Atheism and agnosticism

[Baruch]

Bonus points to Shoe ... can't not admire the psychological/linguistic POV.

But I suppose a real skeptic would not only be skeptic about theism and anti-theism (one kind of atheism) but also agnosticism and gnosticism (other kinds of atheism).  Atheism as broadly defined.  But that would be rather Buddhist (in some cases).

[Jannabear]

I used -'s for my replies.

Objection!
-OVERRULED!
We do possess the knowledge that proves that a creator cannot exist. It's called linguistics.
-I was saying I'm agnostic towards the idea of a god because it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I find it to be completely silly regardless of whether or not it can be disproven.

There is a reason why it took so long a time for the concept of any deity; any creator evolving into a transcendental god that came up with Abrahamic religions. Because it is an abstract concept and abstract concepts cannot exist without written culture. (This is also the explanation both why Abrahamic religions rose from the same region and why they are different and yet the same in many sense, besides the narrative they dictate. Why it started with ancient Hebrew and Arabic very easily fel linto the same line...)
-Again, I find it to be completely silly, but the idea of a god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, that's why I'm an atheist agnostic.

Simply the idea of a god; any god, gods or deities are all one and it is completely based on human desires apart from the delusion itself. There is not a definition or a description of a god in human history that exists out of that profile. There can't be. Because there is no other narrative for god out of the profile of an absentee landlord. It's human, its as various as humans and its desires.  Therefore there is no such thing as the slightest possibility evidence for existence of a creator. It's invalid. It's fantasy of a fantasy. Any evidence anyone would try to imagine as 'what if' would have to be in the limits of describing some sort of a super MAN. Not some unimaginable supreme entity that mortals cannot fathom. Humans only constantly developed the language to describe it and with the sufficient accumulation of written culture they finally reached to a transcendental creator. They invented imaginary concepts, powers they liked to have- to tell those stories attached to it, but narrative has always been the same. Like children playing make belief. Because gods and religions are functional. It has always, but always been beneficial and profitable. It's trade, its politics. It's a means to desired ends played itself out.
-Again, I find the idea of a god to be completely silly, and I'm completely atheist towards the christian and islamic god, and every other religious idea of a god, but I'm an atheist agnostic towards the idea of a god in general, because it has no attributes, it's unfalsifiable, that doesn't mean I'm giving it any credibility on any level, it's just not disprovable, maybe it is, but currently, from what I see, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

God is an anthropomorphic figure that has developed into some abstract make up -transcendence which cannot exist without written culture- and all religions are anthropocentric in their nature. The idea of god does not come from a creator of the universe. It evolved to be the creator of the universe in time. It comes from fearing the thunder and lightening, fire, earthquake, floods, hurricanes, the mighty ocean, the mighty mountains and the powerful wild animals, famine, bad winter that threatened their lives. Everything human faces on the planet in nature.
-Agreed, but again, the idea of a god in general is unfalsifiable, I'm an athiest towards religious ideas of a god, and an atheist agnostic towards the idea of a god in general, though I find both to be completely fucking silly.

Humans did not start 'believing' in a god because they thought some supreme being 'created' them. They arrived an understanding of a god that did the creating from mortal fears and simple daily needs. Because they worried about their own lives. Famine, hard winter, disease, fear of death. Why do we die? Why do we feel pain? Why do we get sick? Why do we starve? Human fear of its own nature. It's always 'what happened to me' or 'what is happening to me' or 'what will happen to me? Now and after I die'. It's first person, all about the human itself, first defined in the individual level, then for a society because we are social animals and cannot survive alone; we have to live together.
-Agreed

The idea of the creator of universe, esp. the universe as we undertsand now, today, is a last phase of a series of 'upgrades' and 'updates' of that primitive idea, adapted and modified in time. By development of language. Linguistics. First 'the universe' is the clan, then the village....then the cities, countries and what's around it. As the map starts to open, gradually the 'universe' has become the planet, then finally it has becaome the universe as we know today. Adaptation. Religions and gods get keep adapted by humans because they are functional. So they survive. Basic principle. As the general scale got larger, the scale of god followed it. But it is the same absentee landlord. Doesn't matter how or with what high language or concepts you decsribe it. It's human.
-I agree, I've never said anything otherwise.

