Agnostic Atheism: the only logical position.

The title says it all.

Agnostic Atheism is rationally and logically the only "truthful" position/statement that holds any tangible merit.

Let's start with Atheism: to reject the possibility of a grand creator of the universe is a disingenuous position to state as a "Fact". Afterall, we only understand some of the universes wondrous existence back to but only up to the event we dub the Big Bang.

For all we know the universe itself is a form of simulation, programmed to do what it does, has done and will do by something... obviously this begs the question asked often of theists: "what created said creator", which is of course unanswerable given the limitation of our Understanding of before the Big Bang, and thus is not a consideration at this point.

Religion/Creationism etc: to vehemently proclaim to Know that the universe was definitely created by an all powerful God that then directly influenced and interacted with, and continues to do such things; is also a disingenuous position to state as "Fact".

Afterall, the "evidence" used to perpetuate such statements are thousands of years old textbooks written by second or third hand accountings, sometimes decades if not centuries after said events were proclaimed to have occurred. Pretty much all of which can not be proven through archaeology/history, and others which have been debunked as science progresses.

Given how fallible human memory is, coupled with the known limitations of word of mouth retellings of stories/events; it is easy to dismiss such claims.

Which brings me in short to my title: Agnostic Atheism is the only logical and rational position/statement that fits with factual reality as we currently understand it.

Simply put.

Agnostic: I do not know because I lack tangible proof.

Atheism: I reject the claims of these ancient books written by those whom were yet to understand the atomic and microbial levels of our existence.

Spirituality, is a different kettle of fish, but ultimately comes down to feelings and one's own attempts to better understand their consciousness and how that fits within reality.

These are of course my opinions, as unpopular as they may be. But I hold steadfast that logic and reason back me up.

originally posted by: ooder57
Agnostic: I do not know because I lack tangible proof.

If you claim to be an Agnostic, then you hold the position that there is no rational reason to believe that God exists nor that god DOESN'T exist.

Which is contradictory to the following quote.

originally posted by: ooder57
Atheism: I reject the claims of these ancient books written by those whom were yet to understand the atomic and microbial levels of our existence.

Sure, there are people who claim to be Agnostic athiests, but it sounds contradictory to me.

Surely just being "Agnostic" is the most logical

a reply to: Debunkology

I know what you mean. I still do feel a sense of contradiction at times. But after being a believer, then an atheist, I felt I fit somewhere in between which is Agnostic.

Most agnostics I've met over the years still hold the belief that it is possible for the religious God's to exist. Which is obviously not fitting of the definition of agnostic. It might be just a local Australian idiosyncrasy, I'm not sure.

I've found myself having to add the atheism part on the end to better get my point across. As usually when I state I'm agnostic to an atheist or a theist, they assume I'm open to belief in the religious God's. I don't know if it's just a language difficulty based on the evolving definitions of words through a more interconnected social society or not.

Thank you for your point of view

a reply to: ooder57

I have respect for Agnostics but not (figuratively speaking I actually respect all people except devil worshippers) Agnostic Atheists whom are actually Atheists trying to claim they are Agnostics which is simply not the same thing as an Agnostic.

Agnostic, from the Greek Gnosis or Knowledge means NO knowledge and has come to represent NOT knowing if there is a God BUT being open to either possibility.

Atheists on the other hand as opposed to Theists BELIEVE as in this is there Belief system be that a personal or an organised one no difference it is there BELIEF that there is no God while Theists is a blanket term for all people that believe in a God or Gods.

So Agnostic Atheism is not logical in any way sense or form rather it is approaching a subject from an already Atheist belief but keeping the door slightly ajar in case of being proven wrong.

I am a Theist but more definitively a Christian so believe in the Judeo Christian God and more specifically in Jesus.

So what possible proof of God is there, well you know you EXIST that is one point, Evolution is like water running up a hill and defies the laws of conservation of Energy especially at the supposed primordial soup stage.

And then there is this.


www.lourdes-france.org...

These second two the Zeitun apparition and related healing and the miracles of Lourdes are just some from Orthodox and Catholic sites but they happen all through the Christian world and are not bound by denomination or as some would claim in any way demonic but given by God's grace.

No one is telling you that you have to believe but try telling that woman at Lourdes whom had half her face missing and was healed completely or the man whom had no hip and walked out leaving his crutches on the wrack were others that have been similarly healed have left there's.

It is NOT to order, we can not go and just ask to be healed humanity has to do what it can for itself but every now and then a miracle will happen, how then does an Atheist explain this, portals to other dimensions?, Aliens?, mind over matter? (which for a theist it is but not our mind the mind of the one that created matter in the first place).

