Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Let's cut to the chase here:I believe that any concept of god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced position.Which part of this do you disagree with exactly? Which part of this do you consider "irrational"...? And on what basis?

I don't dispute for a moment that you had a subjective experience. But what, other than belief, causes you to think that it was caused by anything "spiritual"....? But it is you who is citing a "spiritual" cause for this experience as more probable than any of the other conceivable causes. I on the other hand consider all evidentially baseless causes as improbable.I mean - seriously - If someone had the same experience as you and they chose to attribute it to fluctuations in the matrix rather than something "spiritual" would they have any more or less cause for their belief than you do for yours?I believe that any concept of the-matrix/god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced position.Which part of this do you disagree with exactly? Which part of this do you consider "irrational"...? And on what basis?

If lack of proof, and thus lack of certainty, is all that is required for "agnosticism" then I am agnostic about pretty much everything. Including your existence and (depending just how philosophically pedantic one wants to get) maybe even my own existence as well. But I don't think such an all encompassing use of terminology is very helpful outside of pedantic philosophical circles. What we can say is A) That there is absolutely no remotely reliable evidence that such things do actually exist. B) That there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that humans are intensely prone to inventing such things for reasons unrelated to their actual existence.On this basis I believe that any concept of god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced and high confidence albeit tentative position. If you want to pursue this it may be better placed here Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

But the "evangelical atheists" (as you call them) such as Dawkins don't claim proof or certainty. Dawkins specifically cites a form of tentative improbability. I am not sure what proof has to do with anything here? It's a demonstrably reliable method of investigation that can lead to high confidence albeit tentative conclusions. I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here. Can you elaborate? Did Dawkins do that? I think Dawkins is not so much translating "agnostic" into atheist-lite so much as dismissing the notion that atheism refers to some sort of absolute philosophical certainty rather than evidence based tentativity. Well as you haven't I will - Russel writes:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---