A case for positive atheism

[theVOID]

"God is a myriad of quantum information that upon self-action caused inflation" for example...

God is an atomic bomb!

Nice

agnostic atheism is the only logical and intellectually honest position.

You yourself have a very warped idea about intellectual honesty tho' VOID. To you it's ok to ignore the truth of anything in favour of an over simplistic factual view of the world. With this one sided viewpoint you call other viewpoints 'dishonest'. Pot kettle black.

Are you actually willing to debate the subject, or are you just going to make noise like usual? I stand by my statement that Agnostic Atheism is the only rational position to hold, if you can actually demonstrate why my position is flawed then kindly do so.

Also, what is this "truth" I ignore fr0d0?

[fr0d0]

It's already been said many many times already VOID. You chose to ignore that and I have no reason to believe you wont in the future. If you'd like to explore it again, sure, I'm a sucker for punishment. You know very well what you deny. Or maybe you really are that much in denial. I've said it there, but then ostrich like you fail to see it. To be intellectually honest doesn't mean burying your head in the sand VOID, no matter how much you want it to.

[Gfailure]

Well, hang on! In all other subjects except religion, or at least the vast majority of them, the lack of a proof is enough to disprove something or at least render it invalid until a proof has been presented! I can make the claim "as long as no one looks at me, including myself, I am invisible"! There is no way to prove or disprove this, but we won't say that it may or may not be true because we can't prove or disprove it! Instead we say that Mr Gfailure is a moron who claims shit he cannot prove! And we would be right!

So, at least in my mind, Agnostic Atheism is not the only rational position to hold, mind you I am not saying its not a right one, but its a mild position, a sort of "I'm giving the theist the benefit of the doubt just to be polite" where in fact, since theists can provide no proof of their claims for the existence of a God, then by default there exists no God!

[fr0d0]

1. theists aren't claiming existence - atheists are claiming the opposite and trying to hang the accusation where it wasn't claimed. It's nothing more than a distraction.
2. agnostic atheism may be strictly rational - given 'rational' is then defined as strictly observable. To be comprehensively correct you can only say that agnosticism is actually rational. Atheism alone has no convincing argument, as theism doesn't.

[theVOID]

It's already been said many many times already VOID. You chose to ignore that and I have no reason to believe you wont in the future.

What are you talking about specifically? I have not 'chosen' to ignore anything, and simply asserting that I do is unsubstantial. If you can demonstrate a flaw that i have made then please do so, simply stating it as fact however achieves absolutely nothing.

If you'd like to explore it again, sure, I'm a sucker for punishment.

Explore what? I challenged you to contest my statement that "agnostic atheism is the only rational position". Are you actually going to get around to doing this any time soon?

You know very well what you deny. Or maybe you really are that much in denial.

You are being utterly ambiguous. If i have made a flaw in my reasoning or blatantly denied something obvious then you should have no problem giving examples. If you cannot give examples of this so called "denial" then i'm forced to conclude once again that you are full of shit.

Also, you speak as if i am the only one who has committed this "denial". Is that the case? If not please give examples.

I've said it there, but then ostrich like you fail to see it. To be intellectually honest doesn't mean burying your head in the sand VOID, no matter how much you want it to.

I'm not interested in you simply saying things fr0d0, i want to see some reasoning. You clearly believe that i am unjustified in my statements about agnostic atheism, so i would like you to demonstrate why it is an unjustified position.

1. theists aren't claiming existence - atheists are claiming the opposite and trying to hang the accusation where it wasn't claimed. It's nothing more than a distraction.

You conclude that God exists.

I am of the position that there is no logical way to reach that conclusion, nor the conclusion that he does not exist, and the only rational position is that of withholding judgement.

((This is the part where you try to demonstrate why my position is wrong))

2. agnostic atheism may be strictly rational - given 'rational' is then defined as strictly observable. To be comprehensively correct you can only say that agnosticism is actually rational. Atheism alone has no convincing argument, as theism doesn't.

1. Rational is not and never has been defined as "strictly observable".

2. One is an atheist if they do not hold belief in the existence of God(s). Because agnosticism concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached, an agnostic does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.

Agnostic Theism, as stated in your "religious views" is an oxymoron as it by it's very definition concludes the existence of a God (theism). Your individual case is even more innacurate as you have concluded that not only is there in fact a god, but that he has a son called Jesus. Can you please explain where the agnosticism is in that conclusion?

[chatpilot]

By tracing the history of religious beliefs throughout history as far back as we can go we see the same pattern over and over again. Religion is obviously an invention of man there is no real way to dispute this, most cultures have their own religious beliefs and their own individual deities. Religious beliefs are simply mans quest to find answers to his existence and purpose for that existence.

I too agree that there is no way you can either prove nor disprove the existence of God but by making such ridiculous arguments more ambiguous by adding all sorts of definitions and terms to try to describe god does nothing but confuse the issue even more. That is why I do not get pulled into senseless arguments for or against the existence of god or gods whatsoever, especially when it comes to using philosophy as a means to try to uncover the so called "mystery of gods". Philosophy is useless in the field of theology because you are trying to argue about the nature of God, his or its attributes which outside of revelation are all unknowns.

