”Inuma ilu awilum”…When the gods were men

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“only in crackpot land”

“only in crackpot land”

I quote from Wikipedia:
The wording of the proposed advert caused considerable debate amongst atheists and Christians alike and Sherine discussed it in a post-launch article, "Probably the best atheist bus campaign ever", on the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" section. Dawkins stated that he preferred the wording "There is almost certainly no God". Ariane Sherine claims it is necessary to be factually accurate, and that as it is impossible to disprove the existence of God it is only possible to say one 'probably' does not exist. Critic D.J.Taylor felt that this qualification let the campaign down, but admired it for introducing some tentativeness into an often polarised debate, while atheists including A.C. Grayling think that they can be certain there is no God and therefore the word 'probably' should not be used. It was also suggested that inserting the word would avoid a breach of the Advertising Standards Authority's rules.
Unquote

To say that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God is laughable since God is the objective reality of the proposition “There is God” which can be proven to be false, absurd and idiotic.
They all knew that to insert the word “’probably” was wrong but to say “There is no God” would have been like saying “My cheese is the best” and have problems with Advertising Standards Authority's rules!!
Pathetic! I would have called the campaign off than have a ridiculous campaign.

Travis Hedglin's picture
He is saying that probably

He is saying that probably false = probably true, and mean the same. There is no help for someone with that level of Dunning-Kruger.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Most of the first part of

Most of the first part of your post is basically a summery of the Sumerian tablets.
Their version of history which is considered as myth does indeed say those things.
According to the tablets the gods(Anunnaki) came on earth and had the Igigi-gods work for them, then the Igigi rebelled and refused to work and thus they(Anunnaki) created a slave race to do the dirty work for them.
A race that was more adapted to this planet but was built WITH the image of the gods(Anunnaki).
According to the tablets the Anunnaki also created plants and animals"to give the gods their ease"(it is written)

So yes, monotheism is an exploit by rulers to control the people that emerged from those stories.

Euhemerism is a theory that is not so popular true, mainly because no money is sent in that direction and it is a carrier breaker.

"Unfortunately, modern people, theists and atheists alike, cannot bring themselves to think but of an immaterial heavenly being when reference is made to the term “god”."
Most uninformed atheist and theist would mix atheism with adeism, that is true.
But the problem is information, it has nothing to do with atheism and theism per se.

70% of the population is just outright stupid so what do you expect?

Theism is a but a very very very small possibility of what a god could mean.
Atheism is the lack of belief in that claim.

It seems to me that you constantly regard atheist as some sort of group like:
"true atheists"
There are no true atheists, you are either an atheist or you are not.
You either lack belief or believe, if you have a small doubt then you lack belief in a theistic god.
You may not know or declare you are an atheist but you are if you have doubt about the theistic god's existence.

Instead of grouping atheists like that you should be more specific on who you are talking about.
Everybody is an atheist with regards to other religions.
Atheism is a very loose term to use it as a group of people to make a point.

Dr Richard Carrier tries to explain that if your want to take atheism as a group or community then you have to point to a particular group like Atheism + which you do not require to lack belief in a theistic god only but you also have to have skeptical values, humanist values, morally responsible, etc....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au2i3xxgv7U

There are a lot of bad and stupid people out there and yes, some are atheist/theists alike.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“According to the tablets the

“According to the tablets the gods(Anunnaki) came on earth and had the Igigi-gods work for them, then the Igigi rebelled and refused to work and thus they(Anunnaki) created a slave race to do the dirty work for them.”

Not to forget that the believers are still regarded slaves (not servants as theologians prefer) of the God and that almost universally the legends have the humans made by gods in order to serve them, i.e. feed them, cloth them and provide accommodation for them.

“A race that was more adapted to this planet but was built WITH the image of the gods(Anunnaki).”

The phrase “adapted to this planet” reminds me of Daniken and Sitchin.
We know now that the “gods”, who were men as the poem says (lords, the ruling elite), were creating “humans” in human breeding grounds by raping abducted women.
Since you are aware of the myths of the ancient Near East you know that originally it was said that “humans” were created by some women called Mother-wombs then the theologians took over and said the it was the Mother Goddess who created them, then they removed the goddess and said that a male god did it by himself (by masturbating according to the Egyptian texts) and finally they said the story about making them out of clay or dirt.

