Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism

Which is more reasonable, Atheism or Theism?

Atheism is more reasonable as it is only holding to the proven naturalism confirmed by science. Whereas, theism puts forth faith, magical thinking and stories about the history of the world, who’s beliefs either don’t match or are debunked by the proven naturalism confirmed by science. To value faith as a means to know reality or the truth or something, is a mental weakness of wanting one’s beliefs about reality to matter more than the actual reality. Faith in relation of truth is at best just wishful emotions over rational understanding.

The Empty God Box

In scientific terms a “LACK OF EVIDENCE” is/can be proof of non-existence. As with all things as new evidence is discovered views can change. I can prove something does not exist by its lack of existence, the box is empty? Is a box empty? I can prove god is not in the box, but some say I can never prove the box is empty. But is it right to say the god Box is never empty even if we remove its needed contents. It’s an exercise in rhetoric with what we do know to say the god Box is not empty of all evidence and reason thus all it can be is empty of validity. And still today people say empty god boxes are possibly not empty? The god Box is, was, and will always “LACK OF EVIDENCE” thus empty proving the god concepts non-existence. Think I am wrong then you go and keep looking or trying to empty that already empty box labeled god devoid of all facts or reason.

The superstitious mind is a mind bent on the engagement of folly in thinking, avoiding clear sight only seeing through the lens of delusion and misrepresentation. Such a mind is bent on wishful thinking over truth and finding this desired quality of nonsense everywhere, they look only to what they feel offers some confirmation. However, why they see magic everywhere is because they only see what they want to see. It’s an inverted way of seeking, where one only confirms what excites them and fits to what they enjoy believing. Therefore, the superstitious mind is out looking for confirmation of its fears or its need for mystical wonderment. Thus, such a mind is arbitrarily making magic out of the yet unknown and creatively as well as unwarrantedly making superstitious the natural wonderment of the known, in order to allow it to wrongly be seen as containing magic.

Theists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?

An agnostic is a person that does not know that they are an Atheist and if they don’t like that then choose which one you are because you either are one or the other. Saying you don’t know which one you believe is avoiding the question as one either accepts or rejects. If you don’t care about the question, then you are an Apatheist but even then one has rejected a choice of believing thus is an Atheist.

Agnosticism is a Non-Standard Epistemological Belief About Knowledge & Certainty

“Here are several responses, I mixing into one set of text, though it was different people responding.”

*Damien, how can you say God(s) is not even possible?

My response, well for a thing to be assessed as possible it needs a starting point in reality, the man-made God concepts not only don’t have such tangibility they can’t even justify what a god actually could be other that state regurgitating wishful thinking stories that involve empty unwarranted claims of supernatural beings with supernaturalism caricaturists devoid of any supporting demonstrable or testable evidence. So saying that you know or hold open to possibility is to be posturing from ignorance as you not only don’t know anything about nonnatural things (no one rightly can) you likewise do nor justifiability can say what if anything could be beyond the natural world as that is all we have. Thus saying one believes that some God, any God is real or possible is wrong until evidence of supernatural anything is proven. Stating a possibility is to state a knowledge claim of the posable, meaning if justifiable it must connect to that which would support such a claim. So how can anyone truly say a god (unknown and evidenceless assumed thing only expressed by imagination) could be possible?

*Damien, I hear you reject agnosticism thinking, but an agnostic is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Nothing more, nothing less.

My response, to not know is not to believe, thus is Atheism.

*Damien, I’m sorry Damien, but you are wrong here. I know plenty of Christians who are also Agnostic. That is, they don’t have knowledge of god, but they still believe. In fact, one could argue that if knowledge exists, then there is no need for faith. However, I agree that there is a common usage of the term Agnostic that is more like, “I’m not sure if I believe in god or not.”. That’s not really a correct usage, but it is fairly common. Many of those who use it this way are probably really Atheists, but are afraid of using that word. BTW, I am an Atheist and an Agnostic. The two terms are not incompatible.

My response, Agnostic Christians = believe in God, thus is theism. Weak/soft theism to be specific.

*Damien, yes, theist, but also agnostic.

My response, saying one does not know is a lack of belief thus Atheist if one states that they don’t know but believe they are a theist.

*Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.

My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.

*Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.

My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.

*Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.

My response, well on that point, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god.

*Damien, but knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Well, I don’t want to argue about it. Matt Dillahunty has spoken on this many times and I would suggest you check out his discussion on this.

My response, I am an Ignostic as the concept of God(s) is a nothing statement lacking justifiable reason or evidence thus meaningless to state one does not know if it’s possible as to state such is to give the claim more substance that is deserves. Matt Dillahunty only asserts belief not knowledge. If I remember correctly, he told me there is not knowledge only levels of belief. I don’t agree with that. As for what famous Atheists think Aron Ra States something like an agnostic is someone who does not know they are an Atheist and Peter Boghossian states something like there is no need for using Agnostic.

*Damien, so are you suggesting we remove the word Gnossis from the English language? When people like Aron Ra state that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know they are atheist, I believe he is using the term agnostic in the common usage, not the correct usage. A (without) Gnostic (knowlege). I.e., if you tell me you have a dog, I would probably believe you. I have not reason not to, even though I have no ‘knowledge’ of your statement. I would be agnostic re: your statement of a dog, but I would still believe it. Belief does NOT require knowledge, but it certainly is boosted by knowledge and facts.

