I am an ignostic atheist and reject the proposition that “agnostics/agnostic-atheists” like to claim that agnosticism is the only logical position.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

I see agnostic thinking often even by deep thinkers choosing to hold some foundations built on folk logic as STEVEN D. HALES calls it.

Steven D. Hales is the professor department of philosophy Bloomsburg University, here is an article on that: You Can Prove a Negative. It is a PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC that you can’t prove a negative. Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.” There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/

I get that my harsh critiques of the god concept to you may be foreign and you may feel that you don’t see it how I see it. But I put forward that the god concept is a well packaged container of emptiness masqueraded as the elixir of life. The god concept to me is a web of lies polished and glorified as the end all do all even though it is empty of all facts to warrant any holding as true. This bogus god concept has been sold so insidiously to the masses through gradual indoctrination of one generation after another that my truth exposing the fallaciousness of the god concept may to one from the indoctrinated seem so utterly preposterous that I as is orator seem like a raving lunatic when in actuality I am clearly professing the truth.

I see agnostic as a belief about the ability to have knowledge, it is in that way not following epistemology which is the philosophy of knowledge. Agnostic thinking is stating its own theological seminary of what it sees as abilities to grasp god knowledge. I address agnostic not because I think people cannot choose to believe in this way if they choose. The reason I so often address agnosticism is that I hear so many say it like they have no choice which is simply not true. Most of the beloved statements offered as reasoning to why there is no other choice but a agnostic conclusion hinge on folk logic and folk concepts of knowledge or misunderstood application of philosophy of science. This is true even of scientists who have disbelief as most of them disregard philosophy as well which is a large contributing factor for the confusion. The scientific method which all science largely uses requires an amount of pre-belief (a priori) in the not complete knowledge concept of realism philosophy or naturalism philosophy both of which are connected. My point is people don’t go around saying they are science agnostic. Both scientific realism and naturalism reject all supernatural claims and thus would not be agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural being called god. I hold agnostic thinking also as not a professional epistemology thus it is not usable to delineate a professional philosophical knowledge stance it is a personal belief forming a theory of knowledge. knowledge is largely a justified true belief in philosophy. epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’

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 crystallized 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 generalized philosophical skepticism 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. Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence. Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited (Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford’s view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler’s powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

“Isn’t ignosticism the idea that the word “god” has not been well enough defined to make a judgement regarding existence?” – Challenger

My response, “Well is may be for some not others as you started right for me god claims are contradictions and make believe that ae expressed but offer nothing. If you can’t define something then it’s not even a valid hypothesis and just unjustified claims that attach to nothing are unworthwhile.”

“But each god hypothesis is pretty well defined. There is little reason to bother describing non-god concepts or hypothetical god concepts.” – Challenger

My response, “A definition of a leprechaun does not mean it’s a valid hypothetic in reality only that humans gave an idea anthropomorphic characteristics not valid qualities for a real ontology. You can makeup all kinds of unreal non-defined in reality things there is only a limit on time to how many one could mentally conceive and not one of them is valid if not corresponding in and of reality. If I define for you what a square circle is like that would not add it to reality as it is a logical contradiction as reality has limits that we use to know that some things are impossible and only possible when the qualities match reality.”

“The definition is the only thing that allows you to say that. It is a well defined non thing. Perhaps gods are just well defined non things.” – Challenger

My response, “A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. Mover, a hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis. During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley. So, what is this nothing none evidence god somethingism?”

“God isn’t a scientific hypothesis. As are many things in our society.” – Challenger

My response, “god somethingism, like all proposed gods can’t pass the A Type II error so the null hypothesis is not rejected and thus god somethingism, like all proposed gods are false, god is nonsense.”

“That is simply atheism. I agree there, but that doesn’t mean there are particularly good definitions for various gods. Like story books use great definitions about dragons and pixies. It is well defined nonsense. We aren’t lacking definition.” – Challenger

My response, “Agnosticism, Ignosticism apatheism, secular humanism are all atheist, unless they have some belief. No belief is always atheism it’s a philosophical stance that occurs one need not actively choose it, but lack belief and atheism is occurring. I am an ignostic atheist. http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/11/17/i-am-an-ignostic-atheist/

My response, “Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge built on folk logic and nonstandard philosophy it is not a true branch of the philosophy of knowledge at all, in fact it is more connected to philosophical skepticism which is against asserting any firm knowledge claim. I hear people time and again asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that because they believe there is no such thing as asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that by default Every atheist is agnostic. Do you see the self-contradictory claim which would or I guess if one holds such a belief in the limits of knowledge, should refrain from making global affirming truth claims that one cannot make global affirming truth claims?”

My response, “What is Ignosticism, or igtheism position? If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about a god’s existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of god(s). As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of god. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that god(s) could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding a god’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of god(s) is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.

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”. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

My response, “Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using axiology:

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability. It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So, let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots but is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warrant and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns but is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

Now the axiological validity of god(s)

There is no evidence for gods but is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So, it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief.

“I take an ambivalent position to most things. Statistically unlikely things happen. Logic is simply a normative tool for discussing things. As bad as this sounds, proving logic is a difficult thing, because it would be illogical to disprove it. Even multiple views of the same phenomena doing the same thing can lead to incorrect views. Language is equally normative. If something doesn’t make sense, we can’t rule out that the language in use (or any language) is sufficient to explain everything. Using language as a basis for possibility strikes me much the same as an ontological argument. It seems like a word game which attempts to define things into or out of existence. To be honest, there isn’t really a means of enquiry I trust, it’s just a bunch of hypothetical models to varying degrees of likelyhood. We might be right about stuff, but we have little way of knowing it. The last bit is part of why I’m atheist. If there was a god worth believing in and who wanted us to, we’d likely have the capacity to know.” – Challenger

My response, “Faith is an invalid method to know the reality qualities of the world. Thus, every theory proposed from or with faith is equally invalid and since all gods and religions require faith at some point in the belief ownership process as or in place of evidence and/or valid reasoning about reality. Therefore, they are all automatically invalid due to the limitation of faith not being able to produce things into reality. To me, the origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation:

Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of valid reasoning, inference and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as “land measurement”. In particular, the ancient Egyptians had empirically discovered some truths of geometry, such as the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid. Another origin can be seen in Babylonia. Esagil-kin-apli’s medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science. So, we have real world origins such as sky observation in Babylonian astrology and land observation in Egyptian Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement”). The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia. In the classical world, both geometry and astronomy were considered to be part of the Quadrivium, a subset of the seven liberal arts considered essential for a free citizen to master. While the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry, the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods by demonstrative science. The systematic study of this seems to have begun with the school of Pythagoras in the late sixth century BC. The three basic principles of geometry are as follows: Certain propositions must be accepted as true without demonstration; such a proposition is known as an axiom of geometry. Every proposition that is not an axiom of geometry must be demonstrated as following from the axioms of geometry; such a demonstration is known as a proof or a “derivation” of the proposition. The proof must be formal; that is, the derivation of the proposition must be independent of the particular subject matter in question. Fragments of early proofs are preserved in the works of Plato and Aristotle.

Where do these laws of logic come from? If we want to get a causal explanation of the origin of logical laws (apart from positing them as fundamental to the universe), the proper way to understand their origin IS as derivative on rationality as developed by non-rational evolutionary means.

Thus, in a way we could say laws of logic didn’t come from anywhere; these just are the rules of rationality as they can be articulated by explicitly rational beings. When rational beings came into existence by purely non-rational evolutionary processes, they came into being as following these rules. And then, at some later point in time they became aware of themselves following these rules, and able to represent them explicitly.

When we see there as being implicitly logically-governed behavior in nature, we interpret nature in accordance with the way we understand ourselves as explicitly logical. We think of the behavior of entities of nature as if they represented their rational behavior like we do, it is our way of explicitly representing the norms of rationality. These non-rational entities of nature don’t have the slightest clue what the laws of logic are. But they behave as we do, and that’s how “we” see them. We can only make explanatory sense of how “we” have become explicitly aware of logical laws by showing how we are the result of beings that evolved an implicit awareness of these laws. And yet, we can only understand our natural ancestors as having implicit grasp of logic once we’ve garnered an explicit grasp of logic. That’s the only way we can make sense of them as actually following the laws of logic.

The reason it is unproblematic for an explanation to conceptually (but not causally) presuppose that laws of logic is that we cannot hope to get out of these laws conceptually, since they just are, the bounds of sense. When sense-makers like us naturally evolve this just is the way in which we must make sense of things. It’s is the essential structure of sense-making, so to speak. And since explanation is a sense-making enterprise, and any coherent explanation will conform to sense’s bounds—the things we’ve come to describe as the laws of logic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry https://absoluteirony.wordpress.com/2014/…/23/laws-of-logic/

“Doubt is far superior. Go back to Heb 1:11. And have a good look at it and see the implications. It is utterly absurd.” – Challenger

My response, “How do you not doubt “doubt itself” and thus are appealing to reason to decide this and not doubt, I mean not the presses of “doubt itself” as that is more a conclusion of the unworthy status for something or a realization of an uninformed/limited-informed if a thing in question is not so unsupported or unwarranted to debunk it at which pint doubt is then reassemble warranted to doubt is as a process to conclude you should decide to doubt or see doubt as advised and this conclusion of a need to doubt is a secondary response to the use of reason/rationalism.”