Because I cannot prove the non existence of God does not make my position illogical, it just makes it more likely. Outside of revelation be it from ancient texts all claiming to be inspired by said gods or clothed in mythology there is nor never has been any evidence for his existence. Therefore philosophical arguments for or against God or gods existence or non existence is nothing more than chasing your tail by playing stupid games of semantics. Belief in God is a matter of faith and nothing more, either you believe without objective evidence that he exists (theist) or you don't (atheist) or you don't but leave open the possibility that he does (agnostic) its that simple. Not to mention that any evidence is subject to the individuals interpretation of that evidence. Anything else is nothing more than philosophical drivel.

[Tiberius]

One is an atheist if they do not hold belief in the existence of God(s). Because agnosticism concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached, an agnostic does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.

Tut tut. I'd have thought the flaw in the above would have been obvious by the use of the contradiction "concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached"...but maybe not.

Agnosticism "concludes" that the existence of God is unknown, or at most, unknowable. In the agnostic's mind, there may be evidence that convinces them that God exists or does not exist, but such evidence is not strong enough to warrant a "proof". As such, agnostics may either believe or disbelieve.

Agnostic Theism, as stated in your "religious views" is an oxymoron as it by it's very definition concludes the existence of a God (theism). Your individual case is even more innacurate as you have concluded that not only is there in fact a god, but that he has a son called Jesus. Can you please explain where the agnosticism is in that conclusion?

Theism doesn't conclude the existence of God. Theism is the belief in the existence of God. It may be a personal conclusion in terms of what is more likely (to the person), but it is not a conclusion on the same level as a proof (knowledge). A theist who claims knowledge of God's existence is therefore a gnostic theist; a theist who does not claim knowledge of God's existence is an agnostic theist.

I don't see the problem with being an agnostic Christian; neither terms are contradictory. A Christian may believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that you must follow him in order to achieve salvation, but unless they specifically state that what they believe is proof, fact, knowledge, etc, then they are by definition, also an agnostic.

[Facejacker]

1. theists aren't claiming existence - atheists are claiming the opposite and trying to hang the accusation where it wasn't claimed. It's nothing more than a distraction.
2. agnostic atheism may be strictly rational - given 'rational' is then defined as strictly observable. To be comprehensively correct you can only say that agnosticism is actually rational. Atheism alone has no convincing argument, as theism doesn't.

You do have a good point fr0d0. My wife is a christian and she always emphasises that she makes no claims, that it's just her faith, and that as a result there's nothing to justify or prove. She's not making any positive claims at all, that is understood by the word itself, faith, and indeed faith with evidence is not faith.

[theVOID]

One is an atheist if they do not hold belief in the existence of God(s). Because agnosticism concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached, an agnostic does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.

Tut tut. I'd have thought the flaw in the above would have been obvious by the use of the contradiction "concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached"...but maybe not.

Agnosticism "concludes" that the existence of God is unknown, or at most, unknowable. In the agnostic's mind, there may be evidence that convinces them that God exists or does not exist, but such evidence is not strong enough to warrant a "proof". As such, agnostics may either believe or disbelieve.

I see what you are saying, but are they not coherent? One is a judgement about the limitations of the logical application of our total knowledge, the other is that a final logical conclusion regarding god's existence cannot be reached.

Do you not first have to conclude that we do not have the information required before you can say that conclusions to the contrary are invalid?

Also, how is it possible for one to conclude that the existence of god is "unknown or unknowable" (not just "unproven") and still believe that a God exists? If the individual believes that God exists then they claim to know is some way, such as claiming to have "emotional", "spiritual" or "intuitive" knowledge of god, which they deem sufficient in arriving at a conclusion.

Theism doesn't conclude the existence of God. Theism is the belief in the existence of God.

I disagree, if you have a positive belief in a proposition then you have concluded that it is real. You cannot hold positive belief in something that you do not think can be known.

The issue here is not what knowledge the theists really have, it's the knowledge they claim to have.

It may be a personal conclusion in terms of what is more likely (to the person), but it is not a conclusion on the same level as a proof (knowledge).

They do not meet our standard for 'proof' i agree, but they also believe thing like emotions and intuition are sufficient forms of knowledge for believing positively in a proposition. If you "do not know" then you "do not believe", thus you are an atheist.

Being illogical does not make one potentially agnostic.

A theist who claims knowledge of God's existence is therefore a gnostic theist; a theist who does not claim knowledge of God's existence is an agnostic theist.

I don't buy that for a second, you cannot believe in something that you claim cannot be known because to believe in something requires you feel there is sufficient reason for it, and reason is an application of knowledge. You seem to forget what an acceptable standard of knowledge is for theists...

There could be cases where someone says "i have a feeling that god exists" but does not consider their intuitions sufficient to hold positive belief, that is entirely different from being like fr0d0 and positively believing in God.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Semantics yet again.


I assert only "I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence. I call myself 'an agnostic atheist'. I really don't care if others disapprove of my position, or if they choose a different label..

I reject the notion that the existence of god can be proved or falsified by reason and logic alone. I demand evidence. To accept or reject a position without evidence is called 'faith'

To the theist who asserts 'I believe there Is a God", my response is " you have made a positive claim.That attracts the burden of proof. Show me your evidence for the existence of God or stop wasting my time and bugger off"

To the hard atheist who asserts " There is no god/I believe there is no god" My response is "You have made a positive claim;that attracts the burden of proof. Show me your evidence which falsifies the existence of god or stop wasting my time and bugger off" (no offence)

Back to semantics; although I assert only I do not believe, I live as if there is no god.