God is the rejection of nature because of mortal fear. That's why in all Abrahamic religions human is defined with something supernatural, an immortal element called soul. It's a symbolic way of refusing to die. It's why in all those religions human is defined as something proud and more than animals, first in the center of the world and that world as in center of the universe. Me, me, me, me, I, I, I, I.
-Agreed

This is not a belief or trust into some supreme being. It's only the BELIEF IN ONESELF in a twisted collective way; SIMPLE TRIBALISM and any other way of believing in a god cannot exist, exactly because of this reason. People who claim to believe in some god, actually believe in themselves, their special place.
-I find those who actually believe in it to be mentally ill personally, but most of them don't actually believe this shit.

And that god is not even a monotheistic god. It can't be. It's sum of fears of death, fears of pain and hoping to be rewarded above all whatever happens. It's 'I don't wanna die! I'm above nature, I have a precious soul, I refuse to die'. It's not trusting in some omnipotent divinity. It's not a belief, it's a claim, it's a wish rising from a make believe has gone so long, it is a fucking category. The whole thing is just a resentful pray; a painful wish.
-It's a silly belief and a silly claim.

Guys, there is NOTHING in human history that humans DID because they BELIEVED in some god. Everything, but everything that has been DONE has a REAL LIFE FUNCTION behind it, because humans believe in themselves above all and nothing else. The very reason they imagined gods an deities is this. This is how our cognitive process evolved and also why it actually doesn't allow some genuine belief in god. Otherwise, we couldn't have survived. Because whatever happens, human will act, consciously or unconsciously according to what functions for him. Rest is politics, literature, fantasy to carry this along time.
-Bullshit, humans are manipulated all of the time to do shit they wouldn't do with religion.

Infact, I am going to go further and claim that it's actually impossible to believe in a creator and that actually noone does.
-I find the idea of a god to be silly, but the idea that someone can't believe in something is silly.

Because god is also a still born concept, because the moment a hominid developed the ability to think and speak;describe any experience he had stepping out that reality he experienced it; voice what's in his mind about a possible creator, imagined stories of it, rather than just feel, love, fear, live and die with it, the idea of god died there at that moment. Because he alienated and seperated himself from that supposed omnipotent nature of that idea of supreme being and its supposed existence. He existed outside of it. He developed the consciousness regarding to his own existence apart from the nature. Process of intelligence. The kind of self awareness and consciousness only one animal on the planet that we know evolved to possess. The cognitive process we developed makes the idea of god impossible. Yes, I said impossible.
-I honestly don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say.

If any of you can imagine a god outside the presented category, please come forward explain and then I'll reconsider that thinking/claiming that god cannot exist is dishonest. However, categories of human narrative doesn't change, because we are just simple animals with simple fixed needs and we don't have any need or use for another category of a god, that's why we invented it this way in the first place . Because there isn't one, there can't be and hence the fantasy needed to be maintained.
-I'm torn between the fact that the idea of a god is incredibly silly and the fact that it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
I'm not sure what to think.

Even if one day we manage to colonise the galaxy, we will always be a bunch of apes that wants to feel safe sitting around a fire nestling to each other. Take that up to the space, bring it down to a cave, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't change. Can't. If it does, we'd go extinct.
-Humans can and will change if we survive, I forsee humans changing for the better and not the worse personally, because religion is declining, and people are starting to challenge their governments, they're starting to be skeptical and asking what the fuck is going on.

[Jannabear]

Bonus points to Shoe ... can't not admire the psychological/linguistic POV.

But I suppose a real skeptic would not only be skeptic about theism and anti-theism (one kind of atheism) but also agnosticism and gnosticism (other kinds of atheism).  Atheism as broadly defined.  But that would be rather Buddhist (in some cases).

I agreed with most of the shit he said, I just don't know what to think, the idea of a god literally makes absolutely no fucking sense, but at the same time it's unfalsifiable.

[drunkenshoe]

But I suppose a real skeptic would not only be skeptic about theism and anti-theism (one kind of atheism) but also agnosticism and gnosticism (other kinds of atheism).  Atheism as broadly defined.  But that would be rather Buddhist (in some cases).

Atheism is not a claim. It's a neutral position. There are no various neutral positions. There is only one. It doesn't have some strong or weak version or side. It's neutral.

Theism is a claim. And the 'knowledge' it created has many positions as far as the diversity of human cultures go. All these things can be explained by linguistics and anthropology; human evolution in any way. That is KNOWLEDGE.   

Scepticism is needed when you have something to be sceptic about. You cannot be just sceptic that something might be out there when there has never been anything to be sceptic about. You can just be personally suspicious that something might be out there and this again falls back what I wrote about traits of being human; the culture we created around fear of death.

If you are born into that categories, you are sceptic about them. Not sceptic about something that is not there.