“Euhemerism is a theory that is not so popular true, mainly because no money is sent in that direction and it is a carrier breaker.”

That is correct, but it is the only theory that shows the joke the God idea is and atheists should adopt it (by admitting that “gods” was originally an epithet for men, agnosticism ceases to exist).

“70% of the population is just outright stupid so what do you expect?”

No, I am sorry! I have a better opinion of humans. You have to remove the rubbish fed to the children by religion and traditions in order to judge the person. That is why I am of the opinion that atheists have to be educated in religious matters: to counteract what they had learned by force.

“It seems to me that you constantly regard atheist as some sort of group like:
"true atheists"”

That is correct. In this matter I follow Dawkins: Atheists are very very few, they say “I know there is no God” and belong to category 7 (Dawkins stated he is a 6. Then he tried to correct this unforgivable mistake and declared a 6.9 but it was already too late. He failed as a true atheist).

“There are no true atheists, you are either an atheist or you are not.”

You are either category 7 atheist or you are an agnostic. ;-)

“You either lack belief or believe, if you have a small doubt then you lack belief in a theistic god.”

Belief and lack of belief is for agnostics. Atheists know that there is no God. Period!
To declare atheist because… it is cool to be atheist, does not make one an atheist.

Sorry but I am a hardcore dogmatic atheist who despises agnostics.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
“70% of the population is

“70% of the population is just outright stupid so what do you expect?”
"No, I am sorry! I have a better opinion of humans. You have to remove the rubbish fed to the children by religion and traditions in order to judge the person."
Religion is like only 30% of the rubbish that needs to be removed man.

I was being nice when i said 70% since my real opinion is that 99% are ignorant and too lazy to stop being ignorant(stupid).

Well 99% still think that democracy actually gives them a choice, so yes they are stupid in my opinion.
Democracy is an other word for mass control, give the people 2 choices and control both choices anyway by financing both parties.
Carlin was right when he said that it is all a farce.
If it wasn't we would have real certified ministers by now, not ministers that know next to nothing about their ministry(mostly lawyers) but chosen by the president. This is just pure corruption.
When you have such a corrupt system that promotes corruption being liked by people who should hate corruption, there is only one definition that explains it:
STUPIDITY

Jeff:
“It seems to me that you constantly regard atheist as some sort of group like:
"true atheists"”
Dimitrios:
"That is correct. In this matter I follow Dawkins"
Don't follow Dawkins, no one really follows that scale anyway.

“I know there is no God”
This is a Gnostic ADEIST claim, It has nothing to do with Atheism.

I think you have a very bad understanding of what atheism means.

"Belief and lack of belief is for agnostics. Atheists know that there is no God. Period!"
Nah man, you got it wrong.
A GNOSTIC Atheist knows that there is no THEISTIC god.
Which is a very stupid position to have, since it is implied that one knows everything when one makes such a claim.

Only stupids are Gnostic atheists/theist so that leaves agnostic atheist/theists.

Agnosticism and atheism are complimentary, so are Agnosticism and Theism

You can be both an agnostic atheist and an Gnostic Anti-theist

Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a claim to knowledge.
Anti-theist= the claim that Theism does more harm to the world then good.

So one can claim to know for sure that theism does more harm then good (Gnostic Anti-Theist), but one cannot claim to know if a Theistic God exists or not.
If you declare to know about a possible existence or non existence of something then you would be claiming to also know everything there is in the universe and beyond.
That claim is considered stupid and thus Dawkins did not make it.(he is smart)
His scale sucks though, I will grant you that.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“Well 99% still think that

“Well 99% still think that democracy actually gives them a choice, so yes they are stupid in my opinion.”

Your opinion is wrong because there is no alternative. If people make bad use of their right to vote you may not blame democracy.
We voted a leftist government in Greece and the right-wingers in Europe are going mad (because Spain is next in line). We should have done that earlier. :-)

“Only stupids are Gnostic atheists/theist”

According to your terminology I am a Gnostic atheist. I clearly state that I despise agnosticism but I call nobody stupid. To me agnosticism is a cunning theological theory and people make the agnostic choice for various reasons. I do not like them but I do not think that they are stupid.

