Jump to content


Photo

Bias


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
71 replies to this topic

#61 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:50 PM

Talk Origins covers this at http://www.talkorigi...c/CD/CD015.html

The short version is, the zircon samples were taken in an area that has a lot of outside helium contamination. Apparently the zircon/helium dating method has not been tested at other areas. You have a highly unproven dating method.


I think your Talk Origins page is a bit dated. It doesn't even address the full description and publication of the results where Humphreys' answers many of those arguments in RATE Vol II: Results 2005. A more recent summary and documentation by Humphreys of his reponses can be found here (http://creation.com/...onfound-critics).

#62 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:32 PM

I think your Talk Origins page is a bit dated. It doesn't even address the full description and publication of the results where Humphreys' answers many of those arguments in RATE Vol II: Results 2005. A more recent summary and documentation by Humphreys of his reponses can be found here (http://creation.com/...onfound-critics).


Well, jason777 didn't give me any links, so I went to TO for info. The TO page has 2 links back to creationist sources:

http://www.icr.org/p...ICC_7-22-03.pdf (now broken)
http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

I seem to recall somewhere that RATE had conceded that the heat produced by accelerated decay was a problem. I will get back to your link later and hopefully will post another follow up message.

But isn't this the wrong topic for this material?

Moose

#63 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2012 - 06:35 PM

Management didn't seem to take that sort of atitude towards a "Ringo" sentence...



Source = http://evolutionfair...895

...which got him suspended (see following message). He didn't even try to tar creationists by lumping them with "Hitler, Marx, and Stalin".


Actually Stalin was an atheist... So was Marx.... and Hitler tried to "purify" the human race via selective breeding.... I'm not making any conclusions, but its interesting that the names you believe can tar an image are not associated with Creationism, but rather atheism / evolution, (hence their use against Creationism is totally unjustified).

#64 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2012 - 06:43 PM

Whatever makes you happy. I'll leave it to the judgment of others.

I've come to not totally like the conservapedia's (which I figured you'd like better than wikipedia) descriptions of weak and strong athesim. The basic definitions are OK, but I think weak atheism is independent of agnosticism (I know I lack belief) while my strong atheism is subject to agnosticism (I believe in the lack of God, but I recognise that I may be wrong).

But I'm not anti-theistic about much of religion. Just the ones I find to be in conflict with what I see as worldly reality.

Bottom line - I believe many varieties of creationism to be wrong because they conflict with worldly evidence.

I have nothing further to say about atheism.


Jut thought I should reply to this.

Firstly if you bothered to follow the link I gave you would see that I used an online dictonary NOT conservapedia, just by mentioning it you are attempting the logical fallacy "poisoning the well", additionally its slander since I never used that site.

Here is the link again so you can check, (perhaps check before you post, since making up stuff tends to ruin a person's creditability).

a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism



In fact I don't use conservapedia, I normally use wikipedia for the basic info for my science degree since normally the basics are never covered in journal articles. Hence again you're assumption is totally wrong and unjustified.

#65 drwho

drwho

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • canada

Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:39 PM

Absolutely incorrect... If you used the actual terms in the dictionary rather than those of your own creation you would see where you err....

Or will you debate about the dictionary and how its wrong?




a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism



The prefix of the a means "anti" therefore if theism is the belief that there IS a God then atheism is the belief that there is NO God. You've basically equivocated agnostic to mean "non" then "non" to "a"

Agnostics realize and accept the possibility of a God, they cut BOTH ways, sitting on the fence giving the same amount of creditability to either side. That definitely is not "non-theism" nor is it remotely atheism.


Having studied Greek- and Latin-derived English terminology, I have to disagree here with you on this.
The etymology of these words is as such:

Prefix:
"a-" (or "an-" when used before a vowel) is a Greek-derived prefix meaning "not" or "without."
examples: atypical, amoral, anesthetic

Suffixes:
"-ist" is a Greek-derived suffix meaning "one who."
examples: biologist, chemist, physicist

"-ic" ("-tic" following a vowel, and "-ac" following an i) is a Greek suffix meaning "pertaining to"
examples: gastric, static, cardiac

base words:
theos = "god" Greek
gno(s) = "to know" Greek

Thus, "atheist" and "agnostic" can be broken down as follows:
a/the/ist and a/gnos/tic
So the term "atheist" quite literally translates into "not theist."
The term "agnostic" translates into "one who does not know." As you can see, it makes no reference to god, meaning that one can be agnostic with respect to a number of things; not necessarily exclusively with respect to god. This means that the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.


"anti-" itself is a prefix. It means "against" or "opposite." So if it were used in combination with "-theist," it would be "antitheist" (or "anti-theist").

