Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time

The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2009, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes, at different points in a believer's life they do have serious doubts and could be considered agnostics. That's why "great faith" is so rare.

Personally, I would put most followers (one way or the other) as "believing" agnostics, most of the time their faith sustains them through their doubts, but often they really aren't sure.


Edit: cleaned up post a bit.
Well, at least I understand the reasoning behind your position now. That's good.

Since this is basically just a question of semantics at this point, do you have any more specific ways of defining people who are like Dawkins vs. those who are normally religious yet have a few lingering doubts? According to you, they are both agnostics, but those two groups are pretty amazingly different in terms of their beliefs. How do you refer to Dawkins-esque people if not by the word "atheist"? Nonbelievers, perhaps?

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 12:07 AM
 
What about this:

Theist-----Soft Agnostic-----Agnostic-----Hard Agnostic-----Atheist.

with Dawkins sitting between hard agnostic and atheist?

It just seems to me that if you start allowing that people with "negligible" doubts are simply, "atheists" then it becomes difficult to say how much doubt is enough doubt to make someone an agnostic as opposed to an atheist with "acceptable doubt."

Also, there will be no world for that rare bird who is certain God does not exist.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 01:03 AM
 
It just seems to me that if you start allowing that people with "negligible" doubts are simply, "atheists" then it becomes difficult to say how much doubt is enough doubt to make someone an agnostic as opposed to an atheist with "acceptable doubt."
So what? It is not a simple subject. It's ok if some of it SEEM to overlap a little. In the end, you guys are laboring over the definition of something where the exact definition not precisely known, and where the precise definition doesn't really matter. I have the exact position as Dawkins on this. It is just STUPID to try to state with ZERO doubt the existence of something we have ZERO evidence for one way or the other. Does that make me an agnostic? Yet I assert that I am about as sure that there are no gods of any kind as I am that there are no invisible pink unicorns watching over us. Does that make me an atheist? Who cares! Arguing over precisely which category we fit under says more about you guys than it does us.
( Last edited by smacintush; Apr 23, 2009 at 01:21 AM. )
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 01:18 AM
 
Alright, I'll step back in (after promising myself to leave this whole thing alone, as I usually do)...

About the only people I've run into who are hard-nosed, 100% atheists are those who are absolutely despise the thought of God, possibly allowing their rationale to take a backseat to hatred.

I have encountered atheists who are about 99.999999999999% positive they believe there is no god, but cannot quite tip the scale over to 100%, just because they don't want to discount that (by their beliefs) 0.000000000001% chance that there might be a god. Does that make them agnostic?

[EDIT] I know that question has pretty much been answered already. The important part is below.

I really don't care. I don't see that much of a difference between the two. Their beliefs concerning religion, evolution, and such don't usually differ at all. Being considered agnostic or atheist seems to be a matter of label preference.
( Last edited by Jawbone54; Apr 23, 2009 at 01:30 AM. )
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie View Post
What about this:

Theist-----Soft Agnostic-----Agnostic-----Hard Agnostic-----Atheist.

with Dawkins sitting between hard agnostic and atheist?

It just seems to me that if you start allowing that people with "negligible" doubts are simply, "atheists" then it becomes difficult to say how much doubt is enough doubt to make someone an agnostic as opposed to an atheist with "acceptable doubt."
If I were advocating hard-nosed definitions of these words, then I would say that you'd become agnostic as soon as you got to the point where you were saying "I don't know if God exists or not" rather than "God probably doesn't exist." However, I'm not, so I'm going to reiterate once more that both terms are flexible, and it doesn't really matter which you prefer to use, in my view.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 05:55 AM
 
I think we are going around in circles. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can be both an atheist and and agnostic. Similarly you can also be a theist and agnostic.

This video explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
That was like sitting in Sunday School for atheists.

Good video though.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 03:40 PM
 
An atheist is a person who has faith that a god doesn't exist (which is what I've been saying). As stated in the video, "it's about what you believe".