Science. It's completely different. We need science to understand nature and develop technology. We don't need science to 'disprove god'. That's the reason it doesn't work on masses. Doesn't matter how breif and beautifully you explain ho things are in a scientific way, there is always the religious. Because, people do not believe in some creator because they need answers on why all the existence was created and by what. They just don't want to die. They do not feel pain. They do not want to be afraid. It's personal; it is believing oneself.

There is nothing more powerful than this fear. This is exactly why we evolved to believe, look for patterns in everything, make up batshit crazy stories -besides them being practical parables- and see much more than it really is out there.

It's Lucy having a walk around the Savannah and thinking every breeze is a wild animal to get her. She needs to take everything as a fatal threat to survive and so do we. That's also our ego and our paranoia -not scepticism- human seeing itself above everything. Even the belief that aliens are visiting us -of course us!- is coming form this.

[drunkenshoe]

The nonexistence of god is not a some scientific theory offered to explain a natural phenomenon or some law. It doesn't have to be falsified. It's outside of empiric data.

Atheism is an ancient position. It didn't occur as a result of scientific development. It's another result of written culture and it is not a claim.

[drunkenshoe]

I used -'s for my replies.

I do not have to tweak your lines from my own post. Get the fuck out of my face until you learn how to use the forum.

[Jannabear]

I do not have to tweak your lines from my own post. Get the fuck out of my face until you learn how to use the forum.

what the fuck are you talking about.
I just put it that way so it's more fucking coherent to read, if you just have to read it side by side with your original post it makes it much more annoying, I'm being more considerate to you if anything.
Don't have to be a fucking cunt about it.

[Jannabear]

The nonexistence of god is not a some scientific theory offered to explain a natural phenomenon or some law. It doesn't have to be falsified. It's outside of empiric data.

Atheism is an ancient position. It didn't occur as a result of scientific development. It's another result of written culture and it is not a claim.

I never said it was.

[drunkenshoe]

but at the same time it's unfalsifiable.

[Baruch]

Not everyone agrees that falsifiability is a good criteria.  Philosophers aren't supposed to agree, they are supposed to just argue.

When using Quote vs Insert Quote ... if you are responding and quoting someone, use Quote, outside the original post (upper right)  Then be sure to put your response, below the [/QUOTE] bracket.  A pain, if you are responding point by point.

Insert Quote is used ... if you are quoting something, after you open an new post, and are adding something farther down the string (the list when in compose is in opposite order of time).

[Jannabear]

Yeah, and?
You do know what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is, right?
It's something with attributes that can't be disproven on an anecdotal level.

[Baruch]

Some people don't believe in Popper (falsifiability).  Others don't believe in Kuhn ... that there are scientific revolutions because the old scientists die off.

[drunkenshoe]

Yeah, and?
You do know what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is, right?
It's something with attributes that can't be disproven on an anecdotal level.

Yes I do. And trying to apply falsifiability to nonexsistence of god is exactly like trying to make arguments from scripture in accordance to disprove the scripture itself. Invalid. Bullshit, if you prefer. Esp. if you conisder that we possess the knowledge to explain why the basics of human culture; religions and the concept of god evolved this way.


Like being 'sceptic' of Alice not hitting the floor dead after falling down the rabbit hole, but being OK with the whole Wonderland.   

[drunkenshoe]

Some people don't believe in Popper (falsifiability).  Others don't believe in Kuhn ... that there are scientific revolutions because the old scientists die off.

It's not a matter of belief. These are two seperate things. The fact that science can explain what religion claimed to know for absolute, doesn't change the fact that the concept of god and belief evolved through linguistics from the same practical root.

Popper and Kuhn have nothing to do with this. Science has nohing to do with this. Science is not what curious people read in popular books, it is a world of its own. The knowledge that is used, produced has no direct relation to life without the applicable results.

The belief that a creator exists; that he intervenes human life is about human reality and human narrative which has changed very little in millions of years. That's what and where people have belief. Not because science can explain how planets form or the star that warms us.

You guys keep confusing two very different seperate things.

[Jannabear]

Yes I do. And trying to apply falsifiability to nonexsistence of god is exactly like trying to make arguments from scripture in accordance to disprove the scripture itself. Invalid. Bullshit, if you prefer. Esp. if you conisder that we possess the knowledge to explain why the basics of human culture; religions and the concept of god evolved this way.


Like being 'sceptic' of Alice not hitting the floor dead after falling down the rabbit hole, but being OK with the whole Wonderland.

Not really the same thing...
At all..
I'm just an atheist agnostic to the idea of a god because there's no way of disproving it completely.
Maybe this isn't a good standard, but you haven't really made a valid argument for why that is, perhaps you can change my mind.