Lastly, as you point out, one of the definitions for atheist is:
"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
dis·be·lief/ˌdisbəˈlēf/
Noun:
  • Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
  • Lack of faith in something.
Thus, this etymology of the term "atheism" is consistent with the definition you provided, which is "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" (or in other words "inability or refusal to believe/lack of faith in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

It's a common misunderstanding however, among those who don't refer to themselves as atheists. So much so that it is addressed in the FAQs page of nearly every online atheist forum.

Cheers.

#66 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2012 - 04:23 AM

Having studied Greek- and Latin-derived English terminology, I have to disagree here with you on this.
The etymology of these words is as such:

Prefix:
"a-" (or "an-" when used before a vowel) is a Greek-derived prefix meaning "not" or "without."
examples: atypical, amoral, anesthetic

Suffixes:
"-ist" is a Greek-derived suffix meaning "one who."
examples: biologist, chemist, physicist

"-ic" ("-tic" following a vowel, and "-ac" following an i) is a Greek suffix meaning "pertaining to"
examples: gastric, static, cardiac

base words:
theos = "god" Greek
gno(s) = "to know" Greek

Thus, "atheist" and "agnostic" can be broken down as follows:
a/the/ist and a/gnos/tic
So the term "atheist" quite literally translates into "not theist."
The term "agnostic" translates into "one who does not know." As you can see, it makes no reference to god, meaning that one can be agnostic with respect to a number of things; not necessarily exclusively with respect to god. This means that the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.


"anti-" itself is a prefix. It means "against" or "opposite." So if it were used in combination with "-theist," it would be "antitheist" (or "anti-theist").

Lastly, as you point out, one of the definitions for atheist is:
"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
dis·be·lief/ˌdisbəˈlēf/
Noun:

  • Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
  • Lack of faith in something.
Thus, this etymology of the term "atheism" is consistent with the definition you provided, which is "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" (or in other words "inability or refusal to believe/lack of faith in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

It's a common misunderstanding however, among those who don't refer to themselves as atheists. So much so that it is addressed in the FAQs page of nearly every online atheist forum.

Cheers.



As per your claim agnosticism = not / no knowledge, hence an agnostic atheist would have no knowledge of their own atheism, thus have no basis for their own beliefs which is quite silly.

Therefore you can use the two together... but to do so would lead to an absurd claim


a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism

If you disagree with the dictionary definition provided I suggest you argue with them.

Me, I'd prefer to go with what the published professionals say, (who I think would have less of an agenda on the definitions of these words).

#67 drwho

drwho

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • canada

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:37 AM

As per your claim agnosticism = not / no knowledge, hence an agnostic atheist would have no knowledge of their own atheism, thus have no basis for their own beliefs which is quite silly.

Therefore you can use the two together... but to do so would lead to an absurd claim


a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism

If you disagree with the dictionary definition provided I suggest you argue with them.

Me, I'd prefer to go with what the published professionals say, (who I think would have less of an agenda on the definitions of these words).


I don't disagree with the dictionary definition. You must have not bothered to have read what I wrote. But definition #2, according to the definition you provided, is consistent with what I've said. I explained this already. Go back to my previous post.

#68 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:19 AM

I don't disagree with the dictionary definition. You must have not bothered to have read what I wrote. But definition #2, according to the definition you provided, is consistent with what I've said. I explained this already. Go back to my previous post.


No probs, I did read that, except I also read that you thought that agnostic and atheism can be used together... perhaps in the way some atheists attempt to use it, which then defies the dictionary definition :)

#69 drwho

drwho

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • canada

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:02 AM

No probs, I did read that, except I also read that you thought that agnostic and atheism can be used together... perhaps in the way some atheists attempt to use it, which then defies the dictionary definition Posted Image


Okay, I understand what you're objecting to now.
But if you consider the implications of what I said about the definition of atheism (as provided by you) you should realize that the definitions of atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic atheist is NOT someone who has no knowledge of their atheism. They are not agnostic with respect to their own atheism, which it seems is what you are trying to say. I agree, that is silly.
They are agnostic with respect to the issue that atheism is concerned with, namely the existence of a god. An agnostic atheist is an atheist (someone who is not a theist) who is also under the impression that one cannot be certain about the existence of god.

To understand why, consider this:
Belief in something or lack of belief something is not the same thing as claiming to be certain of that thing.
If you are an agnostic (with respect to god), then you are not under the belief that there is a god. You may or may not also not be under the belief that there is no god. This is irrelevant, because in either case, you lack belief in a god.

Therefore, by the very definition that you provide, that would also make you an atheist.

Conversely, if you lack belief in god (atheist) but say that you know this with certainty, then you would not be an agnostic atheist. You would be a gnostic atheist.
(gno(s) + tic = one who knows)

Obviously, in both these situations, one would be an atheist, since they do not claim to believe in god (lack of belief). However, there is a distinction to be made between these two conditions, and that distinction relates to whether or not one claims certainty about the existence of god (not certainty about whether or not they believe in god).

