Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[dtango]

Yet he is the last word in comparative mythology, textbooks are based upon his work.

.
Well, Campbell’s followers believed in him and they now pay the price of their naiveté.
Egyptologists have no problem with texts other that those belonging to the funerary group. Even texts dealing with mythology have been translated with no problem and their translations are quite comprehensible. Yet, along came a text that does not belong to the funerary ones but carries the mentality of the oral tradition which is the true author of the funerary texts.

As you know, around 60 to 70 official translations of that text can be counted to date but the story the text relates remains incomprehensible.

The text is dealing with a dispute between a man who is on his way to his personal judgment and his supervisor. The man wants to try for the best possible result, which is to be recognized as equal to the gods. The supervisor does not agree because he thinks that the man does not qualify for the status of god and is risking his life.
The supervisor’s reputation would be endangered if the man fails and thus he threatens to leave the man alone (in which case the man would have been condemned beforehand without a witness of defense) but he eventually concedes and stays with the man.

The translators and Egyptologist in general believe that the man is some sort of lunatic who is having a dispute with his own soul.

“Oh, what is it today?”, the man says, “my soul refuses to answer back to me”!!

I regret to have to say that what we have here is a case of utmost conformism on the part of Campbell’s pupils.

[Whateverist]

I regret to have to say that what we have here is a case of utmost conformism on the part of Campbell’s pupils.

Pupil? Hardly. I merely give him credit for a good insight supported by reams of case studies. He is one among many whose insights give us all a leg up in making sense of the world and our selves.

You seem to be the one making claims of exclusivity regarding the ancient Egyptians. Such claims set off warning bells for the rest of us since it is precisely what level one theists do too. You 7's and 1's should really duke it out for the Exclusive-source-of-all-knowledge Championship between yourselves. No one else has entered that event.

[dtango]

.
He is one among many whose insights give us all a leg up in making sense of the world and our selves.

He is one among many who managed to deceive us by concealing our true identity.
The gods judged and exterminated people in exactly the same way as the Nazis did it.
When humanity learned at first about the Nazi atrocities it was reluctant to believe in them. If the example of the crimes of the gods had given a lesson as to what men were capable of doing, they would have not hesitated in believing.
Moreover, when the civilized Australians commenced their plan to extinguish the Aboriginal tribes, the rest of the “civilized” world would have had the sensors to detect one more relapse of the mental sickness of "judgment and extermination".

Campbell, to me, was a philosophizing child.

[houseofcantor]

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

Thank you for these. Do you happen to know if they are available online? If not I can probably find them in the psychology or philosophy department libraries at our local university.

I guess highlighting and right-clicking of the mouse is too much like work for documents you like.

What I don't like is being worked.

So they invent Prince of Lies, become Prince of Lies, deny Prince of Lies; and we are the work of the Prince of Lies?

This is what "religious tolerance" has given us? Lies?

Well, I guess I just need to be more tolerant.
More compassionate
More understanding
After all, I'm just a zero.

Which makes me your god.

[J.D.]

I am what you consider a gnostic or strong atheist, in that I know god/s do not exist. Because the existence of any kind of deity can be tested scientifically (god hypothesis) and that hypothesis would be rejected. I came to this position after reading Victor Stenger (In particular his book God The Failed Hypothesis). A book which in my opinion is much superior than The God Delusion.

I dont knock those who are agnostic atheists, however I just go a little step further that is all.

Exactly. Many atheists are frightened to claim to "know" there is no god, even though it's absolutely obvious there is no god. They'd rather err on the side of caution so they have the upper hand in debate, and some maybe genuinely can't be sure and won't commit to sureity based on scientific principle, which is understandable.

However, the way I look at it, is if theists can know god exists then atheists can take the contrary position and know no god, and at least the atheist has a valid reason to claim to know there is no god - NO EVIDENCE = NO GOD!

That is how I feel. I dismiss completely the idea of Gods existing. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that all of the world's religions are myths and bad ones at that.

There is no god, but I do think there is a Santa or at least I am open to the idea.


.

[The Grand Nudger]

DTango, it seems to an outsider that you teeter on the very edge of ridiculousness entirely too often. Our "true identity"? Well respected scholars deceiving us? Take a breath. You're more likely to be completely wrong than partially right, if that helps.

[houseofcantor]

...for here is your testimony:

Regarding absolute truth (knowledge). The only field of study which can possibly provide an absolute truth is mathematics.

If by knowledge we mean something like: objectively correct beliefs which we hold for conclusive reasons, then mathematics is probably the only place we really have any.

...and here is my proof. Iam4 = YHWH = i0

i the zero... and say good bye, blue sky... good bye.

---

That is how I feel. I dismiss completely the idea of Gods existing. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that all of the world's religions are myths and bad ones at that.

There is no god, but I do think there is a Santa or at least I am open to the idea.

Know tao te ching? Know first line of tao te ching? Then you know the truth. About everything.

---

DTango, it seems to an outsider that you teeter on the very edge of ridiculousness entirely too often. Our "true identity"? Well respected scholars deceiving us? Take a breath. You're more likely to be completely wrong than partially right, if that helps.

Yeah, "true" identity - that's a giveaway. All identity is dual-state. The identity John Cantor in these words, the identity John Cantor who types these words.

Therefore, tao. All movement implies a space in which to move. Such is the way of tao. Not of creation; but rather, what is, and what will be.

What is, writes; what will be, considers what is written.

tao says one must hide the light of one's procedure.

Christianity not only invented the printing press to print their Bible - a mix of evil, idolatry, and violation of tao worthy of epic melodrama - they put Genesis before Job.

Brilliant. Idiocy.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

God is probably a poor choice of word for the sentiment you're trying to express. "God" comes with a hefty amount of baggage. A strange choice considering the amount of words available to you in the attempt to express such wonder or beauty. What's wrong with "wonder" and "beauty"?

[Perhaps]

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

Thank you for these. Do you happen to know if they are available online? If not I can probably find them in the psychology or philosophy department libraries at our local university.

As a college student I have access to them through the university library's website, so I'm not sure if they are available elsewhere for free online, but I'm sure you'll be able to find them if you check out your local university library like you said.