Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

But we are talking about claims of existance... not claims of guilt or math equations.
Claims of non-existance are completely pointless and I would argue that it is very dishonest to ask for "evidence" for claims of non-existance.Claims of existance need to be substantiated with evidence. Claims of non-existance can't be substantiated with evidence.
You can't "prove" that unicorns aren't real, but you CAN prove that they are by finding one. Not honest at all imo, as argued above.
I would even say that there is MUCH evidence against the claim of existance of god(s), through the absolute absurdity of the mythology that comes with the claims.
In the end... remove the mythology parts which can be proven incorrect and the parts for which no evidence exists and not much of it is left... No. It demonstrates that you can intellectually ignore baseless bullshit claims of existance without evidence to back it up, Einstein.I'll be clearer then, since your IQ of 145 seems not enough to apply the lesson to your own quote.The deal is:1. The rock exists
2. The rock does not existIt's "indeterminate", but yet... you don't slam your breaks. You don't even change lanes. So for some reason, you seem to go for option 2 anyway - eventhough it's "indeterminate".How is the god claim any different?

Nah, I don't accept that definition, why should I?The word is supposed to mean that you believe that god doesn't exist.It seems like its being diluted to reduce irrationality and be more inclusive. Why?

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?

Because whenever a person would say 'I don't believe that god exists' they were called 'atheist' by theists. So those people that theists called 'atheists' decided to adopt the title. Unfortunately the same people that called those that didn't believe 'atheists', also held an internal equivocation that atheists believed that god does not exist.Take a look at Dawkins, is he an atheist? He holds that evidence is required to increase the probability of something being true, that there is no evidence of gods, and that therefore god is a likely to be true as any other unevidenced claim...which is not very.What do you call someone that doesn't believe in god/s? If you have a better word, then you can try introducing it into usage. But in a world of people that do believe in gods are called 'theist', 'atheist' seems like a natural enough word for those that don't.

Speed and possibly surprise?
You can certainly make a decision faster if you don't wait for all (or more...) evidence.
And, sometimes, it can be fun to make a decision just to see what will happen instead of for-seriousness.Of course, for any decently important decision, I totally agree with you. And also agree with your WTF-ness on shying away from being a responsible adult.And now, back to my cave!

I for one had what I believed to be a spiritual experience. I cant prove it, thus I could as likely label it as unknown, but my trusty brain and mind, which had behaved in predictable ways for 32 years prior interpreted the experience in an entirely new and unique way. Human imagination? Maybe...but I wouldn't give it such a high probability, personally.

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?

What was that bright light?!
I don't know.
Do you think it was caused by a spotlight?
No.
Do you think it was caused by an aircraft?
Definitely not.
Do you think it was caused by aliens?
Possibly...
Do you think it was caused by fluctuations in the Matrix?
Hmmm...maybe.
Do you think it was caused by a god?
Yes!

I made two points:1. The term 'agnostic' is a perfectly good English word used in order to describe the condition of not knowing enough to give a definite opinion either way in regard to the existence or non-existence of any purported deities.2. Such purported deities existence or non-existence can not be proven.Jon made one point:Atheists can become irrational once they become too militant (summarized).Which point would you or anyone else like to rationally address, that is, other than the one you have already emoted?

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

The OP is like a windmill.So what is your personality type? Don Quixote or Sancho Panza?

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

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"....?

So if we hold that there is a galactic deity in the image of a jovian planet made entirely of Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese (with chives) and she made and controls all life in this galaxy while her sister Cream Cheese planets do so in other galaxies and each millennium they all get together to play croquet in the eighth dimension then you think we should be agnostic toward this deity?When do we call totally un-evidenced speculations "bullshit"? Are we meant to give due credence to every whim that pops into every human mind?

Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. If we have no knowledge of such a deity, then why should we not be agnostic on the matter? Of course not, and that's not what agnosticism is about.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

If we have no knowledge of such a thing then why entertain any notion of efficacy? There is nothing to be agnostic about if the matter has no reason to exist. I'm confused. A whim pops into my head (Cream Cheese Deity) and I relay its image to you. You have no knowledge of this thing on your own so your very question is "why should we not be agnostic on the matter?"Is this not giving due credence to my whim and by extension then to every whim?

Well, you could always think therefore you are. Actually, your comment is my point. Evidence is not proof.That is one reason why I consider this entire line of discussion, as well as the concept of evangelical atheism, ironic to the first degree. Yes, according to realism and pragmatism, these are the best arguments for atheism. Are realism and pragmatism proven? Is science a subset of philosophy?And is it not a supreme irony that Dawkins gives Pantheism, Taoism, Deism, and Unitarianism a free pass in chapter 1 of the God Delusion, yet argues against the self-definition of Agnosticism in chapter 2?Arguing against individuals being allowed to self-describe their belief system seems a bit authoritarian to me. If using the term agnostic means atheist-lite, then just reset the Google translator in your brain, don't pretend to become the dictator of the English language. (not meant for you in particular, but rather a more universal disagreement with Dawkins and his followers, in this case).Pardon me for not including Russell in this discussion as a forefather, but he is the dude who thought all reality could be reduced to logical constructions - that is, until Wittgenstein. Yeah, you're right (assuming the postulates of realism and pragmatism).

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen