Agnostic Atheism is the only logical position.

Hello,

Roughly a year ago I decided that I should adopt some sort philosophical position. I would sometimes be asked what I believed in and well, I could never really give a good answer.

I started researching online, and I begun by reading up on the various Judeo-Christian beliefs. I had been a harsh critic of Christianity in the past and I was almost already certain that these religions would not bring me any further enlightenment. I was correct, in fact the more I studied these religions, the more frustrated I became with its followers. This generally applies to all religions in the world.

For one, I watched hours and hours of lectures given by individuals such as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. If you’ve watched videos (there’s plenty online, search Video Google) from these “scholars for Christ” you’d understand why I’m such a sceptic against religion. Has anyone noticed how the Divine Banana is also perfectly shaped and formed for vaginal/anal stimulation?

I had heard the term atheist before as well and I knew “they” did not believe in any specific religion; however I was uncertain what an atheist really was. So I begun by looking up the definition of Athiest on an online dictionary:

n. One who denies the existence of God or gods

This has since changed to include the phrase “disbelieves or denies”. I find the word “disbelieve” rather absurd as the default position is not to believe in the first place. Yes, it goes without saying that I am a non-believer in regards to Zeus, Thor, Oden, Shiva and any other ancient God. It seems redundant to state this.

However, I had a big problem with the definition of atheist as I read it a little over a year ago. One who denies the existence of God or gods. One who denies the existence of God or Gods? This gave me a very negative impression of the term atheist. My strife was this: How do you prove that a God or gods do not exist? You can’t. You cannot disprove a negative. So if you cannot disprove this concept, why entirely deny the possibility? It sounds futile to deny the possibility of something that cannot be disproved. This sounds to me like faith.

My default position is to keep an open mind and not deny the possibility of anything unless this has been scientifically disproved.

Now after reading this definition of atheism I visited a prominent Atheist discussion forum. My first post went solely towards arguing with these atheists over the above point. I found that there are many different types of atheist. Although some disagreed, I discovered that most did not agree with the above definition of Atheism either. I then discovered another term, previously unknown to me; Agnostic.

–noun
1. 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.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Many atheists however firmly stated that being agnostic were a weak position to hold. That it was too lenient on the theists. Some atheists are very devoted to denying all possibilities of any sort of super natural god/presence. However, never generalize atheists, the group as a whole is far more diverse than any religious group.

Continued...

...continued.

For instance, this summer I met a Satanist. He even showed me his certificate membership of the Church of Satan. Of course one of my first questions was: “Do you actually believe in Satan?” He replied “no, I am an atheist”. As I spoke with this Satanist, he clearly demonstrated that he were very educated when it came to the various world religions. He went on to say that the Church of Satan’s default position was atheism and that the image they were using for their organization was mainly a tool to rebel against the Christian religion. Of course, again, you could not generalize Satanists; there were those whom believed that Lucifer was the true “good” god and that the God of the Bible was an impostor. I almost wanted to join the Church of Satan; however I ultimately decided that this served no real purpose.

Back on topic, I put two and two together and fused the terms Agnostic and Athiesm. Of course I discovered people had already done this a long time ago. This position became the only logical position for me. I will probably always remain agnostic, because these concepts of God cannot be proven or disproved and I will remain an atheist until a religion can scientifically prove their legitimacy to me.

To take things one step further I postulate the following:

The concept of God cannot be proven or disproved; therefore the concept of God is meaningless and utterly irrelevant to the reality in which we live.

Of course, some choose fantasy over reality.

Best wishes,
VladTheImapler

I'm definately an Agnostic. It is the only intellectually honest position one can have on the issue.

The only thing we can truely know is that we don't know. To rule out any possiblility at this point is stupid and short sighted, as is absolute belief based on no evidence whatsoever.

Well technically there are no atheists as it is impossible to state 100% that a deity of some sort exists or existed or might exist. Another problem is the definition of the deity, of what this deity is capable of, of its intentions etc.
However I do consider myself to be an atheist as I do not believe that any of the deities that are said to exist actually exist (existed or even exist in the future). This concept of a god is so alien and illogical to me that I deny the existence of these gods. That doesnt rule out the possibility that some form of deity (definition depending) actually existing just the ones that people believe in now.


