What some of you people are getting confused with is the fact that Athiesm and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One (athiesm) being a religious belief and the other (agnosticism) being a philisophical belief about god. If you deny all religions on the basis of them having no proof you are an athiest (because you have no god). Yet if you feel that perhaps there is a power that is unknown, or unknowable, or untestable, etc… you are also an agnostic. (and still an athiest too)
Stucobbe thank you for understanding exactly my point. If you (Feynman) deny theism on the basis of you saying it is unknown therefore not an accurate description of life, you are both an athiest (without a diety/god, though not staunchly denying one every existing) and agnostic. (because you “dont know”/it’s unkwown/unknowable)
Only some forms of Agnosticism say it;s unknowable. His claim that the stories are made up fits agnosticism too, since if they weren’t “made up” the truth would be known. He’s just knocking all of us down to agnosticism here.
Actually, this is incorrect, the most common stance of agnostic is to neither deny nor believe in god.
However, atheism itself is defined by lack of belief in any particular God. By definition, anyone who generally consider themselves agnostic rather than theistic or atheistic is already atheistic, just not staunchly so.
Also, even the most staunch Atheists are Agnostics on at least some level, because they come to their stance through rational thought, and rational thought says ‘we don’t know’ but can make an educated guess of probability.
excuse me I mean a = without, gnostic = knowledge. More specifically “is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.”
Feynman on the other hand feels not that they are unknowable, but that they were made up.
“I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up about the universe at large… they seem to be too simple, too local, too provincial, he came to the earth, one of the aspects of god came to the earth mind you, it isn’t in porportion” kinda sums it up there my friend.
BTW the definition of agnostic, broken up into it’s latin definition ag = without, nostic = knowledge. In fact an athiest could also be an agnostic. One that has no knowledge of a god therefore doesnt think it exists.
To the argument on wether or not he is an Athiest, are you reatarded?
Clearly an athiest. By definition, a thiest is someone who has belief in at least one diety. Seeing that athiest is the complete opposite of a thiest (if this baffles you, you need to understand latin, or english for that matter), the answer is clear.
He said himself: “I can live with doubt, uncertainty or not knowing; I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answer which might be wrong.”
Listen to what he is saying . He is not an atheist you can spin it however your small mind likes he is saying that no human can understand creation or a creator . Which he is correct .
One of the worlds greatest minds admitting that God is beyond his understanding . God is beyond all Human understanding . This is why religeon fails in every way possible . They try and simply a concept that is vastly beyond even the greatest geniuses grasp. However you christian and muslims on believing your simlple gods are the true god …the rest of the people with higher then retard IQ will feel sorry for you
@Dcwiz2
“some scientists say that black people are stupid “?? What is your point?
Some scientists say that god exists.
“Always learning, but never coming to the truth”
That’s because real scientists love the truth and will not take truth lightly, unlike theists who claim all the time that the truth can be found in their one and only holy book.
CropDuster33 that is a terrible analogy. Science (or enlightenment) is like climbing a tree, the higher you climb – the more you see (and what a breath-taking view), religion is like digging a hole, the more you dig – the less light there is to see with.
This proposition may incite some (very much justified) skepticism, but I feel that Mr. Feynman was an embodiment of Nietzsche’s ideal. He recognized the (potentially) inherent meaninglessness of life, but was not disheartened by it. Instead, he put his heart and soul into all of his endeavors, whether they were scientific or artistic. Above all, he simply loved life.
Atheist* Theist*
‘the uncomfortable unkowing where life leads
(what it means)
is joy compared to the monotony of knowing’
‘the uncomfortable unkowing where life leads
(what it means)
is joy compared to the monotony of knowing’
a quote from one of my published poems, this is point he is making
If he was not an athiest, it would make him a thiest. Understand latin people, seriously.
