@G-Legs
I disagree. I see Agnosticism and Atheism as separate dimensions.
Gnostic Theist: I am sure there is a God
Agnostic Theist: I practice religion but I’m not sure there is a God
Gnostic Atheist: I am sure there is no God
Agnostic Atheist: I don’t practice any religion but I think there might possibly be a God
An atheist thinking there is some possible remote chance a divine being exists doesn’t mean he’s not an atheist, it means he accepts the limitations of his own knowledge base, which means he’s rational, which is the whole point of being an atheist, no? :)
Agnosticism is epistemological. Atheism is ontological.
^ Yet the foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism.
Yes, you have to have an ontological theory (about what is) in order to have an epistemological theory (about what can be/is known about what is). It keeps you busy.
Most atheists – when pressed – are really agnostics. I was surprised to hear even Richard Dawkins admit as much recently in a debate.
Yeah, real true atheism, by its own standard, would require proof that the gods don’t exist. Absent that, one’s just another fanatic.
Anyone mention Eisenstein? His work is atheist.
A case could be made for the work of Hitchcock after the mid 50s to be atheist, specially The Wrong Man, Vertigo,Psycho and Frenzy.
What’s atheist about VERTIGO, PSYCHO and FRENZY?
If there is a god in those films then he is a son of a bitch. In Marnie, too. Ever heard the story of Hitchcock finally meeting Bunuel in the 60s? That conversation they had (the parts that were published) seems to clarify some points.
The Frenzy crane shot says it all- THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT CARE.
That’s the catch-22 of atheism. Atheism is about applying the scientific method to your own personal beliefs. The scientific method says assume nothing in the absence of confirmable evidence.
And I can logically prove that it’s impossible to prove how the universe began.
In order to prove a scientific theory, you need to demonstrate that in the case of A, B happens. Therefore, B must happen as a result of A. Therefore, B must happen after A. Therefore, to prove any theory that A → B, there must exist an A.
If there is a single event that began the universe, nothing must have happened before it. So if the beginning of the universe is B, then A does not exist.
Therefore, it is impossible to prove any scientific theory about the creation of the universe.
Even given new theories, new tools, and new approaches that have not been invented yet, it might be possible to prove what happened one googleth of a second after the beginning of the universe, but it will never be possible to prove what caused the universe to begin. The best we can possibly have is a model that seems to fit really well.
Huh?
“If there is a god in those films then he is a son of a bitch”
Ever read the Old Testament, Francisco?
So when bad things happen in movies that’s signals that there’s no God???
^ God has abandoned cinema.
Yeah, I don’t think that just because bad things happen in a film it makes the film athest. By that definition, All films about Jesus’ crucifixion would be atheist films.
So Hitchcock was Jewish…
If he was, Norman’s mother would be nagging him to get married, not killing off his prospects.
“If there is a god in those films then he is a son of a bitch.”
Well, yeah, but I’m not seeing any specific atheistic content. There are far worse things going on in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST than in PSYCHO or VERTIGO, and no one to my knowledge has called it atheistic.
“Eat your chicken soup before you go out to kill people!”
DG, it makes perfect sense that you are Wittgenstein, because I am Foucault.
I think Ari and Matt Parks summed up what I was going to say, but I think you would differ on that view of atheism. You would say that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. It’s just that somehow a lack of belief is a belief.
It is not the things that happen, but how they are presented, how they happen. To me those films present a view
of the Universe that is very hopeless and helpless. Scotty in the bell tower, The Birds watching, The Frenzy crane shot…
In The Passion there is the idea of salvation or redemption or whatever chirstians call it. That is why they embraced the film.
Hitch could just be saying that the devil has the upper hand. Did he find God again in North by Northwest? (I actually don’t think he’s making any kind of statement on religion, one way or the other.)
“It is not the things that happen, but how they are presented, how they happen. To me those films present a view of the Universe that is very hopeless and helpless.”
OK, but I don’t see that hopeless and helpless necessarily means atheistic.
@Francisco
A logical argument that it is impossible to scientifically prove how the universe began, suggesting that it is logical to be agnostic.
Derriere Garde
“Is there no knowledge in belief?”
Sometimes. How’s that for black and white? Unless I’m mistaken, it seems you would want to wholly conflate knowledge with belief past the point of meaningful distinction.* Is it really symptomatic of inflexibility to ask for conceptual clarity? By the same token I can take your seeming hostility towards definition as dogmatic skepticism and drop some Wittgenstein quote on you, but what’s the use? If we’re not on the same page on fundamentals we won’t get very far together.
*I believe you are equivocating but I am not certain (+1 belief, 0 knowledge)