become a deist. Of course, if he has realized how he was suckered by the ID package he might well realize that he is no less an atheist than he ever was.

I imagine that an agnostic or deist would not quote from the Bible (as opposed to quoting much from anywhere else) and expect me to accept it even in the Jeffersonian sense of being the best way for people to live. So long as the Bible stays in the shelf (unless I'm expounding my theories on the Gospels ) I have no problem with agnostic or Deistitheists.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Ma
"a space absolutely devoid of matter" will do very well. The terms "length, width and breadth" will, of course apply to a finite vacuum contained in a bell - jar, for example. If we are talking about a vacuum existing say, beyond the material universe, it may well have no length, width and breadth and could be infinite so far as we'd define it. Which is why I'd say that I can imaging a material universe that never ends but I can imagine a finite universe with nothingness beyond. That could easily never end as it has no 'end'.

Glad to see your mind started to work after you referred to an official definition.

We weren't/aren't talking about belljars or the material universe though. We are talking about what would exist if there was no material universe.

The theist answer, and seemingly yours, is nothing would exists if the material universe doesn't exist.

The question posed is length, width and breadth nothing?

And, alternatively can there be an absence of length, width and breadth?

Remember we are talking about a total absence of what you regard as matter.

Other posters regard this as getting off topic and that's fair enough.

[catman]

An agnostic is someone who just doesn't know whether is a god or not, which most atheists would agree with. I consider myself to be an agnostic-atheist (after the definitions of George H Smith): I don't know (how could I?), however, I consider it extremely unlikely, so I don't believe in a god, which makes me an atheist. Some people are agnostic theists; they don't know either, but they prefer to believe because they feel better that way or 'just in case' (partaking in Pascal's Wager).

[Kaye02]

I consider myself a weak agnostic, I border on Deism but Deism brings up a lot of other questions/problems so I usually find myself back at agnosticism. I do often wonder how the universe could exist if there is no Creator deity. Science says the universe does have a beginning, via the Big Bang. So, I have to wonder what strong atheists think caused the big bang. I just don't see any other possibilities either the universe has always been here, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics or something had to have created it.

[calmdude]

Agnostics have half a god more than atheists (like me) do. Methinks agnostics are half right.