Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[Perhaps]

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.

Are you in the fucking bushes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking "pantheist" was not your religion yesterday.

You're doing the if/then thing again. You quote some article I can't snag for freebies, and because I'm a cheap bastard, I end up a place called Zygon - where I smell agenda.

See this right here? Our ability to objectively state that we have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is virtually 0 Right now, that means me and you, yes? My ability to state that I have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is probability 1. Now you're down to 50%. Wanna try again?

You're correct, I hadn't put this as my religion yesterday. I've stumbled across a site which made me aware of the aspects of pantheism and I thought they suited my thoughts quite well, thus I changed my 'religion' stance. I am a pantheist in the sense of awe and wonder that the universe provides to us - mere creatures. I appreciate beauty and I use the word God as a synonym for the worldly beauty that I see. I'm not a fundamentalist, nor do I abide by any religious doctrines or any religious textbooks. If you want to know more about pantheism I would reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

And what is wrong with doing the 'if/then thing'? Is that not a form of reasoning? If I say that on the blue carpet there is a dog and you reply by saying that on the green carpet there is no dog therefore on the blue carpet there is no dog, I can simply reply that you must use my original premise and observe the blue carpet to be able to objectively say that there is or is no dog there. As for the article, I'm sorry it's not free, but there's not much I can do about that. I'm sure if you search for cognitive science of religion or philosophy of science on google you can come up with some basic information related to the topic in question.

You're ability to state that you have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is not probability 1 for the reasons that I posted in my comment prior. Absolute knowledge is not possible to possess, your ability to reasonably state that you assume God does not exist may have a probability of 1, but that's all you have - an assumption based on the best reason you can come up with.

---

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.

God is a word, which may have many different definitions. I'm sorry that you view my comments (which I take time to think about before I post regardless of what you may think) as being a 'troll'. And I assure you that I am not undercover about any of my beliefs or opinions.