CX

You forget the most important difference. Existence of non-terrestrial forms of life would not require the contravention of known physical laws or mechanisms. The existence of god, conversely, would require the contravention of those same.

ComestibleVenom

That's true, and I'm willing to accept that definition. Still, I myself have no qualms about the connotation of "One who believes that god does not exist and is an invention of silly human beings" being attached to the term Atheism. I'm fully prepared to defend that contention.

RuthlessLogic

Actually I didn't forget it, I said it earlier in my post:

CX

Fair enough. Could you do that for any and all possible definitions of god?

I ask because I would technically consider myself an objective noncognitivist agnostic atheist. I don't believe that an objective definition of god exists or can be conceived. I deny the existence of the gods I've seen defined (with the exception of those definitions which make the universe operationally no different than if said god did not exist like Deism). I think the question of the existence of any possible god which I may not be familiar with is insoluable. Given that, I operate as if there were no god of any kind in existence without making the postive claim to that effect and placing the burden of proof upon myself.

Majody

Please forgive me if someone has already posted this, but I'm an ancy teenager with a short attention span.

Unless I am mistaken, there are "aliens." We have discovered bacteria on Mars, no? Or was it the moon? Sorry, I'm not a very involved person. So, if life on other planets is "alien life," there are aliens.

ComestibleVenom

If you believe one very smart seeming scientists who ALL the newsmedia interview and pay attention to, yes there's life. The man in the respectable looking smock is proof.

If you listen to the rest of the relevant scientific communities, whom the media utterly ignores , the case is very, very tenuous.

Nowhere357

I disagree, based on the definition below. It does imply uncertainty, and it may imply unanswerable.


Merriam/Webster
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

Bill

Damn, I hate having the same argument, over and over again....

Very briefly, then, I will present links to two distinct views, and under both of them, I am an agnostic:

• Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism by atheist Professor Ted Drange, which presents the case for the "knife edige" (or "data versus data") sort of an agnostic; and
• The Essence of Agnosticism by yours truly, which presents the case for epistemological agnosticism (which is what I primarily consider myself to be).

As for dictionaries, they are based upon the popularity of various usages, which means that a dictionary is nothing more than the collected opinions of dictionary editors, expressed after reviewing popular literature, which became popular as a matter of fashion. Thus, a dictionary has no more force of logic behind it than does a miniskirt.

== Bill

Jobar

Bill, II definitely serves a teaching function, and one of the real pains of teaching is having to answer the same predictable questions over and over and over and over!

I think that O^B is a good student trying to understand what are, indeed, extremely subtle concepts. We may have to express ourselves in many ways to make them clear.

Let me try my hand, here. An analogy- think of a square map. Now, instead of labelling the cardinal points as north, south, east, west- let's try Completely Believable, Completely Unbelievable, Completely Knowable, and Completely Unknowable.

You see we have a 'believability' (b) axis, and a 'knowability' (k) axis. Think of atheism or theism as measurements along the b axis, and agnosticism or gnosticism as measurements along the k axis.

Now consider that any theological position can be charted on our 'map'. If you think that a god or gods are completely unbelievable, and that one can be completely certain of this, your position is in the extreme 'south' and 'east'- the bottom right-hand corner. Do you think god(s) are completely unknowable, and you hold no belief or disbelief of them, as a consequence? That would put you on the 'western' edge, in the center.

And so forth. I note that the extreme edges and corners are irrational positions to hold, at least in my opinion- they would imply you had some way of proving absolutely what can be known (or not), and having utterly fanatical belief (or disbelief) in what is, basically, an opinion.

This map analogy does not help us with the *definition* of god- we have to compensate for the fact that there are thousands of gods, and likely millions of fine personal distinctions of meaning for even a single god. But once you plug in a 'value' for god, you can place yourself on this chart. If we speak of the God of the Christians, I am very close to 'no belief/certain knowledge'- the southeast corner. Which makes me, in reference to Jehovah, a strong atheist. But my position is different for deist concepts, or Brahma, or... well, any other specific god concept.

(Now, my fellow unbelievers will probably come along and punch my map analogy full of holes, if not tear it to itty bitty shreads. Oh well. )

Jayhawker Soule

No, we make allowances for Pantheists.