I'm an agnostic Atheist! Ask me anything!

@Babylon [quote]stability as a property of this universe[/quote]
What stability? The laws of the universe are merely descriptions of what we see, and they remain valid only so long as we fail to see anything different. They in no way preclude instability

[quote]life starting on in a lifeless planet[/quote]
It might be helpful to settle the definition of life. How about: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution?
In which case I nominate Earth… unless you’re suggesting there’s no life on Earth.
As for abiogenesis on other planets, we’ll simply have to wait and see… or (most probably) never see.
Mind you, now that the Webb is about to come online, we might well see some remarkable signs of it.

[quote]how you rationalize this universe as an atheist[/quote]
I don’t. In fact, I don’t do anything as an atheist. I don’t begin sentences with ‘as an atheist…’, nor do I ever say ‘from an atheist’s perspective…’, nor do I discuss atheism with other atheists. I have no gods… what part of that could possibly require discussion?

[quote]organize itself in this manner[/quote]
The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows.

[quote]not sufficient for you with respect to God[/quote]
Umm, I’m not doing anything in respect to your god. I’m an atheist… I have no use for such postulations. Others should feel free to make such postulations, and good luck to them

People are reasonable when they are objecting to unreasonable claims… in all other respects they make be completely unreasonable. I don’t know… I cannot speak for all 7 billion of my fellow [i]Homo sapiens.[/i]

[quote]the universe could organize itself how it is currently without a conscious, manipulating agent? [/quote]
I have already addressed that above. It is how it is. There’s absolutely no reason to suppose (and nothing to indicate) that the current universe was any sort of goal, intention, or desired state. There’s no evidence of teleology.

[quote]against a conscious, manipulating agent that organizes this universe[/quote]
I’m not ‘against’ any such thing. There’s simply no need to even suppose such a thing.

1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we’d all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. in any event, [i]there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods,[/i] and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods

[quote]our lives are purposeless and meaningless?[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I find great purpose and meaning in my life. That purpose and meaning are defined by me, and not by some-or-other dictate.

[quote]suppose a man lusts after a woman[/quote]
Your example (adultery) isn’t a moral question, it’s an [i]ethical[/i] question. Ethics is a position that operates human to human, and says that [i]I will not harm you unless I first warn you.[/i]
Adultery is unethical… if the injured party was given reason to expect fidelity and was not warned that expectation was no longer valid

[quote]sharing responses with me from an atheistic perspective[/quote]
As I said, none of this is from an ‘atheist perspective’, and I don’t even know what such a thing would be.

@newjaninev2 [quote] What stability? The laws of the universe are merely descriptions of what we see, and they remain valid only so long as we fail to see anything different. [/quote]
You really don't recognize stability across the universe? If this universe were unstable, we wouldn't have this universe consistently as it is. We have not witnessed inconsistencies in science (our human effort to study this existence we find ourselves in). The laws of physics are descriptions of the observed regularities that this universe exhibits. We can figure out that it is stable and consistent as we test something and it produces consistent results. Without a stable universe, science couldn't exist, we couldn't exist, this universe as we know it couldn't exist. When you ask "what stability?" can you demonstrate any instability in the universe? Do you believe in science and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example?

[quote] How about: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution? [/quote]
I don't think this is an accurate description of life and it doesn't demonstrate how life began from a lifeless Earth. You're aware of the minimum gene-set concept for cells, right? What is the minimum number of genes for a single cell to even exist, let alone have it come packed with further capabilities. How do you describe and explain how those came together? Because to believe the things you do, you have to have an idea of how it makes sense. Where do all the organic compounds somehow get so perfectly organized? Why don't we see things like this naturally occurring?

[quote] In fact, I don’t do anything as an atheist. I don’t begin sentences with ‘as an atheist…’, nor do I ever say ‘from an atheist’s perspective…’, nor do I discuss atheism with other atheists. I have no gods… what part of that could possibly require discussion? [/quote]
I don't know. I think everyone rationalizes and believes something about this universe and we all have an idea of how it works. By rationalize, I am talking about how we use reason, observation, and testing to learn and figure out what is rational and what is not about our universe. Unless one does not have any reasoning, them they have thoughts about this universe and reasons for how things work and where things came from.

What you mention is tangent. Theists don't spend time saying "as a theist" to other theists. But when encountering polytheists and atheists, then the matter becomes about exchanging and sharing ideas about which of the beliefs is true. Because there can only be [b]one[/b] truth. Two conflicting beliefs cannot both be true. Who is right now takes reason and discussion and when talking across the aisle to someone who is an atheist or polythist, monotheists must say "as a monotheist" and substantiate how their belief makes sense where other beliefs don't.

