Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[Norfolk And Chance]

I found it very intriguing to read through these comments and opinions. Many are well supported and clearly stated.

There are two primary things I want to say in regards to some comments posted on this thread. One is in relation to this quote: "The absence of all evidence for the necessity of X existing is evidence against the necessary existence of X." and the other is in regards to absolute truth (knowledge).

I'll begin with the quote given by mayor of simpleton. That is a commonly held belief as it pertains to almost all fictional characters in relation to their existence in reality. In the sense of knowing - being able to apply reason to a situation or event and predicting an outcome based upon prior knowledge - the quote stands firm. However, in the sense of knowing - absolutely positive of the outcome (without prediction or assumption) - it falters. We may use reason as a valid approach to worldly topics - it is what has let our species progress so far - but reason has its limits. Pascal came to this conclusion long ago when analyzing rationality.

Regarding absolute truth (knowledge). The only field of study which can possibly provide an absolute truth is mathematics. The proofs we learn in school are non-negotiable and non-refutable. Also, mathematically, to refute a proof all that is needed is one sufficient counter example (much the same as in law or some cases of formal debate). When we assess events or situations we gain knowledge - whether through inductive or deductive measures - which adds to our prior knowledge. As it is not possible, by ontological definition, to have all knowledge it then becomes impossible to posses absolute knowledge. Coming back to absolute truth; however, we can see that some things can be proved to be absolute truths - meaning that they will never be wrong and will always work - but even those are dependent on our knowledge. As our knowledge grows our ability to refute prior proofs by providing counter examples grows. Effectively the situation becomes a never ending period of growth where knowledge approaches infinity and the possibility to have absolute knowledge approaches 0.

How does this apply to the previous conversations and discussions?

As was stated earlier, if God is as claimed by his followers - not of this world - then we cannot subject him/her/it to our science and our reason, thus negating the original quote provided (as it relies on reason). Our ability to objectively state that we have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is virtually 0 and, as explained above, approaches 0 as our overall knowledge increases over time.

In conclusion, I think that the term agnostic is quite suiting to a logical atheist as it 'covers the bases' of absolute truth (knowledge) and applications of reason to fields outside of the physical realm in which we live. But hey, that's just my opinion, I'd love to read more of everyone else's.

[edit:] For those who are interested in psychological and sociological reasons for why religion and theism are so profound in human nature, you might enjoy reading up on cognitive science of religion - there are quite a few strong, well written scholarly essays published within the past 3 years that have a lot of interesting material. I would recommend the following for starters: Peterson, Gregory R. "Are Evolutionary/Cognitive Theories of Religion Relevant for Philosophy of Religion?" Journal of Religion and Science 45.3 (2010): 545-57. Academic Search Premier. Web. October 3, 2011

Wow, one more step nearer your final declaration that actually, you think god might be real after all.

I smell theist troll, undercover.

---

I've always regarded myself as a 7, at least for the past 3 or 4 years. The idea of a God is just so absurd that I have severe concerns about anyone who gives it any real thought and still sincerely believes. I know it can be hard to shed long held beliefs, but the concept is just so stupid.

I'm also a 7.