G

Aye, agnostic-atheism is the most tenable philosophical position, for me at least.

I usually identify as atheist as most theists don't get the idea of agnostic-atheism and I also identify with atheists. I guess it's easier to lump everyone who doesn't believe into the evil anti-christ camp.

Agnostic = claim that something cannot be known (god cannot as we have no workable testable definition). As you state, it's pretty unimportant in my life. But I cannot know that gods do not exist and I find it logically untenable to claim 'knowing' status for all versions of god.

It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts.
--- Thomas Huxley, Letter to Charles Kingsley ---

Atheist = I have no belief in god(s). Which is the weak atheist position, rather than no gods exist, which is the hard atheist position.

Therefore I am an agnostic-atheist. Dawkins would claim that I am therefore an atheist, and yes, I am. That's what the 'atheist' part means. I am probably a harder atheist for many claims of god we have, I take a stronger position (hard atheist) on gods that were involved in falsified claims (such as Genesis).

Hence, I am almost certain that gods do not exist, however, I do not know so. Again, some believe this is a rather strange position, but I understand there are limits on knowledge and I find this pigeon-hole where I like to be. So I probably fall somewhere between weak and hard atheism, depends on the claim made

You can also be an agnostic-theist, this claims that god is also unknowable but they still hold a theistic position.

melatonin, your post virtually emphasise my own position. I am completely in agreement with your rationale.

In relation to for instance Christianity I am a hard atheist for sure. Now that I think of it I hold this position for most man-made religions I have heard of per today.

Agnostic-theism is actually the only form of theism I can find an ounce of respect for. It is a far more honest theistic position.

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
In relation to for instance Christianity I am a hard atheist for sure. Now that I think of it I hold this position for most man-made religions I have heard of per today.

The problem with christianity is when you get this rather clever (or not so clever really) theological position where they place their god beyond analysis, claiming metaphor for most of the testable claims (usually in quantum realms, like Ken Miller and Francis Collins). The fundamentalist literalist position is easy to analyse and falsify, a bit like the claim that Zeus lives on top on Mount Olympus in a crystal mansion

Apparently there are still people worshipping Zeus, he probably resides in some some pan-dimensional quantum realm now...

By Paris Ayiomamitis, Associated Press Writer | January 21, 2007

ATHENS, Greece --A clutch of modern pagans honored Zeus at a 1,800-year-old temple in the heart of Athens on Sunday -- the first known ceremony of its kind held there since the ancient Greek religion was outlawed by the Roman empire in the late 4th century.

Of course it's the only logical position.

Logic:

1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration

m/w

Religious belief has nothing to do with logic. It has everything to do with faith. Faith isn't logical.

That doesn't however mean that the Agnostic or Atheistic position is any better, more valid or superior to religious belief or faith.

I'm curious about the point of the original poster. Agnostic is logic. Well... yeah. It's scientific. It's about belief WITH proof. Demonstration. Religious belief isn't meant to be about these principles.

Can you expand on the conclusions you draw with your realizations? Or are you just making an observation?

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Well preachers and evangelists speak on things as if they know it to be 100% fact. People in general determine facts from opinions and fiction through use of logic. That is my idea on that BH.

In fact, some people are taught that if they don't believe the religion, for 100% fact, that they are somehow doing God a disservice. That is where you get people saying, "I'm not saying this because it is what I believe, I'm saying it because it is what I know for fact." That implies objective fact, not subjective fact. If it was subjective, they would put it another way.

EDIT: But I guess that's the people, not the religion..

This info is really cool. I like both Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism. I lean towards Agnostic Theism, because so many myths are similar, and I don't think they all could have originated at the same place. But maybe they did.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Novise]

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
The only thing we can truely know is that we don't know. To rule out any possiblility at this point is stupid and short sighted, as is absolute belief based on no evidence whatsoever.

so, that's an attack on hard atheism

soft atheism rules out the existence of god because of lack of evidence, until evidence surfaces that said being can be proven

as dawkins put it "i'm almost there is no god"

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so, that's an attack on hard atheism

soft atheism rules out the existence of god because of lack of evidence, until evidence surfaces that said being can be proven

I'd say it was an attack on absolutism and the illusion (or delusion) of certainty. I don't rule out anything, although there is much that I consider to be highly unlikely.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That doesn't however mean that the Agnostic or Atheistic position is any better, more valid or superior to religious belief or faith.

