This is scientific objective agnosticism
No. well, yes. But it’s agnostic atheism. sort of.
Agnosticism holds that it’s impossible to have knowledge of the divine- or to have similar knowledge of it’s non-existence. that such things are fundamentally beyond human reason.
I disagree with that position, as well.
Allow me to explain. There are actually two claims being made:
That there is a god
that there is no god
It’s impossible prove the non-existence of a thing. I freely admit that. The other claim- that there is a god- however, should be easily proven simply by having that god come down and say “hi” or, something. it’s also relatively easy to disprove the existence of any specific god.
I base my belief that there is no god on the simple fact that no god has been proven to exist. I hold that the second claim is reasonable, because the first claim was disproven. (As you pointed out, the concept of ‘god’ is a human construct. Quite possibly pure fiction, or at the very least, most likely a lie perpetuated to maintain social control.)
Not OP, but I adopt “atheist” more than “agnostic” because in addition to not assuming there to be a God, I also find the question “is there a God?” to be a bit of a meaningless question since God is undefined, nebulous, and untestable. If I entertained the question and found it worthy of engagement, I’d think of myself being “agnostic” instead.
Wouldn’t that make you an agnostic?
deleted by creator
Objectively, I can’t know if a god exists somewhere and I just haven’t seen it. Proving a negative, all that.
But I don’t believe such a being exists, and while I’m okay with the lack of certainty… there is a chance I might be wrong.
But even if the Christian god existed… he’s a total asshole.
deleted by creator
Agnosticism holds that it’s impossible to have knowledge of the divine- or to have similar knowledge of it’s non-existence. that such things are fundamentally beyond human reason.
I disagree with that position, as well. Allow me to explain. There are actually two claims being made:
It’s impossible prove the non-existence of a thing. I freely admit that. The other claim- that there is a god- however, should be easily proven simply by having that god come down and say “hi” or, something. it’s also relatively easy to disprove the existence of any specific god.
I base my belief that there is no god on the simple fact that no god has been proven to exist. I hold that the second claim is reasonable, because the first claim was disproven. (As you pointed out, the concept of ‘god’ is a human construct. Quite possibly pure fiction, or at the very least, most likely a lie perpetuated to maintain social control.)
Not OP, but I adopt “atheist” more than “agnostic” because in addition to not assuming there to be a God, I also find the question “is there a God?” to be a bit of a meaningless question since God is undefined, nebulous, and untestable. If I entertained the question and found it worthy of engagement, I’d think of myself being “agnostic” instead.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god. If you don’t actively have a positive belief in god, you are by definition an atheist. You lack the belief.
deleted by creator