Richard Coles, the reverend, is mighty delusional... If you go to your deathbed and think the mysterious as a good thing, then you're a human who has failed at being a human; a normal human, with our defining traits of seeking knowledge, will be deeply unsatisfied with having left so many questions in life unanswered. Mystery can be philosophical, or simply how your favourite celebrity lost 'all that weight'. Either way, unsolved questions are a source of turmoil. Who goes to bed happy that they don't know something?!
good discussion, but they seem to be using the temrinology one, Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, they are different in meaning, Not being sure of something is one thing and belief in god is another, It is possible to say I don't think there is a God, but i'm not sure, and thus you are an Agnostic Atheist , Or in the case of Dawkins, an gnostic atheist
chebob2009 Upon further investigation, It seems you are correct, He self identifies as "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." though he is pretty close, since he's said on a scale of 1-7, he considers himself to be closer to 6.9, So hes kinda almost there
Almost no-one in the modern world calls them a 7/7 atheist. It's a complete nonsense concept that's been invented to try and make it seem irrational to criticise religions. Unfortunately, a huge number of people have fallen for it.
Of course, To be completely sure of something in such a manor would be unscientific, But for all sense of practicality the difference in lifestyle for a 6 or a 7 is the same, for myself i would consider identifying at 6 on the scale to be the most logical position, Given that all humans begin at 6, and subsequently learn the behaviours of a religion by birthright
All humans begin at 6? That's weirdly specific! From my experience, humans aren't that consistent. I agree with the principle though. The scientific approach is always, unless you can come up with an a-priori plausibility, you start with a low probability. That's what the unscientific fail to see and often seem to go along with the idea that everything starts at 50:50.
That agnostic chick is quite annoying with her pompous "I've just thought about it more than you" response to Dawkins. If she'd thought about as much as she claims, she'd know that Dawkins agrees on that particular version of agnosticism, as do nearly all atheists. Everyone on the planet who isn't deluded in some sense is that kind of agnostic. Which is why it's a meaningless term.
5:57 "Religion for challenge not comfort" Well said Rev.
Richard Coles, the reverend, is mighty delusional... If you go to your deathbed and think the mysterious as a good thing, then you're a human who has failed at being a human; a normal human, with our defining traits of seeking knowledge, will be deeply unsatisfied with having left so many questions in life unanswered.
Mystery can be philosophical, or simply how your favourite celebrity lost 'all that weight'. Either way, unsolved questions are a source of turmoil. Who goes to bed happy that they don't know something?!
Twaddle
good discussion, but they seem to be using the temrinology one, Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, they are different in meaning, Not being sure of something is one thing and belief in god is another, It is possible to say I don't think there is a God, but i'm not sure, and thus you are an Agnostic Atheist , Or in the case of Dawkins, an gnostic atheist
I'm pretty sure dawkins is an agnostic atheist too. Which he's repeated quite a few times.
chebob2009 Upon further investigation, It seems you are correct, He self identifies as "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
though he is pretty close, since he's said on a scale of 1-7, he considers himself to be closer to 6.9, So hes kinda almost there
Almost no-one in the modern world calls them a 7/7 atheist. It's a complete nonsense concept that's been invented to try and make it seem irrational to criticise religions. Unfortunately, a huge number of people have fallen for it.
Of course, To be completely sure of something in such a manor would be unscientific, But for all sense of practicality the difference in lifestyle for a 6 or a 7 is the same, for myself i would consider identifying at 6 on the scale to be the most logical position, Given that all humans begin at 6, and subsequently learn the behaviours of a religion by birthright
All humans begin at 6? That's weirdly specific! From my experience, humans aren't that consistent. I agree with the principle though. The scientific approach is always, unless you can come up with an a-priori plausibility, you start with a low probability. That's what the unscientific fail to see and often seem to go along with the idea that everything starts at 50:50.
That agnostic chick is quite annoying with her pompous "I've just thought about it more than you" response to Dawkins. If she'd thought about as much as she claims, she'd know that Dawkins agrees on that particular version of agnosticism, as do nearly all atheists. Everyone on the planet who isn't deluded in some sense is that kind of agnostic. Which is why it's a meaningless term.