Don't ask me to explain why there is injustice and cruelty and war and poverty and death and suffering and why everything we make has to turn to dust I believe, I believe in spite of this and that may not seem rational to you but is it rational to stop doing something important just because tomorrow you have to do it all over again, you do that every time you eat a meal, every time you go to sleep and every time you wake up but you don't stop doing that.

We recognize we are only in this world for a time but WE the theists believe that there is far more to life than this.

originally posted by: ooder57
a reply to: Debunkology

I know what you mean. I still do feel a sense of contradiction at times. But after being a believer, then an atheist, I felt I fit somewhere in between which is Agnostic.

Most agnostics I've met over the years still hold the belief that it is possible for the religious God's to exist. Which is obviously not fitting of the definition of agnostic. It might be just a local Australian idiosyncrasy, I'm not sure.

I've found myself having to add the atheism part on the end to better get my point across. As usually when I state I'm agnostic to an atheist or a theist, they assume I'm open to belief in the religious God's. I don't know if it's just a language difficulty based on the evolving definitions of words through a more interconnected social society or not.

Thank you for your point of view

is the difference between a believer and an atheist "faith"?

In your OP you seem to understand that we don't have real answers on the Universe and beyond, but then dismiss ancient text due to the same logic. In my opinion, there is only agnostic, and believer in some form. An atheist is a believer, at lest in believing they "know" there is no creator, where as someone with "faith" knows there is a creator.

Both are equally correct with regard to their own mind. An agnostic chooses to not know the answer.
But I am curious, as a believer, did you ever talk to the creator, or just offer lip service? That's not a slight, but a real thing, like when a kid is told to "believe in God" yet has no concept of "God", going through the motions will appease the teachers and make for a smoother flow, but does nothing to solidify faith.

And please don't take my questions as some Bible thumping position, everyone should have free will to believe or not believe based on their life experience. Faith isn't beaten into you, it has to be willingly accepted.

a reply to: ooder57
From the American Atheists website.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

American Atheists

It fascinates me how few "atheists" can define atheism. At least most religious people can define what they believe and don't believe.

I do not "reject the possibility of a grand creator of the universe". I simply have no reason to believe there is one, because there is no conclusive evidence for such an entity or entities. Ancient manuscripts and anecdotal evidence including NDE's and gap theories, such as sacred geometry do not a god make.

An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't know they are an atheist.

originally posted by: ooder57
The title says it all.

obviously this begs the question asked often of theists: "what created said creator", which is of course unanswerable given the limitation of our Understanding of before the Big Bang, and thus is not a consideration at this point.

A few things here. Theologians and philosophers (Plato was actually the first place I saw this logical deduction) have come to mostly agree that God the creator never needed to be created because He always existed. If you never did not exist, then there's no need to be created. This is why God is referred to as "unbegotten", "Alpha-Omega", etc. Because God is the highest dimensional Being in the universe, it is not limited to the time restraints that us humans are restricted by.

Religion/Creationism etc: to vehemently proclaim to Know that the universe was definitely created by an all powerful God that then directly influenced and interacted with, and continues to do such things; is also a disingenuous position to state as "Fact".

Intelligent life exists, we can all agree on that. Intelligible mathematically predictable laws also exist, which we call physics. These uphold the cosmos and biological life. The presence of intelligent laws and organisms shows the requirement of an intelligent designer.

Surely a MacBook computer could not come to be by without a designer. A human being is much more complex than a computer, and therefore requires something intelligent to have designed it.

Afterall, the "evidence" used to perpetuate such statements are thousands of years old textbooks written by second or third hand accountings, sometimes decades if not centuries after said events were proclaimed to have occurred. Pretty much all of which can not be proven through archaeology/history, and others which have been debunked as science progresses.

We are raised in a school system that teaches that humans are accidents. This is the greatest disservice to the human existential condition of our time. I don't want to get into it too much, but just know there are answers to your questions

If anyone prefers real, mathematical evidence to decide the question of the existence of God, rather than word salad with a dressing of dodgy arguments claiming proudly (but falsely) to be entirely logical, then study all the research at
smphillips.mysite.com...

Having spent six months digesting all that, next ask you how such amazing mathematical evidence of coherent, intelligent design could exist without having as its source a transcendental intelligence. Discover the mathematics of the Mind of God and you will discover God. (But don't expect the task to take ten minutes....).

a reply to: Klassified

A quote from an atheist site demanding we accept their definition of atheism?

“Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.”
www.britannica.com...

I had a disagreement with a poster on this site who suggested Christianity was a religion, I think it’s not a religion but a spiritual faith
Marriage baptism and communion are it’s only ceremonies, not unlike a lot of non religions.
Religion I classify as an undertaking to enter a relationship with a higher power

It’s always subjective I guess
Not interested with arguing, just pointing out we all see things differently

a reply to: Raggedyman

A quote from an atheist site demanding we accept their definition of atheism?

Who better to define christianity than christians?

Who better to define atheism than atheists?
I used their definition because it is the proper definition of "atheist".

“Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings...

In the same way christians get annoyed with atheists who re-define christianity into what it is not because of the actions of some christians, atheists also get annoyed with christians (and atheists) who re-define atheism beyond its actual meaning.

Both christians and atheists may make statements and arguments from their personal opinion, but that doesn't change the definition of either word.

Have a good day Raggedy.

a reply to: Klassified

Opposite sides of the fence but same issues
I guess it’s all subjective
Good day to you

a reply to: ooder57

The simple counterpoint to you're argument is this. You step out on the street and get vaporized by a passing sports car. What happens next?

Atheist view. Nothing. Death is it.

Spiritualist. You wake up in the presence of an angel, God, or higher being of some kind. Some kind of processing occurs and then you move on to some kind of future.

Simply put a betting man would choose the Spiritualist route as the safe bet. Far better to have earned some brownie points in the afterlife than show up with a complete zero in that column. Or worse. Being what would be considered a "evil" person and destined for the hot place. Even assuming there is/was a "correct" religion to follow I would assume part of the afterlife process would be to determine if you even had access to it and what was available to you.

And if it turns out the Atheists are right then you'll never know.

And another detail from Christianity. According to Matthew 24 and 25 and the fig tree parables Christ and his kingdom was compared to a man taking a journey to a distant place. Essentially he's going away for a long time and then he shall return. And then comes the judgement on his followers for what they did while he was away. The parable on the investment returns on the talents that were handed out.

You don't want to be the guy with only the original talent on Judgement day do you?

originally posted by: ooder57
Agnostic: I do not know because I lack tangible proof.

Atheism: I reject the claims of these ancient books written by those whom were yet to understand the atomic and microbial levels of our existence.

this is more or less where i come down and i do feel it's most logical place to stand given my personal experience of the evidence or lack thereof for anything else.

but if it was logical it wouldn't be religion so

a reply to: ntech
Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. A ruse used for hundreds of years to argue the existence of the christian god specifically. The problem with this assumption is that it only covers 2 possibilities...
The christian with an afterlife, and the atheist with an afterlife.
...when in reality there are 4 possibilities. The above two and two more.
Some other god and afterlife, and the atheist and no afterlife.
You wouldn't want to offend some other god and be eternally damned by that god, would you?

Because of the thousands, indeed, near infinite amount of possible gods, the probability that Pascal's Wager is correct is minute at best. The probability that you pick the wrong god is almost certain. So Pascal's Wager is a bad bet all the way around.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Raggedyman

A quote from an atheist site demanding we accept their definition of atheism?

Who better to define christianity than christians?

Who better to define atheism than atheists?
I used their definition because it is the proper definition of "atheist".

Yet you're so quick to redefine agnosticism so that agnostics can be counted, falsely, as atheists.

There are more similarities between the religious and atheists than there is between either of them and agnostics. Both are stubbornly holding onto beliefs that cannot be proven nor disproven.

a reply to: Navieko

There are more similarities between the religious and atheists than there is between either of them and agnostics. Both are stubbornly holding onto beliefs that cannot be proven nor disproven.

Speaking of re-defining. You just did. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Agnostics claim that to know whether there is or isn't a god is unknown or unknowable. Therefore, their default stance is a lack of belief in either, because they neither believe nor disbelieve, making them as atheist as I or any other atheist. The only difference between the atheist and the agnostic is a willingness to say so.

a reply to: ooder57


Every Christian is an atheist when it comes to the Peruvian mud god Pikkuwakki, therefore they have a lack of belief.

Sorry to you all, I fell asleep shortly after my first response. Given I'm limited to a mobile device, and limited time I'll try to address you all in a general message.

First, thank you all for your input. I adore hearing other people's views and perspectives. It is through this type of medium I have come to my current position of belief/disbelief.