No?

I have a problem with this statement. You’re saying that a logical thought process is no better than an illogical one? What exactly is your definition of “better”?

When it comes to being more valid, I am not certain, depends what you put into that concept. However to me a logical philosophical position is both better and superior to other beliefs or faith. I don’t quite understand how you can rationally claim otherwise.

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
You’re saying that a logical thought process is no better than an illogical one?

Not really. I'm a logical thinker, so sure, logic seems the more appropriate choice to me. What I am saying is that a logical belief system isn't morally better or superior to one NOT based on logic (like religion). And the person who chooses logic over faith is not morally superior or more intelligent than one who chooses faith over logic.

However to me a logical philosophical position is both better and superior to other beliefs or faith.

That's kinda what I thought you were saying and I disagree.

I don’t quite understand how you can rationally claim otherwise.

I can claim otherwise because I happen to believe that each of us is on our own path and they're all equal. We may not fully understand another's path and we may have judgments about it, but the minute I fall into thinking that my belief system is better than someone else's, I have taken a huge step backwards on my own path to enlightenment.

If I look at my own path and say, "Mine's better. I think logically and that's the only reasonable position to take and other people are in dreamland and following a fantasy..." I have just proven that I'm not all that enlightened after all.

Maybe I'm not being successful at my communication here, but I think (believe) that if I look at other people's paths and judge them as lesser or going in the wrong direction or somehow inferior to mine, it just shows that I need comfirmation that my path is the 'right' one and that I'm doing ok. Kind of like -- I'm number one. All others are number two or lower...

I was just trying to say that we're all on the right path... by definition. The path I'm on is the right one for me. And the path you're on is the right one for you. There is no 'better' or 'worse' path.

I fully understand that you may not agree with me on this, but it's what I think with my oh, so logical mind.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Thanks for your reply Benevolent Heretic,

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
You’re saying that a logical thought process is no better than an illogical one?

Not really. I'm a logical thinker, so sure, logic seems the more appropriate choice to me. What I am saying is that a logical belief system isn't morally better or superior to one NOT based on logic (like religion). And the person who chooses logic over faith is not morally superior or more intelligent than one who chooses faith over logic.

Well I agree with you here but only because you are now using the concept of morality to weigh up against the term "better". I agree that my philosophy is in no way morally superior than anyone else's because morality is entirely subjective.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

However to me a logical philosophical position is both better and superior to other beliefs or faith.

That's kinda what I thought you were saying and I disagree.

I don’t quite understand how you can rationally claim otherwise.

I can claim otherwise because I happen to believe that each of us is on our own path and they're all equal. We may not fully understand another's path and we may have judgments about it, but the minute I fall into thinking that my belief system is better than someone else's, I have taken a huge step backwards on my own path to enlightenment.

What is your belief system in regards to these path's you are referring to? Care to elaborate?

Please define enlightenment.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I look at my own path and say, "Mine's better. I think logically and that's the only reasonable position to take and other people are in dreamland and following a fantasy..." I have just proven that I'm not all that enlightened after all.

I'm not following here, why exactly? You're just stating a simple fact, backed up with reason and logic.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe I'm not being successful at my communication here, but I think (believe) that if I look at other people's paths and judge them as lesser or going in the wrong direction or somehow inferior to mine, it just shows that I need comfirmation that my path is the 'right' one and that I'm doing ok. Kind of like -- I'm number one. All others are number two or lower...

I was just trying to say that we're all on the right path... by definition. The path I'm on is the right one for me. And the path you're on is the right one for you. There is no 'better' or 'worse' path.

I fully understand that you may not agree with me on this, but it's what I think with my oh, so logical mind.

I think that embracing reason and logic is a superior concept because it is something every single human can come to terms with by simple using their mind. The idea here from my perspective is to make the human civilization better. Through reason and logic I believe humanity can become unified.

If it is my belief that killing all other humans is my divine path, won’t you agree that this is not exactly a beneficial belief for humanity? It would be a rather destructive and hurtful belief. I would say that a destructive belief or a belief that carries other such negative aspects is inferior to a belief which does not include such concepts.

