Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[houseofcantor]

Mine too. Only logical position one can take, given the nature of knowledge, our own fallibility, and the evidence at hand.

This philosophy has been certified Incorrect by Johnny Cantor - and I know everything.

No. I know one thing, but I built up from that one thing into what is knowable and what is not. Like quantum physics. There's some cookies in that jar that I'm agnostic about; but open up the jar of "god," and all that's in there is a bunch of human cookies that are all chip and no chocolate.

Thus it comes down to philosophy. Mine is simple - I love Gwyneth Paltrow. Never met the girl, we've been in the same state like twice... she could be CGI, and I could just be an idiot... OK, that last is probability one, but the fact remains that Gwyneth qualifies as "god" in the local universe. What's left to debate? Is your god greater than mine? Hell, no. That's probability zero.

[LastPoet]

What is a god anyway? Can anyone provide a strict definition of the thing?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Yes, below...

































































































.

[Whateverist]

That means that you do not think that the idea of the existence of god is completely idiotic because you have some evidence on the contrary.

That is the opposite of what I've just said. I don't have any evidence about gods whatsoever. For that reason, and given no personal experience to the contrary, I don't lose any sleep about my atheism. For me the decision about god goes in the same non-urgent basket as the questions regarding unicorns and gnomes. I seriously doubt that there will be any revelation to change my mind, but I'm not putting any more thought into making an air-tight objective argument against the existence of god.

Who would I make the argument to anyhow? Other atheists don't need it anymore than I do. Theists wouldn't be convinced by it anyway. Theists don't believe in god because of how that helps explain the objective world. They believe in god because it helps them make sense of their subjective world.

My agnosticism doesn't inform my epistemic position toward the god question. I've dismissed that question. My agnosticism informs my moral stance towards others. I recognize that my personal subjective perspective is no more objectively valid than that of anyone else. Atheism gives an accounting of the objective world that is more satisfactory and causes me no subjective dissatisfaction. It obviously is not subjectively more satisfactory for everyone. I can't think of any reason that these people should abandon their subjective perspective and adopt mine. I wouldn't respect anyone who tried to foist their personal beliefs on me so why should I be so eager to do the same to them? What I am really agnostic about is the exalted status of my personal subjective perspective: I have no reliable evidence that it is superior to anyone else's.

---

What is a god anyway? Can anyone provide a strict definition of the thing?

Nope. Nor can describe what it is to dream in another language, or to play music by ear or to dunk a basketball. But others say they do. There are even people who say they have "experienced god moving in their life". I don't have any reason to think any of them are lying. Perhaps they have just had different life experiences than me.

Now of course I don't believe that anyone has had a close encounter with a god for the simple reason that I don't think those exist. But if it is their reality, what can I really hope to say to them to change that. Perhaps we could push them into a van, deprive them of any contact with friends and family, and perform an intervention to get them out of such cults. Would that be a good thing to do? If so, is the principle generalizable so that if they start doing the same with atheists we would have to admire them for acting on their beliefs in such a stalwart manner? I don't thinks so.

---

Agnostic atheism doesn't mean you can't rule anything out.

I agree. There is no permit required for ruling out claims we come upon for which we find insufficient evidence. Absurd or unlikely claims can (and for me, should) be put into the same round file. I just don't see any advantage in labeling the round file "known falsehoods" when I know them to be "unsupported claims". I feel no sense of loss over this. I should feel a greater sense of loss if I misrepresented the truth just to display the kind of flashy certainty that theists are so fond of.

I shouldn't have to bring up my agnosticism, people don't grill me on whether I'm absolutely certain the tooth fairy doesn't exist, except in conversations over semantics like this one.

Here we might disagree, but not in regard to whether agnosticism needs to be brought up in order to answer the question "do you believe in god". There is no need to diminish your confidence in adopting atheism. But neither is there any reason to overstate your case. Otherwise, to what end? I wouldn't trade clarity for the illusion of certainty. When I finished with religion, I finished with mind numbing certainty. No more leaps of faith for me.

[dtango]

What is a god anyway? Can anyone provide a strict definition of the thing?

.
A few decades ago for quite a lot of people God was the old man in the picture below.



Today, for the theologians the god is a nebulous thing just outside of the universe.
Therefore, you have to state the epoch for which you want to have the strict definition.

God changes with time. The only aspect all forms of god have in common is anthropogenesis. No god is god if he is unable to produce humans!!

For me the decision about god goes in the same non-urgent basket as the questions regarding unicorns and gnomes.

.
That is not fair!
People all over the earth are not worshiping, for thousands of years now, unicorns and gnomes.

My agnosticism doesn't inform my epistemic position toward the god question. I've dismissed that question. My agnosticism informs my moral stance towards others. I recognize that my personal subjective perspective is no more objectively valid than that of anyone else. Atheism gives an accounting of the objective world that is more satisfactory and causes me no subjective dissatisfaction.

.
Ι envy the way you handle the language. I am self taught in English but I will try to do my best!
Well, what do I do is to attack the atheists’ and agnostics’ personal subjective by showing that it is as false as theists is.
Theists believe that god produced people and atheists that people produced gods. None, however, arrived at the corresponding conclusion by himself. They are repeating what they were told. That is why your agnosticism cannot inform your epistemic position on the subject.