It's not the fact that you have no gods, but how you explain the things around you where a God or gods makes the most sense.

[quote] The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows [/quote]
Nobody is arguing it isn't what it is. The idea is your explanation (without a God) based on observation, study, etc. and whatever valid tools exist to an atheist as to what the best description of the history of this universe is should be reasonable and make sense.

Imagine I told you God exists the way He does because God just exists and He is the way He is? Would you then accept that as a cogent argument? Or would you require a good reason for how one can take such a stance? And if you don't know, does that mean nobody knows or that the answer is not out there? Clearly you have some limiting criterias on the answers as to what you will accept and will not accept. Surely it should be based on reason, right?

There is nothing that exists in our universe without stability and consistency and observable laws and dynamics. Why is the universe the way it is? What was the reason our planet is an anomaly and logically must have violated some laws of the universe to get to where it is now?

[quote] Umm, I’m not doing anything in respect to your god. I’m an atheist… I have no use for such postulations. Others should feel free to make such postulations, and good luck to them [/quote]
Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Ignoring how you're guilty of postulation yourself, I'm telling you what you told me in the past. I mentioned how you do not accept "It just is" as a valid explanation with respect to God. What exactly are you arguing about if you agree? I mention what [b]you[/b] tell [b]me[/b] about God and you then start denying as if it's some default whenever you see the word God. That doesn't make any sense to me. And the sheer arrogance and superiority complex in the following paragraph with nothing to show for it is astounding to me.

[quote] There’s absolutely no reason to suppose (and nothing to indicate) that the current universe was any sort of goal, intention, or desired state. There’s no evidence of teleology [/quote]
Big test of your consistency. Suppose you come across a house in the middle of the desert. You go inside and find some nice furniture, some stairs going upstairs, a bathroom with a toilet, couches, etc. Is it sufficient to say "I don't see evidence of teleology." And teleology meaning: [quote]the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.[/quote]
What gives you grounds to postulate no design and purpose in the material world?

Can I argue and say there is no reason to suppose there is a goal, intention, or desired state for the hypothetical house found alone way out secluded in nature and we don't know who constructed it? I don't even know what size shoe the person who built it wears, but I am certain the house has a goal, intention, and desired state. This ability of humans to recognize and decipher the marks left behind by intelligent agents is innate to us. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what archaeology is based on.

When you observe nature and see its laws and structures, we can decipher what is not possible as a natural occurrence based on those laws. The same way you find a trail marker as the mark of an intelligent, capable, manipulating agent that disrupted the natural laws of the universe, we see this planet we live on exhibiting intense anomaly with respect to the rest of the universe.
[image deleted]We base entire studies on this concept, and I take it to be common sense to know that a watch requires a watchmaker. House requires a housemaker. Even though there is a statistic probability, we conclude this with certainty because math is not a perfect descriptor of reality.

[quote]in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods[/quote]
This is why I keep asking you to concretely give evidence as to how this universe and world could have organized itself. When the Big Bang happened, the rules of this space-time universe were already in place. It exhibits stability and observed regularity, so I leave it to you to describe how the series of incredible anomalies perfectly sustaining our lives in a lifeless universe are sensible when everything in terms of the laws of nature point against anomalies and point towards this being another dead planet, like the vast emptiness which is unforgiving.

[quote]I don’t know about you, but I find great purpose and meaning in my life. That purpose and meaning are defined by me, and not by some-or-other dictate [/quote]
Does your existence and life have any purpose or meaning objectively? And can you make up your own purpose after you exist? Making one's own purpose sounds odd to me.

[quote] Your example (adultery) isn’t a moral question, it’s an ethical question [/quote]
First of all, I can't back you up when ethics is defined as:
[quote] a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values [/quote]
Ethics is quite literally morality-based, so there is no distancing the terms. Regardless of them meaning the same thing,

[quote] Ethics is a position that operates human to human, and says that I will not harm you unless I first warn you. [/quote]
This is quite the point of the situation. The person cheated on never finds out and is unknowning and unharmed and continues her life loving her man without ever "postulating" a reason to be harmed. Was the cheater behaving ethically, even according to your own definition? Since he never harmed her, no warning was needed. He enjoys himself. All parties come out happy and pleased. What's the morally wrong here, according to your beliefs?

@Babylon [quote]We have not witnessed inconsistencies in science[/quote]
…but we keep looking for them (that’s at the core of the scientific method). We can have a high degree of confidence in the universe’s stability, but it is never set in stone. As you said, it has been unstable before, and may still be unstable, despite observation by a small group of primates over a period of time too small to even really exist.
If could even be that the singularity was stable, and that the big bang was caused by instability, and that what we currently see as a stable universe is the altered state of a previously stable universe.
Every configuration is particular, every configuration is singular, if we look at all of its details, since every configuration always has something about it that characterises it in a unique way.
That means that the view of the universe as stable is born only at the moment we begin to see the universe in a particular and narrow way. That view may well be correct… but we cannot claim it to be so. We can only proceed on the assumption that it is correct. That assumption in no way undermines the veracity and importance of the scientific enterprise.


[quote]doesn't demonstrate how life began from a lifeless Earth[/quote]
…nor does it try to. The reality of abiogenesis is that we do not know (yet). There are some interesting, viable, ideas, but at this point all we know is that it happened at least once, so it must be possible.
Our current ignorance of the abiogenic process does not preclude its existence, and certainly does not give us licence to invent a convenient fiction (of which we have thousands). It simply means that we need to keep looking.
You seem to skip on to another topic at that point… one that I am very happy to discuss, but it is a different topic to abiogenesis. The development of cells is an evolutionary process which occurred [i]after[/i] abiogenesis occurred, and is driven by Natural Selection.

[quote]we all have an idea of how it works[/quote]
Yes indeed, and my ideas are evidence-based, and do not involve magical entities.

[quote]explain the things around you where a God or gods makes the most sense[/quote]
Postulating magical entities makes no sense whatsoever as an explanation, because the postulation explains nothing. It doesn’t even explain itself, because it cannot explain the magical entities upon which it relies [i]i.e.[/i] it merely begs the question

The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows

[quote]whatever valid tools exist to an atheist[/quote]
The same valid tools as exist to anyone… evidence and reason


[quote]God just exists and He is the way He is? Would you then accept that as a cogent argument?[/quote]
It depends what you’re trying to do with the claim. If you’re claiming that’s how you see your particular god, then fine… go ahead.
If you’re claiming your description in some way excludes your god from further inquiry, then that’s just Special Pleading, and can be rejected.

[quote]our planet is an anomaly and logically must have violated some laws of the universe to get to where it is now[/quote]

Why? There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and around 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. We have a sample of 8, have thoroughly examined just 1, and have found life there. That’s an encouraging start, by any measure.

[quote]start denying as if it's some default[/quote]

What do you think I’m denying? That your gods exist? Not at all… I have not said that, nor anything like it. I say that postulations about your gods (their existence and their actions) are completely unnecessary, and are in any case unhelpful.
Nevertheless, if you wish to make such postulations, then go ahead.


[quote]What gives you grounds to postulate no design and purpose in the material world?[/quote]

The lack of both evidence and necessity for design (I assume you mean by an intelligence) or purpose

I’m surprised you offer the ‘argument from design’… it has long been refuted

Your argument seems to be that your watch was designed by an external intelligence, therefore everything in the universe was designed by an external intelligence

But that’s a simple [i]non sequitur[/i]

In any case, the identification of Natural Selection as the causative agent removes any need to make the argument from design

“The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.”
[i]Charles Darwin (Autobiography)[/i]


[quote]When the Big Bang happened, the rules of this space-time universe were already in place[/quote]

Umm, no… they became possible with spacetime (cf. relativity)


[quote]Making one's own purpose sounds odd to me.[/quote]
Why? Finding our own meaning and purpose in our lives is quite a beautiful and satisfying thing to do. I highly recommend it.

It’s a pity you cannot distinguish between morality and ethics… the two really are not the same, and conflating them will often cause confusion

[quote]What's the morally wrong here?[/quote]

There’s nothing either morally nor ethically wrong. Why should there be?
Of course, such behaviour speaks to character (what we do when we think nobody is watching), and if I were aware of the behaviour I would need to consider my personal relationship with them. Such empathetic considerations are standard for free-thinkers, yet forbidden to those who obey sweeping edicts and pronouncements from self-proclaimed authority figures.

@Pikachu idk I just chaffe at the label of agnostic because of the way theists use it to try and undermine my position. It also gives them false hope of converting someone.

I know Santa isn't real and I don't pretend to be agnostic about it even though there is still a non zero chance that he exists.

I also feel the label agnostic is a way of appeasing those theists who would say, "well you can't PROVE (my) God doesn't exist"

I wanna be like... okay so are you agnostic about all the other gods you don't believe in? You can't PROVE they don't exist either.

Yeah it's splitting hairs but I'm at that point in my atheism lol.

Sorry for the book. Interesting subject.

@Doomflower

I totally get that. Honestly it's splitting hairs to characterize myself as an agnostic atheist because it's not like i'm unsure.

To me "atheist" is a position of belief on the existence of a god and "agnostic" is a position of knowledge on the existence of a god.

@Doomflower [quote]undermine my position[/quote]

Remember that it undermines their position to an equal extent 😀

https://similarworlds.com/atheism/21832-I-often-hear-whats-an-agnostic-atheist-so-perhaps

@SW-User If George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and actually did lie on occasion was he not George Washington?