The many terms you use are but an indication of meaningless philosophical verbosity.
The reasonable, non-philosophical, approach is to ask the people the question: “Is there a God?” and label them according to their answer.
Theist: YES
Agnostic: I DO NOT KNOW
Atheist: NO

The rest is, as I said, meaningless philosophical verbosity.

“If you declare to know about a possible existence or non existence of something then you would be claiming to also know everything there is in the universe and beyond.”

Nothing can be claimed without research and evidence. You want to know about God? Make a research if you have the time and the will, otherwise stay where you are in the very wise “I do not know” and do not pretend to be an atheist.

“That claim is considered stupid and thus Dawkins did not make it.(he is smart)
His scale sucks though, I will grant you that.”

To me his scale is smart and his motto is stinking of agnosticism. :-D

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Your opinion is wrong

"Your opinion is wrong because there is no alternative."
With same reason, you should be a christian because god gives no alternative, you either believe or burn in hell.
Best to believe right?

Just because there is no better alternative discovered yet to replace democracy, it does not mean that we should accept democracy like we are doing.
We should instead try to improve it or find a better system, but the truth is that the people are being taught to believe that there is no alternative but democracy. Just like you claimed here, which is not true.
The truth is that there is not enough effort to even look for one, because the rich and powerful want it to stay like that.
Abusing the ignorance of people to keep them ignorant of this problem so the rich remain rich and in control.

"According to your terminology I am a Gnostic atheist."
According to me:
"I think you have a very bad understanding of what atheism means."
Stupids are people who know they are ignorant and choose to remain ignorant but claim that they know about that particular subject.(theists fall here too, so do all that think that democracy is a good thing) = 99% of the population.

"stay where you are in the very wise “I do not know” and do not pretend to be an atheist."

You clearly do not know the definition of atheism and please stop insulting my intligence in trying to redefining the atheism meaning.
Theism= belief in a theistic god(all powerful, all knowing, loving, can do everything)
ATheim= NOT Theism. So an atheist is a guy that lacks belief in a theistic god.
The A = NOT (go look it up)

To me his scale is smart and his motto is stinking of agnosticism. :-D
Your opinion is respected and he is an agnostic atheist so you are right here.

Theist is a belief
Gnostic is a claim to knowledge

You can believe something but not KNOW for sure == Agnostic Theist
You can not believe in something and not KNOW for sure == Agnostic Atheist

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“Just because there is no

“Just because there is no better alternative discovered yet to replace democracy, it does not mean that we should accept democracy like we are doing.”

As regards to alternative for democracy I have to admit that you are right. There is one alternative: DIRECT DEMOCRACY!
It can be done because we can vote from our desk using a PC.

I have a question for you: What was the decisive factor that led the ancient Greeks to reach the stage of democratic government?

“ATheim= NOT Theism. So an atheist is a guy that lacks belief in a theistic god.
The A = NOT (go look it up)”

The term “atheist’ is Greek, I myself am Greek, so I have nothing to look up.
The atheist denies god/God. No belief involved, sorry!

“Theist is a belief
Gnostic is a claim to knowledge
You can believe something but not KNOW for sure == Agnostic Theist
You can not believe in something and not KNOW for sure == Agnostic Atheist”

The term “Agnostic atheist” creates an oxymoron. Either you know there is no God or you do not know. You may not have both. :-)
The concept of the one and only God was created by the ancient Egyptian priesthood. You may find the following article interesting:

https://www.academia.edu/7189733/_Amen_..._the_creation_of_the_Creator

Yet, the idea of God is indeed absurd, ridiculous and extremely insulting to both human intelligence and dignity. So, I would suggest that you find out why you cannot bring yourself to see it as such.

Pitar's picture
There is no allowance for

There is no allowance for doubt in an atheistic world. If you only harbor a doubt, you are struggling with that line between dismissal and acceptance of a god. You cannot claim atheism. I don't see how this is a point of misunderstanding. I cannot ascribe to myself powers of redefining a word to suit myself, which is what man has done throughout the ages to suit his desires, in an attempt to tip a discussion my way. That behavior describes christian strategies and tactics that began with the plagiarizing pen of Paul, in the latter day awareness, who attempted to redirect the course of archeological history to suit his discussion.

Atheism is simply a declaration of godlessness sans the ceremony and pageantry of the eschewed.