My response, agnostics are playing a game making up things about epistemology that are not the case. Knowledge is an epistemic property of belief just like certainty. Yes, the folk philosophy used in support of agnostic arguments is one of the problems. Second sure get rid of the religious term Gnostic as it is not a required word in epistemology neither is agnostic for that matter. As an Ignostic Atheist I say the term God is no more real than the term fod. Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. In epistemology there are various kinds of certainty. I am psychologically certain there is no supernatural anything because of epistemic certainty about the natural only world devoid of magic anything Thus I fully reject the made up evidence devoid concept of gods. There is no warrant to do otherwise . And I hold all beliefs to the standard that it must relate to or corresponds with the reality of the world. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

*Damien, It’s okay to remain open to any idea or philosophy.. I think it’s worse to pick one idea and decide to stick to it for all of your existence. There’s no reason why anyone must “choose a side. ”

My response, we all should an honest thinker therefore be open to credible information even if it means we need to amend or change our beliefs. Not choosing a side is in fact choosing Atheism as to lack belief is the default of Atheism only active belief is Theism.

*Damien, your just wrong. I was agnostic for many years, saying I was fairly sure there were no Gods but not 100%. I am now, but there are plenty who could legitimately call themselves agnostic.

My response, the lacking 100% to me is still saying one doubts the claims of God’s thus does not believe them thus is an Atheist. To me the 100% knowledge claim is unwarranted as we can say we are not 100% about many things in science and that doesn’t diminish the justification for believing them or similar there are things science doesn’t 100% know they are false and yet we have justification for not believing them. Think also in courts of law there is almost never anything close to 100% certainty and that doesn’t mean we are forever lost as in the can be a state of beyond a reasonable doubt. Which to me also shows there is a state of thinking where the doubt can be unreasonable or at least not warranted.

*Damien, agnostic means you don’t give a shit if there is a god or not. You don’t know, don’t care.

My response, that is an Apatheist and apatheism, also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism.

Damien, making up a word doesn’t change what an agnostic truly is.

My response, I didn’t make up the word Apatheist. apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Which is still known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism. http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Apatheist.htm https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=wcp22&id=wcp22_2008_0045_0087_0093

Still Questioning If There is Disproof of Gods?

In the link there are offered empirical disproofs of god, such as: COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS, & NONBELIEF DISPROOFS

http://disproofatheism.org/4.html

*Damien, I’m agnostic. No shame.

My response, I didn’t say it held shame I said it is a state of not actively believing thus is Atheism or weak/soft Atheism to be specific. Here is some philosophy info on Agnosticism:

Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, seems introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Huxley’s agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill’s methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics. As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallised out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

*Damien, I just don’t pretend to know for sure, because I don’t. My husband is a strong atheist.

My response, what does for sure mean to a nothing term God lacking any proof of anything. If we said I don’t pretend to state knowledge of the pretend would that be reasonable? Think about using your standard for god, would it be reasonable in a court of law? It there a specific thinking that states if no corroborating evidence is available we must say I don’t pretend to know for sure? Or do we say without evidence you have no case? I am Ignostic as they lack any evidence thus they have no case, there has been nothing offered of substance to justify belief. It’s like saying I don’t pretend to know if my child’s imaginary friend is actually imaginary. To me belief needs supporting reason and evidence and doubt needs supporting reason and evidence. Such as if I tell you I have the Nile River in my pocket no reasonable person would or should reserve doubt, instead it would be rejected out of hand. Similarly, the god claim involves super amounts of supernatural but nothing ever tested holds anything supernatural so such claims should be rejected out of hand. This is holding to the epistemology standard of the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.

*Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.

My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.

*Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.

My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.

*Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.

My response, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god. moreover, saying no one can say for a fact whether or not there’s a god, seems to show you still are accepting the nothing, evidence devoid term god.

Hitchens’ razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam’s razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Hitchens’ razor is actually a translation of a Latin law code precept and also proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”, which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, and Ernest Renan. However, Hitchens’s English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known to the English-speaking audience. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics. This quotation appears by itself in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

 

Damien, I still don’t know. And that’s ok.

My response, true, and no one even truly knows anything real about the term god either. 😀

Damien, you seem like a very confident atheist, what makes you so sure that an eternal physical brute fact exists and caused the universe to exist?

My response, even if one does not know what caused the universe, what do you think such a gap in knowledge can actually do in relation to a somethingism god could be added to the gap there is nothing that limits a god of such vague theism to any gods ever offered as creator? But there is no reason to arbitrarily add myths to the lack of knowledge, as in from the unknown origins of the universe we can tell no facts at all which would include lacking any information to support a myth of gods or religions. Because not knowing something is not a set of evidence for something, well any more than the thing in question is unknown.

Ps.

I am giving you a good video to explain your origins of the universe question called: Science, Religion, and the Big Bang

I am giving you a good video to explain the how and why creationists are misinformed called: Why I am no longer a Creationist

*Damien, I love a lot of theists who are also good people. I really don’t think about it so much.

My response, I love a lot of people that think a lot of stuff I find ridiculous as long as they are good people.

 

You may want your planet to be cubical. Just about every other force in the universe wants it round. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3011/what-would-it-be-like-walking-around-on-a-cube-shaped-planet

To me Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking to learn more on this check out the link:  http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/01/12/agnosticism-beliefs-involve-folk-logic-thinking/

For more on “My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking” check out the link: http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/12/my-anti-agnostic-atheism-thinking/

For more on “Questions and Challenges to My Atheism” check out the link:  http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/15/questions-and-challenges-to-my-atheism/

Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean? http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/12/23/yes-we-all-have-beliefs-but-what-does-that-mean/