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.)
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.)