Mitch's picture
"There is no allowance for

"There is no allowance for doubt in an atheistic world."

Irony of ironies.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"It can be done because we

"It can be done because we can vote from our desk using a PC."
The problem with democracy is that the people are easily manipulated.
that is why a better system that only allows educated people to vote is better.
Un-educated people can only hinder progress not help it.
Education should be free and promoted with good incentives.
Not make it only for people who has the money to keep the people as ignorant as possible so you can manipulate him easier.

"I have a question for you: What was the decisive factor that led the ancient Greeks to reach the stage of democratic government?"
I honestly do not really know but according to what I have read, it probably had something to do with Cleisthenes pleasing the middle- and working-class people who made up the army and the navy.

"The atheist denies god/God. No belief involved, sorry!"
The word "atheism" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "godless" or, to emphasize it more generally, "without deities."
"without deities." does not mean that it denies god existence, it just means that the person does not have a deity. Mainly because he does not believe in one.
You do not need to deny the existence of god to not have a god.(godless).
I may accept the existence of The all mighty Poseidon and at the same time not accept him as my god and even be godless.
So clearly you have a huge misunderstand of the term atheism even though you are Greek.

"The term “Agnostic atheist” creates an oxymoron. "
No it doesn't if you understand that they are 2 different claims. You are mixing them up in the same claim.
"Either you know there is no God or you do not know. You may not have both. :-)"
Exactly, you are either an Agnostic Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist you cannot be both. :)

Theist is the belief in the existence of a theistic god.
Atheist is the lack of belief in the existence of a theistic god.
Gnostic Theist = to KNOW for sure that your belief in a theistic god's existence is correct.
Agnostic Theist - to NOT KNOW for sure that your belief in a theistic god's existence is correct.
Gnostic Atheist = to KNOW for sure that your lack of belief in the existence of a theistic god is correct.
Agnostic Atheist = to NOT KNOW for sure that your lack of belief in the existence of a theistic god is correct.

Gnostic on it's own, does not exist since it begs the question, Gnostic of what?
A claim of knowledge to what?
There is no such person which is only an Agnostic or a Gnostic, this is just Theist propaganda to diminish the number of atheists by labeling them as just Agnostics, as if such a thing even exists.

Your hate towards the agnostic propaganda by theist is just bias.
remove your bias and see the truth, you yourself are an agnostic on many things not only about god.
eg:

Do claim to know for sure that you will wake up tomorrow?
If no, then you are an Agnostic "waking up tomorrow" person. (I think you choose this)
If yes, then you are a Gnostic "waking up tomorrow" person.

"Yet, the idea of God is indeed absurd, ridiculous and extremely insulting to both human intelligence and dignity. So, I would suggest that you find out why you cannot bring yourself to see it as such."
I do see the theistic god as incredibly stupid and contradictory concept that defies logic and is practically impossible to exist in a logical universe.
The problem is that I do not know if this logical universe is the only possible universe.
I do not know if logic itself can be broken.
I am but a humble spec of dust in this solar system alone, the universe is so huge that to claim anything about the assistance or non existence of something outside this universe is just so arrogant that it becomes stupid.

Only ignorant or stupid people claim things about something that they have no knowledge of.
That is why all Gnostic Atheist and Gnostic theist are being stupid and drowning in ignorance if they hold that position.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch
CyberLN's picture
"The problem with democracy

"The problem with democracy is that the people are easily manipulated.
that is why a better system that only allows educated people to vote is better.
Un-educated people can only hinder progress not help it.
Education should be free and promoted with good incentives.
Not make it only for people who has the money to keep the people as ignorant as possible so you can manipulate him easier."

Horse hockey.
Education does not equal intelligence. Education does not automatically equal resistance to manipulation. Uneducated does not equal stupid. Ability, potential, common sense, skill, etc., are not the sole property of the credentialed. To promote that only the educated should have a say in how everyone is governed is elitist at best and would, I would lay odds, become rife with problems.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Education does not equal

"Education does not equal intelligence. Education does not automatically equal resistance to manipulation"

Did I mention that education = intelligence?

Educated people has better chances of knowing more on a particular subject then uneducated people. This is a fact, no argument here.