However, the video's maker is confused regarding the terms "unknown" and "unknowable". It's difficult to say that anything is ultimately unknowable, especially in light of humanity's very limited experience. His faith in the current state of scientific advancement is laudable, but our knowledge of what's going on in our own biosphere is incomplete, let alone what potentially exists beyond.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2009, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
An atheist is a person who has faith that a god doesn't exist (which is what I've been saying).
Yes you've been saying it but it's still wrong.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 02:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
However, the video's maker is confused regarding the terms "unknown" and "unknowable".
No he's not, he's just going by the actual definition of "agnostic". Once again, it is:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known [emphasis mine] of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I'm sorry that you don't approve of people using the actual dictionary definition vs. the Shaddim Made-Up Definition™, but c'est la vie. Anyway, I see this has been moved to the political lounge, so this will be the end of my participation in this thread, as I'd rather stay clear of that dark place.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 05:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Yes you've been saying it but it's still wrong.
That's your belief, and you're entitled to it, just like atheism.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 05:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Dawkins? Chomsky?

I thought this was about "brilliant"?
Yeah, perplexing.

I'm surprised they didn't add Einstein. Don't most sources consider him an atheist?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 06:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I'm surprised they didn't add Einstein. Don't most sources consider him an atheist?
Indeed, that's what most sources claim (e. g. Abraham Pais' scientific biography): he was raised as a Jew culturally, but he was not religious. I'm also surprised he's not on the list.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Indeed, that's what most sources claim (e. g. Abraham Pais' scientific biography): he was raised as a Jew culturally, but he was not religious. I'm also surprised he's not on the list.
Nonsense - they had to leave room for the creator of Facebook.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 12:21 PM
 
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the question really how didactic the particular individual is being, whether religious or not?

As an example, despite the fact he leaves open the slight possibility he's wrong, is there any question Dawkins' books are intended as moral instruction?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's your belief, and you're entitled to it, just like atheism.
The difference between our belief and yours is that ours is supported by logic, common use, history, utility and the dictionary, whereas yours is based on the desire for it to be true.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The difference between our belief and yours is that ours is supported by logic, common use, history, utility and the dictionary, whereas yours is based on the desire for it to be true.
Except when you decide to leave out certain "pesky" key words from the definition, and ignore common sense.

Agnostic literally means "one without spiritual experience", not "one who lacks scientific data". Atheists and Theists have their own experiences with spirituality and religion and typically have very firm positions (as evidenced by the comments in this thread).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Except when you decide to leave out certain "pesky" key words from the definition, and ignore common sense.
Common sense (as well as common usage) tells me Richard Dawkins is an atheist.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Agnostic literally means "one without spiritual experience"
I don't know what you're talking about. That isn't what it means at all. It literally means "without knowledge," from the roots a- meaning "without" and gnosis meaning "knowledge." As originally coined, it didn't have anything to do with belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, per se, but rather his unknowability. This agnosticism is itself a belief about God — that we can't know about him. By this definition, it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist (or a theist).

Since then, there has been a bit of semantic drift and in everyday usage, it has taken on the second meaning of "one who consciously chooses not to take sides in the debate over God's existence."

Both tangentially and more on the point, an atheist is properly somebody who does not believe in God. Again, this is much the same way that we don't believe in leprechauns, the Easter Bunny and magic condoms that grant wishes. No sensible person would describe himself as "agnostic" with regards to the Easter Bunny — we just don't believe in him, for lack of any good reason to believe. This is the same way that atheists don't believe in God.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 03:48 PM
 
The definition of "atheism" is a bit fluid. It's not really worth getting into an argument about atheism vs. agnosticism, IMO, because there will always be overlap.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I don't know what you're talking about. That isn't what it means at all. It literally means "without knowledge," from the roots a- meaning "without" and gnosis meaning "knowledge." As originally coined, it didn't have anything to do with belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, per se, but rather his unknowability. This agnosticism is itself a belief about God — that we can't know about him. By this definition, it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist (or a theist).
Actually, gnosis is spiritual experience that endows a type of knowledge. This isn't to be confused with epistimi, which relates to knowledge of natural phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

Gnosis is the spiritual knowledge of a saint or mystically enlightened human being. In the cultures of the term (Byzantine and Hellenic) gnosis was a special knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine and uncreated in all and above all, rather than knowledge strictly into the finite, natural or material world which is called Epistemological knowledge. Gnosis is a transcendent as well as mature understanding. It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking. Gnosis itself is, and was, obtained through understanding, arrived at via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany of intuition and external epiphany such as Theophany.
So, an agnostic is "one without spiritual experience". Atheists and Theists have their own experiences with spirituality and religion and typically have very firm core beliefs, as I stated earlier.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2009, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Actually, gnosis is spiritual experience that endows a type of knowledge. This isn't to be confused with epistimi, which relates to knowledge of natural phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

So, an agnostic is "one without spiritual experience".
From the same page, if you read a little farther: "The term is used throughout Greek philosophy as a technical term for experience knowledge (see gnosiology) in contrast to theoretical knowledge or epistemology."