To me it’s very simple, reason and logic is superior to (selective) ignorance. I still can’t grasp how you can logically claim otherwise.


[edit on 24-1-2007 by VladTheImpaler]

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
What is your belief system in regards to these path's you are referring to? Care to elaborate?

Basically, I'm agnostic about most things in life. I do have a fairly strong spiritual component in my life, but it doesn't include anything about a god or any other historical figures or ideas from old books. It's more about who I am as a person and my interactions and relationships with other people, both physical and ethereal.

Please define enlightenment.

I can't. I'm not there yet. But I know it's there.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I look at my own path and say, "Mine's better. I think logically and that's the only reasonable position to take and other people are in dreamland and following a fantasy..." I have just proven that I'm not all that enlightened after all.

I'm not following here, why exactly? You're just stating a simple fact, backed up with reason and logic.

But it's not a fact. It's an opinion.

I think that embracing reason and logic is a superior concept because it is something every single human can come to terms with by simple using their mind.

I'm not at all sure that every single human can come to terms with it, as you say. Everyone's mind isn't like yours. You seem to be thinking for other people You seem to be applying your thoughts and logic to other people's minds, and we're all different.

We aren't as simple as that. I don't think it's true to say, "Everyone can understand that." Because people all have their own perception and CONTEXT of life, belief and thought. We don't all think along the same lines.

If it is my belief that killing all other humans is my divine path, won’t you agree that this is not exactly a beneficial belief for humanity? It would be a rather destructive and hurtful belief. I would say that a destructive belief or a belief that carries other such negative aspects is inferior to a belief which does not include such concepts.

I have no problem with you holding that belief. A belief is innocuous. When you start acting on your belief, you are hurting other people and that takes us from a belief to action. Action that harms other people.

A belief system is not the same as murdering someone.

My point is that believing in God or Jesus or the tooth fairy hurts no one and might very well be exactly what that person needs to fulfill his life.

To me it’s very simple, reason and logic is superior to (selective) ignorance. I still can’t grasp how you can logically claim otherwise.

Well, I've tried to explain, If you still don't understand what I'm saying, perhaps it would have been better had I just kept my mouth shut. Just know that I, as a strong agnostic leaning toward atheism, disagree with your premise that logical thought (and therefore "Agnostic Atheism") is a superior belief system to faith in a deity. Yes, it's more logical, more scientific, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's better.

You say Atheism is the only logical position. And I agree with that. Logic is more logical. But for some, a belief in things unseen and unproven is far superior.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Maybe I'm not being successful at my communication here, but I think (believe) that if I look at other people's paths and judge them as lesser or going in the wrong direction or somehow inferior to mine, it just shows that I need comfirmation that my path is the 'right' one and that I'm doing ok. Kind of like -- I'm number one. All others are number two or lower...

I was just trying to say that we're all on the right path... by definition. The path I'm on is the right one for me. And the path you're on is the right one for you. There is no 'better' or 'worse' path.

I fully understand that you may not agree with me on this, but it's what I think with my oh, so logical mind.

Nice post BH, to think it logical to follow one path and to think al others most be wrong is very short sighted. It just shows that the one thinking this has not had the right experiences.

I have seen enough in my life to know God/Tom or whatever anyone wants to call the divine. I am so humbled to know the small portion of our collective path we are on, that I have been given.

I used to think the same way as the OP until I noticed the workings of the source and how it has shaped my life and those around me. We are not all here to be awakened to the otherside.

Ok, first i think that it is the OPer's reponsibilty to define what he or she feels is the definition of 'logic' or what 'logic' implies.

Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος logos (the word), is the study of patterns found in reasoning. The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments. Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy, one part of the classical trivium, which consisted of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Since the mid-nineteenth century logic has also been commonly studied in mathematics. More recently logic has been applied to computer science. The parts that make up a computer chip are often called "logic gates".

As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic is therefore large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.

Bevolent heretic, im right there with ya, OF COURSE its the only logical view point :-)

Hi capistan, is that a moonstone in the middle of that pentacle? Nice avvy.

Edit to add: I see you are in GR. I am in the mid-Michigan area myself.



[edit on 25-1-2007 by LoneGunMan]