EG:
Choose to vote for a party that will introduce a new method in agriculture.
If everybody is allowed to vote for this party without knowing what this method actually does, then someone who wants to exterminate half the country could easily do it with enough money and propaganda.

That is why voting from everybody should go only for 1 person(eg president) where the people only are involved in voting a person that best represents them.
The ministry and all the other branches should be made of certified people that has nothing to do with politics or votes from the people, but votes from qualified individuals(with certificates from universities) in that particular sector.
So the ministers would be the best possible persons to manage that department and not corrupt politicians that are chosen by the president to keep the chair warm.

This is just 1 example of how to improve democracy and reduce corruption.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“So the ministers would be

“So the ministers would be the best possible persons to manage that department and not corrupt politicians that are chosen by the president to keep the chair warm.”

And what would keep the president from choosing corrupt persons who are not politicians?
The system you propose has a name: “Oligarchy” and Socrates was sentenced to death for supporting oligarchy (like his pupil Plato and the pupil of him Aristotle).

Quote from Wikipedia
Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist). Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.
Unquote

“I honestly do not really know but according to what I have read, it probably had something to do with Cleisthenes pleasing the middle- and working-class people who made up the army and the navy.”

No! The ancient Greeks reached the stage of democracy because they were the only ancient people who managed to exterminate their own priestly caste (the advocates of theocracy and oligatchy) to the last priest.
There was no priesthood in ancient Greece, so much for the Athenians as for the Spartans.

Oligarchy is a curse! Direct democracy might be the answer and soon it would be practically possible, no matter how large a country is.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
You forgot to reply to the

You forgot to reply to the agnostic subject.

Bur anyway.
"And what would keep the president from choosing corrupt persons who are not politicians?"
The president has no authority in the departments. since the presiden is only consulted when a choice is needed to be made or more money is required for a big project that the allocatred money for the minitry.
The president is less qualified then the head of any department in their subjects.

EG
The agricultural minister has to have a masters in agriculture and also passed an exam for ministerial affairs.(does not exist yet, wonder why?)
Then he gets elected by people who have similar qualifications only.(qualified people)
The president has no say on how to mange agriculture or any other department except when the minister asks the president to make a choice on a subject because he represents the people.

If a minister says that an idea related to his department will hurt the economy, the president has no authority to make it without the go ahead of the minister.
The minister knows better then the president in his department.

You have to think of the president as the voice of the people and not a boss that can do whatever he likes.
There are some things that the voice of the people is very important but there are some other things that the people do not understand well.
Understanding this balance and have a system that works in conjunction with this balance creates a more adaptable society that has better chances of success.

This system has nothing to do with Oligarchy, so I do not know where you are going with this?
This system is based on who has better knowledge and not royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, religious or military control.

Even though you included education, I am sure it has nothing to do with this kind of system I presented but education in the sens of exploiting the better education one has for control.
This gets eliminated when everybody has excess to education for free.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“You forgot to reply to the

“You forgot to reply to the agnostic subject.”

If you want to know my opinion of agnosticism read the exchange with Travis Hedglin.
You use too many philosophical terms and I simply regard the agnostics as krypto-theists.

“This system has nothing to do with Oligarchy, so I do not know where you are going with this?”

I am afraid it does. To me, a passionate democrat, your system is not acceptable and, besides, we are not discussing politics in this thread.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
There are both agnostic

There are both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, but they are different things.

An Gnostic is a claim about what you know for sure.
An Agnostic is a claim about what you do not know for sure.

Could be anything on any subject.
I am Gnostic about me looking like a man.=I know for sure that I look like a man.
I am an Agnostic about me looking handsome to everybody= I do not know for sure that I look handsome to everybody.

"I simply regard the agnostics as krypto-theists."
Yep that is just bias, that theistic propaganda brought with it.

Think of it as a colour.

You have an elephant(theist), and then you have a pink elephant(agnostic theist)
You have a mouse(atheist), and then you have a pink mouse(agnostic atheist)

It is really not that complicated.

"I am afraid it does. . To me, a passionate democrat, your system is not acceptable"
Without justifying your claim, we are left with your opinion.
The problem is awareness and most people just think that we are masers of everything we survey.
Well the fact is that we do not survey everything we think we are masters of.

passionate democrat or passionate republican, it is all a game for who has the money that finances both major parties.