@Pikachu Of course that mythology was made up to make an impression with other nations. This new country will be as honest as it’s president.

@Wiseacre I’ll save Pikachu the trouble....

First, let's split the world up into theists and atheists.
A theist is anyone who has some sort of god or gods
An atheist is someone who has no god or gods

Now, this division is further divided into two more groups the gnostic and the agnostic
Gnostic means: having specific knowledge about something.
Agnostic, obviously, means: not having specific knowledge about something
(Yes, I know that 'agnostic' is commonly used as an adjectival noun, but it's actually an adjective. It seems to me that using it as an adjectival noun leads to confusion)

So now we have four groups:
1. Gnostic theist: this is usually someone who subscribes to a particular religion. This person has a god or gods, and claims to have specific knowledge about their god or gods.
2. Agnostic theist: this is someone who has a god or gods, but does not claim specific knowledge about that god. Such people often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘.
3. Gnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, and who claims to know as a certainty that there are no gods.
4. Agnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, does not claim to know as a certainty that there are no gods, but also sees no need for them.
OK, let‘s look at each of these in more detail

Gnostic theists have the problem that they carry a burden of proof. This is because they claim to have knowledge about their gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. Of course, they can‘t (otherwise everyone would be theists), and they end up saying that ‘you have to have faith’ which means ‘I have no proof for my claims’ (faith is pretending to know something that you do not know)

Gnostic atheists have the same problem. They claim to know for certain that there are no gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. They too carry a burden of proof that they cannot meet (otherwise everyone would be atheists).

Agnostic theists aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have gods, but that they don't know anything about those gods (other than that they are, presumably, god-like).

Agnostic atheists have the easiest position. They aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have no gods. There‘s nothing to know and nothing to discuss.

Most of the arguing about these matters comes from gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. Both groups claim to have evidence and both groups endlessly debate that ‘evidence‘ with each other. In fact, there is no evidence, and neither group is able to support its claims. It's rare to meet a gnostic atheist, but gnostic theists are ubiquitous (fortunately it‘s quite easy to deal with them).

These days people are tending to eschew organised religion, so there are probably more agnostic theists around than there used to be. Agnostic theists often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘ and say that ‘there must be something‘, but without saying why there must be something.

As I said, agnostic atheists have an easy time of it (you’ll have worked out that I’m an agnostic atheist).
My position is ‘I have no gods‘. It is not possible to prove the existence of gods (otherwise we’d all be theists), and it is not possible to prove that gods do not exist (they might be lurking around some mountain-top somewhere). In any event, we have no need of them, so the whole argument is both unnecessary and pointless.

Whenever I tell a theist that I have no gods, they always react as if I had said ‘there are no gods‘ and they immediately insist that I prove my claim that the gods don't exist (i.e. they assume that I am a gnostic atheist). I patiently point out to them that I am not making such a claim, and that, in fact, I'm not making any claim whatsoever I'm simply saying that I have no gods. Usually, at this point, they’ll say something like ‘but you‘re saying that god doesn’t exist!‘. I then point out that isn't what I'm saying, that there's no proof that gods exist, and that there‘s no proof that gods don't exist, and as we have no need of them for anything, then I simply have no gods.

I usually summarise this as:
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

Of course, theists desperately need all atheists to be gnostic atheists so that they can demand proof that gods don't exist. Because agnostic atheists aren't making any such claim, theists are unable to divert attention away from the burden of proof for their own claim that gods exist. It’s astonishing how, even when you’ve clearly established that you‘re an agnostic atheist and you‘re therefore not making any claims, the theist will keep trying to argue as if you were a gnostic atheist.

@newjaninev2 thats why discussions about religion are fruitless!

@Pikachu i am a Atheist and lean toward buddhism as a life style.[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-079YIasck]
buddha was not a god .

@Pikachu Those were Job's children killed with the jealous god's approval. But after that cruel test was over, everything was restored. Except those unfortunate ten. New children came afterwords.

@BlueSkyKing
Yeah, i never understood how that was supposed to be a happy ending.

@JohnOinger

lol nah. I mean there might be but i see no reason to suppose there is.

@Pikachu do you get HBO Max

@JohnOinger

I don't think i've watched actual tv in years...

@Solopleasure

Most of us, anyway.
Just not something i feel like discussing in a public forum

@Pikachu that’s fair sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable

@Solopleasure

Not at all. I said ask me anything lol

@OggggO Because that's new generation bullshit.
if 151 was good enough for me then it's good enough foe these kids! lol

@Sharky86 Hell no!
Haunter is where it's at.
[image]

@Lilnonames Gay blocks! REEEEE!