It does not mean "a spiritual experience that imbues knowledge" except in the jargon of one branch of religions. This happens to be the sole use of the Greek word by itself in English, but it's by no means the only meaning the Greek root has. It appears in words such as "diagnosis" ("knowing deeply") and "prognosis" ("foreknowledge"). Do you think those refer to the gnostic concept as well?

In the case of agnosticism, the not-knowing does refer to spirituality, but to define it as "one without spiritual experience" is not really correct and I don't think you'll find it in any dictionary or book on the topic.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Atheists and Theists have their own experiences with spirituality and religion and typically have very firm core beliefs, as I stated earlier.
I don't know what you mean by this. What exactly do you mean by "experiences with spirituality and religion"? Meeting religious people? Reading an interesting theology book? Having the heavens open up and Jehovah come down to meet you? I also don't know what "very firm core beliefs" refers to. The only belief of atheism is that God doesn't exist — in fact, that belief is atheism. Again, it's quite similar to most people's disbelief in the Easter Bunny. I haven't heard back from you on whether that's actually agnosticism as well.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Apr 24, 2009 at 07:14 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2009, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
In the case of agnosticism, the not-knowing does refer to spirituality, but to define it as "one without spiritual experience" is not really correct and I don't think you'll find it in any dictionary or book on the topic.
The fact that subject directly relates to spirituality, I suppose, makes no difference at all? Did you miss the entire article?

"gnosis was a special knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine and uncreated in all and above all, rather than knowledge strictly into the finite, natural or material world which is called Epistemological knowledge [...] It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge."

You can't get much more cut-and-dried than that.

It does not mean "a spiritual experience that imbues knowledge" except in the jargon of one branch of religions.
Which happen to be the "branches" that actually coined the terms gnostic and agnostic... you'd think they would be the authorities on such things, but not to some people.

The only belief of atheism is that God doesn't exist — in fact, that belief is atheism.
They have their own meetings, distribute their own tracts, and even have major publishing deals to sell their books. Well, at least they're being religious about it. Hell, if it works for Pat Robertson it should work for them. That's good though, right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2009, 06:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They have their own meetings, distribute their own tracts, and even have major publishing deals to sell their books. Well, at least they're being religious about it. Hell, if it works for Pat Robertson it should work for them. That's good though, right?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2009, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Which happen to be the "branches" that actually coined the terms gnostic and agnostic... you'd think they would be the authorities on such things, but not to some people.
I don't get it. Why would you take the time to reply to things you didn't read?

The Gnostics did not coin the word "gnostic" any more than the Salvation Army coined the words "salvation" or "army." It was an existing Greek word that the Gnostics adopted. As I pointed out, Wikipedia lists uses of the word that predate Gnosticism by centuries. Furthermore, the word "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley. It was intentionally evocative of Gnosticism, but wasn't specifically about Gnosticism — he simply believed matters of spirituality are inherently unknowable. In the same way atheists believed there was no God, he believed there are no knowing whether there was a God.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2009, 09:49 PM
 
They want to evangelize their beliefs, more power to them.

It's turned into quite a profitable business. Hell, I have five of Dawkins' books in my own library.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2009, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I don't get it. Why would you take the time to reply to things you didn't read?

The Gnostics did not coin the word "gnostic" any more than the Salvation Army coined the words "salvation" or "army." It was an existing Greek word that the Gnostics adopted. As I pointed out, Wikipedia lists uses of the word that predate Gnosticism by centuries. Furthermore, the word "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley. It was intentionally evocative of Gnosticism, but wasn't specifically about Gnosticism — he simply believed matters of spirituality are inherently unknowable. In the same way atheists believed there was no God, he believed there are no knowing whether there was a God.
As it's understood for religious matters, we can thank the Sethians (who referred to themselves as "gnostikoi", and called those outside their religion "agnostikoi") and other early gnostic sects. They established the concept of finding gnosis in spiritual experiences, or the absence of that knowledge, agnosis. Ironically, Christian contemporaries freely used the term "gnostic" as a pejorative term, claiming they valued knowledge more than faith. Huxley may have been the first modern scholar who used the term agnostic to identify a person without such knowledge, but it's obvious he was borrowing heavily from Valentinius, Carpocrates, and the Sethians.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,