Agreed. Atheists know there is no god because the concept was created by humans and all scientific evidence shows there is none. Some people get hung up on the word “know” because they want to lean heavily on appearing to be an objective scientist. The issue is that scientists don’t avoid saying they “know” things except in an academicically cautious sense. They act on their knowledge of many things. It’s really more of a semantic argument that religious people employ to insert god into the gaps. Theists say, “scientist don’t KNOW anything, they just have theories.” While completely ignoring all the things scientists empirically demonstrate that they know. Then they turn around and claim all atheists are just agnostics and they will eventually come around during the rapture. Better to just tell people flattly, “there is no god, people made it up.”
This is scientific objective agnosticism. I’m glad you have this stance compared to being a theist, but would rather you take the next step and simply acknowledge that there is no god. I understand the “Proving a Negative” philosophical debacle, but would rather you lean on reality based pragmatism.
You know Harry Potter is not real. He was created by a person, written in a book, and spread around the world.
The same follows for god (abrahamic God) and all other dieties, ethereal beings, etc.
You aren’t agnostic about Harry Potter, because he might exist somewhere out there in the universe. Do the same with gods.
There is also much much more evidence of their not being any type of entity in existence. There is no god in the gaps. The only people putting it there are religious people who scrounge to find a way to justify their religious behavior.
This is scientific objective agnosticism
No. well, yes. But it’s agnostic atheism. sort of.
Agnosticism holds that it’s impossible to have knowledge of the divine- or to have similar knowledge of it’s non-existence. that such things are fundamentally beyond human reason.
I disagree with that position, as well.
Allow me to explain. There are actually two claims being made:
That there is a god
that there is no god
It’s impossible prove the non-existence of a thing. I freely admit that. The other claim- that there is a god- however, should be easily proven simply by having that god come down and say “hi” or, something. it’s also relatively easy to disprove the existence of any specific god.
I base my belief that there is no god on the simple fact that no god has been proven to exist. I hold that the second claim is reasonable, because the first claim was disproven. (As you pointed out, the concept of ‘god’ is a human construct. Quite possibly pure fiction, or at the very least, most likely a lie perpetuated to maintain social control.)
Not OP, but I adopt “atheist” more than “agnostic” because in addition to not assuming there to be a God, I also find the question “is there a God?” to be a bit of a meaningless question since God is undefined, nebulous, and untestable. If I entertained the question and found it worthy of engagement, I’d think of myself being “agnostic” instead.
Wouldn’t that make you an agnostic?
Agreed. Atheists know there is no god because the concept was created by humans and all scientific evidence shows there is none. Some people get hung up on the word “know” because they want to lean heavily on appearing to be an objective scientist. The issue is that scientists don’t avoid saying they “know” things except in an academicically cautious sense. They act on their knowledge of many things. It’s really more of a semantic argument that religious people employ to insert god into the gaps. Theists say, “scientist don’t KNOW anything, they just have theories.” While completely ignoring all the things scientists empirically demonstrate that they know. Then they turn around and claim all atheists are just agnostics and they will eventually come around during the rapture. Better to just tell people flattly, “there is no god, people made it up.”
Objectively, I can’t know if a god exists somewhere and I just haven’t seen it. Proving a negative, all that.
But I don’t believe such a being exists, and while I’m okay with the lack of certainty… there is a chance I might be wrong.
But even if the Christian god existed… he’s a total asshole.
This is scientific objective agnosticism. I’m glad you have this stance compared to being a theist, but would rather you take the next step and simply acknowledge that there is no god. I understand the “Proving a Negative” philosophical debacle, but would rather you lean on reality based pragmatism.
You know Harry Potter is not real. He was created by a person, written in a book, and spread around the world.
The same follows for god (abrahamic God) and all other dieties, ethereal beings, etc.
You aren’t agnostic about Harry Potter, because he might exist somewhere out there in the universe. Do the same with gods.
There is also much much more evidence of their not being any type of entity in existence. There is no god in the gaps. The only people putting it there are religious people who scrounge to find a way to justify their religious behavior.
Agnosticism holds that it’s impossible to have knowledge of the divine- or to have similar knowledge of it’s non-existence. that such things are fundamentally beyond human reason.
I disagree with that position, as well. Allow me to explain. There are actually two claims being made:
It’s impossible prove the non-existence of a thing. I freely admit that. The other claim- that there is a god- however, should be easily proven simply by having that god come down and say “hi” or, something. it’s also relatively easy to disprove the existence of any specific god.
I base my belief that there is no god on the simple fact that no god has been proven to exist. I hold that the second claim is reasonable, because the first claim was disproven. (As you pointed out, the concept of ‘god’ is a human construct. Quite possibly pure fiction, or at the very least, most likely a lie perpetuated to maintain social control.)
Not OP, but I adopt “atheist” more than “agnostic” because in addition to not assuming there to be a God, I also find the question “is there a God?” to be a bit of a meaningless question since God is undefined, nebulous, and untestable. If I entertained the question and found it worthy of engagement, I’d think of myself being “agnostic” instead.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god. If you don’t actively have a positive belief in god, you are by definition an atheist. You lack the belief.
deleted by creator