“You can’t doubt “doubt,” or what validity would the doubt you applied have?” – Challenger

“I reason and use critical thinking that is superior to just doubt and is not even listed in the description of critical thinking found at the critical thinking foundation:

My response, “A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

My response, “Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.”

“I’m a negativist. I prefer to assume we are probably wrong and look for other possibilities.” – Challenger

My response, “Doubt or disbelief requires justification just like all other beliefs.”

“I can easily justify doubt. The unreliable nature of all current methods of human enquiry (they’ve all made mistakes which have been later corrected, it is unlikely this just stopped happening). Add to that, when you are wrong, you normally don’t know you are wrong. Being doubtful of complete accuracy is prudent, and possibility highly pragmatic. For example, i dint debate evolution. Even if someone tries to bring it up, they normally aren’t arguing about biology, but something else, so there is no need to further muddy the waters with more evolution talk. I won’t commit to it. It is a neat model, pretty plausible, a decent amount of unanswered questions we are aware of (this is good, it is the questions we aren’t aware of that are the problem) but hey, nothing is perfect. I am an atheist independant of evolution. It took me a while to soften to after deconversion. I dont need to accept it or reject it as it has little affect on things i consider pragmatic. And where it might have influence, that influence will be there whether I am aware or not. This, so far as i would describe it is not believing evolution. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just not passionate about the sibject and really don’t care that much. This turns out to be very handy as I dont get stuck trying to explain biology to a fellow layman who doesnt want it to be real. I get to talk about the god ideas instead, which is really the aim.” – Challenger

My response, “Yes doubt can be justified by appealing to valid and reliable reason and/or observable/demonstrable evidence not doubt so that which is first is the best not the product of its use (doubt). So, which do you favor?” You are stating, “Doubt is far superior” is a truth claim and I would like to see you use doubt to justify that claim and you must stick with doubt to make the undoubted truth claim about doubt. To me stating doubt is super could only be reasoned by the elimination of doubt not the other way around so saying it as a universal is a contradiction. For once you believe it is superior you demonstrate it is not. Doubt, then, is the opposite of certainty see the problem, you must appeal to reason.”

“Havent slept and it is 7am. I afriad I will have to come back when my mind is working.” – Challenger

My response, “It’s cool I enjoyed talking take care and have a good night.”

“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger

My response, what is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about thus to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in anyway. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

Ignosticism or igtheism (desire a good, well defined and supported ontology), basically as a philosophic position (rationalism, if one is addressing a mental aspect or claim and empiricism, if one is addressing a real world aspect or claim) concludes the belief in (Ignosticism in this lack of belief/disbelief is atheism) or a possibility of (Ignosticism in this lack of “a possibility of” is using an Ethics of Belief, justificationism, reliabilism and anti-agnosticism) a supernatural being, ultimate (gods) or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

According to Peter Klein, “By a philosopher depending on a claim that a proposition is worthy of “assent” an expression of approval or agreement (where “assent” is the pro-attitude required for knowledge) only if there are no genuine grounds for doubting it. The characterization of genuine grounds for doubt could be put as follows:

Some proposition, d, is a genuine ground for doubt of p for S iff:

  1. d added to S‘s beliefs makes assent to p no longer adequately justified;
  2. S is not justified in denying d;
  3. S has no way to neutralize d.[9]

Note that, given this characterization of genuine grounds for doubt, S need not have any evidential support for d. It could be any proposition that S entertains. In addition, it could be false. Finally, it could be a ground for doubt for one person but not for another person (or the same person at another time), depending upon what each believes (at the time). For only one of them might have a belief that is adequate evidence for denying dor neutralizing d (at the time). That explains why, rational meditating, can have a genuine ground for doubting the testimony of one’s senses at an early point in the rational meditating and be able to neutralize and/or reject the ground at a later point in the rational meditating. That assumes, of course, that rational meditating can produce new adequately justified beliefs; but that seems reasonable enough for a philosopher to believe!” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/