How can you build a personal subjective perspective on the god issue when you have no information at all as to how the idea of the god was produced. If it was a renowned philosopher, a wise man, who informed humanity of the existence of God he would have explained how it happened and he detected the existence of God. But it was no philosopher, it was oral tradition, popular tradition, it was the layman, the common people who informed humanity about the existence of gods.

Millions of people all over the world cannot be wrong. Don’t you think? They knew without doubt, but you do not know! Atheists also don’t!

There is something wrong with atheism and agnosticism. What is it?

[Whateverist]

Well, what do I do is to attack the atheists’ and agnostics’ personal subjective by showing that it is as false as theists is.
Theists believe that god produced people and atheists that people produced gods. None, however, arrived at the corresponding conclusion by himself. They are repeating what they were told. That is why your agnosticism cannot inform your epistemic position on the subject.

What do you hope to win with your attack? Do you wish them to abandon their personal perspective altogether and just live in the objective world? I doubt that will work. We all interface with the objective world by way of our fields of consciousness and being self aware means one aspect of the objective world which we must take into account is us.

I doubt that the only way to arrive at a theist, atheist and/or agnostic conclusion is through transmission from others. Of course the usual way is to be brought up in a family which promotes a particular How is it you've arrived at your "level 7 atheism"? (BTW, what is that?)

Do you recognize that your own road to atheism is not any more or less free from bias than that of anyone else?

How can you build a personal subjective perspective on the god issue when you have no information at all as to how the idea of the god was produced.

I recognize that there are aspects of my own subjective experience which are open to the interpretation of an experience with god. I just don't think that is the best explanation. Of course I'm aware that many people do like explanation and have for thousands of years. But I see no reason to decide such a thing based on a popular vote.

If it was a renowned philosopher, a wise man, who informed humanity of the existence of God he would have explained how it happened and he detected the existence of God. But it was no philosopher, it was oral tradition, popular tradition, it was the layman, the common people who informed humanity about the existence of gods.

Millions of people all over the world cannot be wrong. Don’t you think? They knew without doubt, but you do not know! Atheists also don’t!

There is something wrong with atheism and agnosticism. What is it?

You seem to feel that being in the minority is an issue. I don't. It is better to go wrong in your own way than to go with someone else' opinion in the hopes of being right.

[dtango]

"level 7 atheism"? (BTW, what is that?)

.
It is the scale by which Richard Dawkings measures atheism.

Category 1: Strong theist “I know God exists 100%”
Category 2: God exists but probability shorter than 100%
Category 3: Probability higher than 50% but not very high.
Category 4: Probability exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic.
Category 5: Probability lower that 50% but not very low.
Category 6: Probability very low, but short of zero.
Category 7: Strong atheist “I know there is no God”

I never believed in God but I was fascinated by the ancient stories about gods and I spent thirty years reading myths, legends and archaic texts in order to decide whether they were the product of the imagination of men or not.
Well, they were not. They were real people who behaved inhumanly.
When eventually the other people made them go away, some very very naughty boy made a joke saying that they had climbed a ladder to the sky.

The gods turned into God but the joke is renewed from time to time because the God keeps climbing the ladder and at the moment has just reached the border of our universe.

The lower the category speaking the more I laugh! Where do you place yourself?

[Whateverist]

"level 7 atheism"? (BTW, what is that?)

.
It is the scale by which Richard Dawkings measures atheism.

Category 1: Strong theist “I know God exists 100%”
Category 2: God exists but probability shorter than 100%
Category 3: Probability higher than 50% but not very high.
Category 4: Probability exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic.
Category 5: Probability lower that 50% but not very low.
Category 6: Probability very low, but short of zero.
Category 7: Strong atheist “I know there is no God”

I never believed in God but I was fascinated by the ancient stories about gods and I spent thirty years reading myths, legends and archaic texts in order to decide whether they were the product of the imagination of men or not.
Well, they were not. They were real people who behaved inhumanly.
When eventually the other people made them go away, some very very naughty boy made a joke saying that they had climbed a ladder to the sky.

The gods turned into God but the joke is renewed from time to time because the God keeps climbing the ladder and the moment has just reached the border of our universe.

The lower the category speaking the more I laugh! Where do you place yourself?

Definitely a six. I can't think of anything I would do differently if I were a 7. I don't worry about a plan b and I have absolutely no believe in gods. That would be a zero. However that doesn't mean I have any evidence that god does not exist. Do you?

[Whateverist]

That is not strong atheism, that is just atheism. Agnostic atheists have the same outlook on this as gnostic atheists, but we do admit that there is no evidence for the non existence of gods either.

I do not perceive a difference between atheism and strong atheism, what do you believe it to be?

For me weak atheism is simply the admission that one has no belief in gods. Strong atheism would go further to argue that gods do not or can not exist. Gods are a slippery enough idea that to say anything at all about so fanciful a being borders on absurdity.

[houseofcantor]

The lower the category speaking the more I laugh! Where do you place yourself?

8 baby. Not only do I know there is no god, I'm working on an hypothesis to falsify theology across the board.

Here's the picture of god: