Is agnostic atheism a valid belief, mathematically debunked, or just wishful imagination?

Agnosticism is technically the only stance anyone can take about ANYTHING, certainty is impossible beyond a few really trivial facts (the fact that you exist, the fact that you're not omniscient, etc etc).

In practice, tho, people only wheel out the U CANT KNO!!11! canard when dealing with attitudes towards God. No-one claims to be agnostic towards Santa, or Zeus, or Leprechauns. And when a argument is ONLY used in one specific case, it's typically an example of the fallacy of special pleading.

This. Exactly This.

there's a difference between possible god beings in space nobody can comprehend the sheer size and mystery of the universe that it seems totally illocal to claim knowledge.

I think it's so arrogant for humans keep promoting a any kind of belief. we discovered evolution, carbon dating, we have a solid understanding of earth before we even existed. if there is an earth god he seems a cool guy too.gets a bit bored and destroys an entire city killing thousands.

WE ARE SO SCARE OF ETERNAL DEATH THAT WE DENY CLEAR LOGIC AND EVIDENCE.

>every element of modern religion has been tore apart
Really joggin the neurons there

Really not sure what point you're trying to make. That we shouldn't presume to know anything beyond what we can convincingly show? Essentially what any scientist worth their salt will already accept.

Not the user you replied to btw.

Proof of God's Existence:
Proof my dear Atheist & Agnostic twins:
If all that exists is of our physical/natural universe; ie that the Natural realm is all that exists and that this Natural Realm must be then by definition a closed system; and that all forces are part and product of this closed system known as the Natural Realm. Then it follows that Humanity must also be a part & product of and only a part & product of this Natural Realm/Existence.............

If then, Humanity is a part & product of this Natural Realm/Existence and only a part & product of this Natural Realm/Existence and any forces thereof; then all that stems from Humanity must be a part and product of this closed Natural Realm/Existence as well. This of course includes all that is seen/observed outwardly from Humanity but must therefore also include all from Humanity that is not seen/observed outwardly. All the thoughts, feelings, intuitions, etc that are produced by the Human animal that perhaps are not able to be seen outwardly - whether they be 'True' or 'Lie'. Obviously included in this must be the idea, concept of 'God' - as a part and product of this closed system known as the Natural Realm. Otherwise where else; what other 'Realm' has it come from?

God therefore must exist! my dear Atheist/Agnostic friends as a part & product of our Natural Realm/Existence even if only as an abstract invention of the Human mind!

Part 2:
Therefore it follows when the Atheist says there is no God; that God does not exist, the Atheist is in fact denying a part & product of Human Natural Existence (for better or for worse) which is also a denial of the very Natural Realm that must be a closed system. A closed system of which the Atheist & Agnostic says is all that exists.

So the A Twins not only deny the existence of the supernatural realm but also deny that of the Natural Realm!! If then you deny both the Natural Realm as well as the supernatural realm tell me my A twin friends?: What the hell is left??? Nothing is left to believe in hence Atheism/Agnosticism = Nihilism. Such is the case of the pathetic A Twins Homo sapiens beast.

The Secular argument then should not be whether or not 'God' exists - but rather who created whom? Did 'God' create the Natural Realm & our Natural Existence or is 'God' a creation of that Natural Realm - as a part & product of Human Existence?

You are stupid.

yes, studies have shown complete removal of churches nationwide would improve society greatly. we've seen pedo rings, suicide bombers and the romans were hilarious. writing "holy" text" as they gave each other titles. not a shred of solid deity evidence has even been provided whereas humans have figured out how the entire world works. we've walked on the moon.
finally: of course the real god is my one. not the thousands imagined throughout history.

there are two views on that in the scientific community. sorry I can't remember their names but one proposes evidence must be experienced yourself. seems logical? nope this attitude to research is dying out. scientists have embraced looking outwards and not inwards, reliable speculation would help technology development reach huge milestones.and of course they understand the universe's mechanics more than anyone and how fact can sometimes be stranger than fiction. it would be foolish to not at least acknowledge the slim chancee are the only sentient beings in existence.

You could be a full fledged atheist, and still believe there are god-like alien lifeforms abroad. That isn't really precluded by, nor part of, the atheist stance, agnostic or gnostic.

Formless might be out for most, but even most atheists will admit our understanding of physics is incomplete, so "life or matter but not as we know it" is still a possibility, however slim, and really, next to impossible to reasonably speculate about.

>So unlikely it makes you wonder if an organic life supporting solar system will EVER form again, feels badman
Less unlikely than you'd think... Universe has been around a mere ~14 billion years, and has a bout 800 billion left in it before the galaxies even start getting dimmer.

There's nothing unusual about the materials that make up life, at our base, we're primarily made up of and dependant on the most common elements and molecules in the universe. Carbon (there are whole stars practically made of the stuff), nitrogen, and oxygen being common as fuck, water and ice being found pretty much everywhere it can form, all being within the top five most common molecules and elements, and even amino acids on asteroids are not unheard of.

Whether it's common enough to be likely to happen in *this galaxy* is another thing, but there's probably trillions of potentially habitable worlds in this galaxy alone, given that we're not even in the most likely sort of system for them to appear in, and the red-dwarfs, where they apparently are more common, are more common, and are stable for ten times as long as stars like our own. ...and then there's countless trillions of galaxies, a whole lot like our own.

Thus, in all likelihood, there are countless life forms out there, somewhere, right now, and there will be countless more in the future. Question is less if there is life, there almost certainly is, but more whether we will ever meet any enough like us to communicate with.

Good post, thanks. I don't mean to start arguments just a clearer perspective because I am not a scientist.

Ironically am a commodities and energy trader though, so I'm fully aware of the sheer eagerness to start colonizing and blowing up other planets.

Nobody argues the idea of a god isnt real, its the existance of a god that has no evidence or logical substanitation

Explaining something complex with something even more complex, with no evidence of the latter, just doesn't have legs.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>agnostic atheism

You're either agnostic or a butthurt atheist.

>Basically how likely, if at all, dataless programmer-like entities and the like could be roaming the program?

youtube.com/watch?v=BXlBCZ_5OYw

>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

that's positivism, widely criticized for disrupting research and data because science MUST follow a small list of rules and any theories can be disregarded purely on the basis of disbelief.

almost every major discovery or technological advancement has operated outside this approach. for instance quantum mechanics would never have been discovered, or if it had immediately disregarded because the quantum world bends many of the rules our extremely limited understanding brains have imposed on ourself. you have to look at the bigger picture.

Once you are introduced to the concept of a god, you either believe that he does exist, or you believe that he doesn't exist (or you simply acknowledge that you can't know for sure). The choice of not believing somehow being in any way less of a baseless belief than the other choice is a retarded idea. It's the same thing, there is no way to offer any evidence for either of those claims, so both are a belief, if you like it or not.

>every element of modern religion has been tore apart

And how many years have you been studying the world's religions? 0? But I'm sure the Amazing Atheist, The Cult of Dusty, or whatever internet atheists who repeat that mantra ad nauseam are valid substitutes for any rigorous study.

>there is no wizard in the sky

If you call something a funny name, clearly it must be bullshit. That's like the one true law of science.

>No-one claims to be agnostic towards Santa

Because he's real. No one claims to be agnostic towards Hitler either.

>And when a argument is ONLY used in one specific case

What? There are plenty of issues where agnostic stance is valid like alien life or whether a species is extinct or not.

>Unless the programmer-like entity has an effect on the executing program, whether or not it exists is entirely irrelevant. If it does, then code is irrelevant.

Feel free to join a knitting club of whatever you're talking about and shoot all the breeze you want.

Don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

wrong

creationism has been disproved extensively via evolution and a ridiculous carbon dating test to prove the earth is billions of years old. not two thousand. "god" has no methodology. good people, even kids get sick and die. natural disasters destroy entire communities. not to mention this system of being given time on earth, dieing and either sent to purgatory or allowed in heaven for eternity serves no purpose at all. "but it's all part of his plan", or some blokes made it all up a very long time ago to serve as motivation to lead a good life and a deterrent to not.

I don't believe in this god for the aforementioned answers and many, many more, never once being challenged.

>there is no way to offer any evidence for either of those claims
you're right, I can't physically prove there is no god, because there isn't. seems to me faith is blindless.

as for the universe it's 90 billion light years long so anything but agnostic exploration to distant space is illogical.

not a single retort to either of my rational posts, just insults.

if you have nothing to day I have no desire to talk to you.

>disbelief
>theory
>quantum

These words clearly confuse and upset the poor indoctrinated man. I'd suggest reading a book sometime but it appears you only read yourself.

You are mixing up different concepts. I'm not talking about creationism, I'm not even talking about a Christian god. I'm merely talking about the hypothetical idea of an entity outside of our observational possibilities. And that is (mind, by definition) never possible to rule out. You need to understand that both answers to the question whether there is a god are exactly equal. There is no way for you or anyone to say anything more than "I do (don't) believe that." for completely irrational reasons. The only rational claim one can make is what I am explaining right now: The acknowledgement that there will always be things beyond our knowledge. Now, again, this has nothing to do with Christianity, spirituality or anything like this. This is basically a self-evident fact.

not a shred of evidence

>Don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

>retort to either of my rational posts

how bout

>every element of modern religion has been tore apart

[citation needed]

>there is no wizard in the sky sending us to heaven or hell.

That's not a rational argument, just you emotional opinion dude.

>21st century and well over half americans believe in god. why is this accepted

Ad hominem are so kool XD.

>the quantum world bends many of the rules our extremely limited understanding brains have imposed on ourself

QM is just taking E=K+V and making it an operator equation. The rest just follows from the basic results of functional analysis. Try reading textbooks rather than popsci next time.

NTG, but things like, basic quantum physics, and even most of the alternative solutions to it, do point to the fact that there are certain aspects of reality that physical beings are can never know of directly, or at least, cannot be aware of to an exactitude.

However, they can only have so much of an impact on our world before you can infer their existence. That, at least, we can do with all known phenomena that interact with our world, and even the unknown theoretical ones.

This doesn't rule out things we've yet to know, but it does rather put a dent in the idea of a presently present deity that affects our world, manipulating it through unknown mechanisms. This thus virtually eliminates several models of dieties, including the traditional Abrahamic ones. Though it doesn't, for instance, eliminate the "god who set an alarm clock" model or the more passive pantheistic models, among other less interactive dieties (not that an omnipotent deity couldn't simply choose to leave no evidence and set everything in the proper order retroactively - but then you're into solipsism level unknowables).

Which is part of the reason I never did like the whole double axis atheist/theist - gnostic/agnostic system. It doesn't really say much of anything. The colloquial terms, with qualifiers, are more efficient and more exact.

It's not. Agnostic means you are not convinced that there is a god, but you could be convinced given sufficient evidence.

Atheism means you don't believe in god, it follows from the agnosticism if you are rational minded.

Agnostics are a bunch of wishy-washy fucks.

youtu.be/SfhC25AAxcc?t=2m10s

There is a religion-type of atheism (positive)
and a scientist-type of atheism (negative)
where positive/negative means evidence or lack of. Both don't believe in god, the latter admit that just like unicorns and elves, you can't 100% prove the non-existence.

Agnosticism is the scientific position. People who call that wishy-washy are retards like that below 90 IQ comedian. At least he admits that he has done zero research about any of the topics that he has strong opinions about, just like guns and immigration. I guess it is your fault for taking him seriously.

>positive and negative atheism
How does this contradict what I said? Weak or negative atheism follows from agnosticism, unless you choose to believe in god anyway. Which would make you an agnostic theist.

i guess you are spiritual

No