What some of you people are getting confused with is the fact that Athiesm and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One (athiesm) being a religious belief and the other (agnosticism) being a philisophical belief about god. If you deny all religions on the basis of them having no proof you are an athiest (because you have no god). Yet if you feel that perhaps there is a power that is unknown, or unknowable, or untestable, etc… you are also an agnostic. (and still an athiest too)
Stucobbe thank you for understanding exactly my point. If you (Feynman) deny theism on the basis of you saying it is unknown therefore not an accurate description of life, you are both an athiest (without a diety/god, though not staunchly denying one every existing) and agnostic. (because you “dont know”/it’s unkwown/unknowable)
Only some forms of Agnosticism say it;s unknowable. His claim that the stories are made up fits agnosticism too, since if they weren’t “made up” the truth would be known. He’s just knocking all of us down to agnosticism here.
Actually, this is incorrect, the most common stance of agnostic is to neither deny nor believe in god.
However, atheism itself is defined by lack of belief in any particular God. By definition, anyone who generally consider themselves agnostic rather than theistic or atheistic is already atheistic, just not staunchly so.
To be Agnostic, one must be Atheist first.
Also, even the most staunch Atheists are Agnostics on at least some level, because they come to their stance through rational thought, and rational thought says ‘we don’t know’ but can make an educated guess of probability.
excuse me I mean a = without, gnostic = knowledge. More specifically “is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.”
Feynman on the other hand feels not that they are unknowable, but that they were made up.
“I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up about the universe at large… they seem to be too simple, too local, too provincial, he came to the earth, one of the aspects of god came to the earth mind you, it isn’t in porportion” kinda sums it up there my friend.
BTW the definition of agnostic, broken up into it’s latin definition ag = without, nostic = knowledge. In fact an athiest could also be an agnostic. One that has no knowledge of a god therefore doesnt think it exists.
Agnostic is “I don’t know and my mind is open.” Aetheist is: There is nothing out there. Period. He’s Agnostic, not simply aetheist.
To the argument on wether or not he is an Athiest, are you reatarded?
Clearly an athiest. By definition, a thiest is someone who has belief in at least one diety. Seeing that athiest is the complete opposite of a thiest (if this baffles you, you need to understand latin, or english for that matter), the answer is clear.
He said himself: “I can live with doubt, uncertainty or not knowing; I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answer which might be wrong.”
“I told him I was as strong an atheist as he was likely to find” Richard Feynman
source: Perfectly reasonable deviations from the beaten track: the letters of Richard P. Feynman, Michelle Feynman 2005
Listen to what he is saying . He is not an atheist you can spin it however your small mind likes he is saying that no human can understand creation or a creator . Which he is correct .
*was
he is an atheist.
One of the worlds greatest minds admitting that God is beyond his understanding . God is beyond all Human understanding . This is why religeon fails in every way possible . They try and simply a concept that is vastly beyond even the greatest geniuses grasp. However you christian and muslims on believing your simlple gods are the true god …the rest of the people with higher then retard IQ will feel sorry for you
So nice to hear a genius with a Brooklyn accent..
@Dcwiz2
“some scientists say that black people are stupid “?? What is your point?
Some scientists say that god exists.
“Always learning, but never coming to the truth”
That’s because real scientists love the truth and will not take truth lightly, unlike theists who claim all the time that the truth can be found in their one and only holy book.
CropDuster33 that is a terrible analogy. Science (or enlightenment) is like climbing a tree, the higher you climb – the more you see (and what a breath-taking view), religion is like digging a hole, the more you dig – the less light there is to see with.
This proposition may incite some (very much justified) skepticism, but I feel that Mr. Feynman was an embodiment of Nietzsche’s ideal. He recognized the (potentially) inherent meaninglessness of life, but was not disheartened by it. Instead, he put his heart and soul into all of his endeavors, whether they were scientific or artistic. Above all, he simply loved life.
AHHH.. Mr.Feynmen, wish you could have made it to Tuva!! Then you could have told us about your adventure there..
Life is like a movie that just came to the theaters, and the bible are those people that like to ruin the ending for you.
this man is really honest about his views, i admire that