In the same vein, there are also two categories of theism. One can be an agnostic theist (believe there is a god, but not claim to know for sure whether or not there is a god) or a gnostic theist (believe that there is a god and also claim that the existence of god is something that they are certain of).

I hope that clarifies what people are trying to convey by using these terms.

#70 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:35 PM

Conversely, if you lack belief in god (atheist) but say that you know this with certainty, then you would not be an agnostic atheist. You would be a gnostic atheist.
(gno(s) + tic = one who knows)

Obviously, in both these situations, one would be an atheist, since they do not claim to believe in god (lack of belief). However, there is a distinction to be made between these two conditions, and that distinction relates to whether or not one claims certainty about the existence of god (not certainty about whether or not they believe in god).

In the same vein, there are also two categories of theism. One can be an agnostic theist (believe there is a god, but not claim to know for sure whether or not there is a god) or a gnostic theist (believe that there is a god and also claim that the existence of god is something that they are certain of).

I hope that clarifies what people are trying to convey by using these terms.


I suppose people are now reassigning the word a different meaning, going back to the basic etymology "one who knows", but for decades the word gnostic has described a specific religious group.

#71 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:34 AM

Okay, I understand what you're objecting to now. But if you consider the implications of what I said about the definition of atheism (as provided by you) you should realize that the definitions of atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic atheist is NOT someone who has no knowledge of their atheism. They are not agnostic with respect to their own atheism, which it seems is what you are trying to say. I agree, that is silly. They are agnostic with respect to the issue that atheism is concerned with, namely the existence of a god. An agnostic atheist is an atheist (someone who is not a theist) who is also under the impression that one cannot be certain about the existence of god. To understand why, consider this: Belief in something or lack of belief something is not the same thing as claiming to be certain of that thing. If you are an agnostic (with respect to god), then you are not under the belief that there is a god. You may or may not also not be under the belief that there is no god. This is irrelevant, because in either case, you lack belief in a god. Therefore, by the very definition that you provide, that would also make you an atheist. Conversely, if you lack belief in god (atheist) but say that you know this with certainty, then you would not be an agnostic atheist. ....

Actually an agnostic atheist would be an agnostic that tends to argue against the existence of god. With the ideal type of an atheist denying the existence of god assertively, while the one of an agnostic would just insist that it isn't knowable.

There is of course a fundamental problem with both those position. And that is that one can indeed know that god exists, by more then one way. Some of those are philosophical proofs for the existence of God. These are proofs similar to proofs for various other metaphysical concepts, interestingly including the scientific method, mathematics, epistemology and the like. The problem with those proofs is they can be very complex consisting and difficult to explain. That makes it easy to throw some "doubt card" and "just so" arguments in between. However the same problem arises with almost all other systems that rely on long lines of logic and arguments.
  • JayShel likes this

#72 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:57 PM

Okay, I understand what you're objecting to now.
But if you consider the implications of what I said about the definition of atheism (as provided by you) you should realize that the definitions of atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic atheist is NOT someone who has no knowledge of their atheism. They are not agnostic with respect to their own atheism, which it seems is what you are trying to say. I agree, that is silly.
They are agnostic with respect to the issue that atheism is concerned with, namely the existence of a god. An agnostic atheist is an atheist (someone who is not a theist) who is also under the impression that one cannot be certain about the existence of god.

To understand why, consider this:
Belief in something or lack of belief something is not the same thing as claiming to be certain of that thing.
If you are an agnostic (with respect to god), then you are not under the belief that there is a god. You may or may not also not be under the belief that there is no god. This is irrelevant, because in either case, you lack belief in a god.

Therefore, by the very definition that you provide, that would also make you an atheist.

Conversely, if you lack belief in god (atheist) but say that you know this with certainty, then you would not be an agnostic atheist. You would be a gnostic atheist.
(gno(s) + tic = one who knows)

Obviously, in both these situations, one would be an atheist, since they do not claim to believe in god (lack of belief). However, there is a distinction to be made between these two conditions, and that distinction relates to whether or not one claims certainty about the existence of god (not certainty about whether or not they believe in god).

In the same vein, there are also two categories of theism. One can be an agnostic theist (believe there is a god, but not claim to know for sure whether or not there is a god) or a gnostic theist (believe that there is a god and also claim that the existence of god is something that they are certain of).

I hope that clarifies what people are trying to convey by using these terms.


If that is the case then can all the agnostic atheists admit that there is the possibility of God and that they can be wrong.

It just seems to me that declaring oneself an agnostic atheist is a cheap way to make him / her void of burden of proof. Since that is how I have seen it used before..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users