Science = Agnostic.

[Luminous]

This is just obvious and true. no question about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually it is, but it doesn't mean much. Scientific explanations can't very well offer supernatural as a factor, so in practice science is more atheistic (or more exacly skeptic) than agnostic.

 

[Storm]

Skeptic, I'll grant you, but I still draw the line at calling it atheistic.

 

[Skwim]

Skeptic, I'll grant you, but I still draw the line at calling it atheistic.

It works if one considers that the "a" in atheistic means not or without: not theistic or without theism, both of which describe science. That it has also come to indicate a stance that denies existence of a god or gods is simply an additional meaning. Science is indeed a-theistic.

 

[Storm]

It works if one considers that the "a" in atheistic means not or without: not theistic or without theism, both of which describe science. That it has also come to indicate a stance that denies existence of a god or gods is simply an additional meaning. Science is indeed a-theistic.

Etymology is one thing; usage another. Atheism is an opinion, and science has none.

 

[MissAlice]

I don't consider agnosticism much different from atheism. The only reason I prescribe this label is I would rather admit "I don't know" then to assume or imply that there is no "god". Science is the biggest key imo to truth but we still have a long way to go and there is still so much I ask myself.

I guess you could say I'm in the "???" gap. There are still many things I question that may never be answered by science or at least answered to my satisfactory.

 

[Skwim]

Etymology is one thing; usage another.

Yes it is, and one of the usages is not theistic or without theism. That you want it to conform to only one meaning is a bit narrow minded, and puzzling, but then many things people say on RF are puzzling.

Atheism is an opinion, and science has none.

And atheism is also a stance, not theistic or without theism.

And FYI

Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942 edition). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0064634612. A. Retrieved 2010-02-01. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought"
[source: Wikipedia]

"In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
[sourc


"George Smith: "Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god."
source


"Similarly, professed atheists may have the epistemological right to define atheism, in the technical sense, as the “absence of theistic belief,” even if most laymen (i.e., theists) disagree with that definition."
source​

 

[Storm]

Yes it is, and one of the usages is not theistic or without theism. That you want it to conform to only one meaning is a bit narrow minded, and puzzling, but then many things people say on RF are puzzling.

I'm not denying the existence of weak atheism. I just think that if you water the word down so much that it includes rocks, you might as well not use it at all.

 

[Luminous]

I'm glad we all agree.

 

[839311]

What if it was scientifically proven that god exists. Would that make science theistic?

 

[Skwim]

I'm not denying the existence of weak atheism. I just think that if you water the word down so much that it includes rocks, you might as well not use it at all.

As you must surely be aware, many, many, many words have varying meanings, some quite distinct and others quite subtle. All that's necessary is that the listener understand which meaning a speaker is using. No biggie. We do it all the time.

 

[Storm]

As you must surely be aware, many, many, many words have varying meanings, some quite distinct and others quite subtle. All that's necessary is that the listener understand which meaning a speaker is using. No biggie. We do it all the time.

Duh. Do you have a point?

 

[Skwim]

Duh. Do you have a point?

Sure. You're being an alarmist. Give it up before you hurt yourself.

 

[Storm]

Sure. You're being an alarmist. Give it up before you hurt yourself.

Do you even know what that word means?

 

[Luminous]

What if it was scientifically proven that god exists. Would that make science theistic?

That would be impossible...since there is nothing in the notion to be proven true. a "god" by definition is supernatural, and supernatural is a self defeting oxymoron. If it is proven that "gods" exist, than they are not gods (natural) and it was never truely proven that gods exist. Its save to say it will remain true to agnosticism forever. there would be no sciece without agnosticism[the agnostic spirit].

 

[Skwim]

Do you even know what that word means?

"Alarmist"? Certainly. But I assume you're looking for me to prove it, so to indulge you in your game here I'm going to oblige. But just this once dear Storm.

Alarmist

Noun
alarmist (Plural alarmists)
1.One who causes others to become alarmed without cause.

[source: Wiktionary]


Alarmist
Noun
•S: (n) alarmism (needless warnings)

[source: WorldNet Search - 3.0]


Alarmist
Main Entry: alarm·ism
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlär-ˌmi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1867
: the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger

[source: Merriam-Webster]


Alarmist (n.)
1.a person who alarms others needlessly

[source:sensagent]


Alarmist
Definition(s)n) a person who alarms others needlessly

[source: Beedictionary]


ALARMIST (noun)
The noun ALARMIST has 1 sense:

1. a person who alarms others needlessly

[source: AudioEnglish.net]


definition of Alarmist
causing unnecessary fear or worry

[source: Macmillan Dictionary]

​

Get the idea? Of course "alarmist" is a bit overstated, but it was meant to be to mock your overstated concern that acknowledging another definition of "atheism" might "water the word down so much that it includes rocks."

 

[Storm]

Get the idea?

OK, so you know what the word means, and now you have no excuse for misusing it.

Of course "alarmist" is a bit overstated,

"A bit overstated?" It simply doesn't apply.

but it was meant to be to mock your overstated concern that acknowledging another definition of "atheism" might "water the word down so much that it includes rocks."

That's not "overstated concern," it's simple fact if that's the definition you want to cling to. Rocks don't believe in God, after all. By your own insistence, that makes them atheists.

Congratulations, your theological position doesn't even require a brain.

 

[Luminous]

rocks are agnostic, and so are animals...and babies.

 

[Skwim]

"A bit overstated?" It simply doesn't apply.

Don't you wish. But it does dear Storm, and in spades.

That's not "overstated concern," it's simple fact if that's the definition you want to cling to. Rocks don't believe in God, after all. By your own insistence, that makes them atheists.

Oh it's a fact, is it. As for the rest of your remark: :thud:

Congratulations, your theological position doesn't even require a brain.

Owe! cut to the quick by another searing ad hominem retort. :biglaugh: Your powder must be pretty wet to resort to such a sad ploy. What's next, a "So's your old man"?

 

[Storm]

cut to the quick by another searing ad hominem retort.

OK, you obviously don't know what that means, either.