For me, I see nothing wrong with what religion was intended to do; raise humanity up to be a more moralistic society. It has in part accomplished this, but it has never been perfect and has always been evolving to adapt to contemporary societies as they too evolve with better understandings and knowledge of the reality we inhabit.

For a long time (ages 7 through 22) I believed strongly in Jesus and therefore the Christian/Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
As I grew "wiser" through discourse with others, internal debate, and scrutiny of historical figures and claims; and then juxtaposed against what we understand now regarding memory, tales lost in translation and time etc, I came to vehemently reject religions as a whole.

This is when I believed myself to be an Atheist, at least in the sense that I rejected the divine claims inherent in religion. But being surrounded by more hardcore atheists (for lack of a better term), I found myself at odds with what I truly felt. That being the observation of creation on the technical (modern technology) level. Be it science via manipulating DNA, transplanting organs etc to computer programming which I found to be analogous to the structures of DNA, atoms and protons etc.

Obviously we can say with certainty that these things were created, so I then tried to reevaluate my position, coming up with Agnostic. But even then this didn't feel right, as when I would state I was Agnostic as per it's definition, I found myself at odds with both theists and atheist's, with both sides believing I was open to the religious/biblical God's interpretation...which just isn't correct in my case.

I see no truth in religion or religious texts and their claims of the divine. I do see wisdom of ages progressing to help better humanity as a societal structure. But when people take quotes and attribute them to cause and effect, they lose integrity of honour in my eyes. Because it feels disingenuous to state that one knows for a fact because "insert passage/quote/interpretation".

I also see atheism of the kind that rejects any possibility of God, as being disingenuous given we ourselves are on the cusp of quantum computing, which as I understand would/could have the power to "create" mini universal simulations that could in theory emulate our reality, albeit on a small scale depending on how powerful those machines are.

I guess ultimately I came to self-identify as Agnostic Atheist because I vehemently reject religions claims to "know" one way, whilst vehemently rejecting atheists views that there could be no god at all.

In my 34 years (give or take) of soul searching, the only way I can rationalise a possible God existing, is that God is the programmer and we are the code. If there is such a being, said being would not interact but instead program, bug fix, and let the simulation run its course.

There's a YouTuber by the name darkmatter2525. I don't agree with his snarky approach, and sometimes one sided views. But there are a few videos of his that really gets me thinking every time.

His Power Corrupts series sort of looks at the Abrahamic religions through the lens of a futuristic computer programme designed to test peoples actions if given absolute power. It has its ups and downs depending on the specific subject matter he decides to make per episode. But I do find it to be fairly analogous to how I feel.

I think the one that got me thinking the most was a video about two men in a boxed in room, with that room being all that they know. One is an atheist and the other a theist. They go back and forth, and as great as that video is, it made me think...why do majority of people insist this subject is so black and white, so two sides...when there are more sides inbetween.

I hope what I wrote makes sense. Sometimes I find it rather difficult to get my point across without waffling on, and without offending other people's beliefs. Because at the end of the day, we are all seeking answers to our personal dilemmas.

Again, thank you all for your input and sharing your thoughts. I'll continue to monitor and interact as best I can. I honestly didn't expect the first page to fill out so quickly lol.

Take care all

a reply to: ooder57
I first encountered the argument between agnostics and atheists in the days when I was an atheist student with an agnostic room-mate. My diary records a debate on that issue, which never reached any high standards of philosophical thinking.
The argument crops up from time to time in bitter debates on the ATS boards.It's partly an argument about which label should be used, and I'm not sure that using both labels will get you out of it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You are right, I do have trouble explaining my position when using the term Agnostic Atheist. I did see a chart somewhere (one of those squares with atheist, theist, gnostic and something else) and it sort creates a range of possibility and combinations.

To put my position simply.

I can't consider myself an atheist because I can not honestly reject the possibility of a Creator (for lack of a better term) given we only know the big bang occurred, not how.

But I can't consider myself a theist, because I can not honestly believe words and claims of our ancestors whose understanding of the grater universe was limited at the time they existed. Not to mention that all of the stories were written by handed down word of mouth about two to three generations after the supposed events.

It's like Chinese whispers, the game. In even short periods of time like hours, accountings become morphed and disfigured until they no longer resemble what the original may have entailed.

We obviously can infer and interpret history through writings, geology and archaeology...but it's an incomplete picture.

Couple that with societal influence of us vs them power struggles, conflicting tribal/civilization beliefs...and the water becomes even more muddied.

I think you are right it's more of a label thing (I never felt the need to label myself, until I began to engage in discourse and people would ask, well what are you?)