It is a game that will keep you fighting among each other to not see the elephant in the room.
Whatever happens in the country, the rich remain rich, it is always the hard working people that try to play the rich game that end up loosing or go bankrupt.
The ones on top always make the choices for you and make you think that you chose them.
A politician will always choose the conditions of the rich people who pay for his election campaign.
It is simple logic, you do not need to be a genius to realize it.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“passionate democrat or

“passionate democrat or passionate republican, it is all a game for who has the money that finances both major parties.”

I live in Greece.
A democrat here means a person despising Oligarchy of any sort.

In the states you have two democratic parties one a little bit to the left of the middle and the other one a little bit to the right.
Nobody in the states would like the system you propose, unless they feel friendly towards communism of fascism. You system is totalitarian; dismiss it.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
You put up a lot of claims on

You put up a lot of claims on my system but never support your claims.

My system is an update on democracy, people still get to vote but now if they want the right to vote for ministers, they have to earn that right by going to school and learn that subject.

This is not communism, fascism or totalitarian.

You either do not know the meaning of those systems or are so filled with bias that you fail to reason honestly.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“people still get to vote but

“people still get to vote but now if they want the right to vote for ministers, they have to earn that right by going to school and learn that subject.”

So, no vote for uneducated.
In the past it was no vote for slaves, black people or women. I have to admit that your system shows some improvement because you can educate everyone, in so many fields of knowledge as the departments of a government, but you cannot turn blacks into whites and women into men. :-D

I have to repeat, though, that this topic is not about politics.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"So, no vote for uneducated."

"So, no vote for uneducated."
Yes no vote for uneducated FOR MINISTERS. Ministers are elected only from educated people in that particular field.

"In the past it was no vote for slaves, black people or women."
But uneducated people still con vote for the leader of the country where people choose the person that represents them.
So the vote is still there for everybody, your comparison just does not apply.

Edit:

Actually is quite the opposite.

This system is actually reducing the power and control of the president and giving it to the people that are wiling to get educated and have a say.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
DIMITRIOS TRIMIJOPULOS

DIMITRIOS TRIMIJOPULOS

Only in a religious context does the word agnostic mean:
"A person who believes that nothing is KNOWN or can be KNOWN of the existence or nature of God."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

So Believing/NOT Believing in the existence of a theistic god= Theist/Atheist
Claiming to KNOW/NOT KNOW about the existence of god= Gnostic/Agnostic

I'd like to help you understand what agnosticism is, and I do not care to even read the debate with Travis or any other.

You are an agnostic too when it comes to many subjects.

Do you know for sure that we are alone in the entire universe?
If you do not KNOW but you believe that we are alone, then you are an agnostic "alone in the universe" person.

Do you know for sure that you will wake up tomorrow morning?
If you do not KNOW but you believe that you will wake up tomorrow, then you are an agnostic "wake up tomorrow" person.

Do you know for sure that ANY theistic god does not exist?
Since we do not know what are the definitions of those ANY Theistic gods, all reasonable/sane atheists are Agnostic Atheists.

I know for sure that the theistic christian god does not exists since it goes against logic but I cannot generalize it for all possible theistic gods without committing a fallacy.

I care about the truth and the truth is that agnosticism is a claim about knowledge.
I do not care if theists want it to mean something else, they are just wrong.
If you want it to mean something else, you are wrong.

If you care about the truth then you should research the truth and not let your bias dictate the truth for you.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“You are an agnostic too when

“You are an agnostic too when it comes to many subjects.”

Of course, but not with regard to theories, claims and proposition the value of which science can decide.

“Do you know for sure that we are alone in the entire universe?”

We are discussing religious agnosticism here, not what astrophysicist may know or know not.

“I know for sure that the theistic christian god does not exists since it goes against logic but I cannot generalize it for all possible theistic gods without committing a fallacy.”

Of course, the other possible theistic gods were produced by reasonable theologians; unless if you have in mind some god you created yourself.
After all, you have already created a perfect political system to replace democracy. :-D

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Of course, the other

"Of course, the other possible theistic gods were produced by reasonable theologians;"
I am including all possible theistic gods even those that have never been proposed ever.
Claiming something with regards to what there is not in the entire universe is arrogance and stupidity.

"unless if you have in mind some god you created yourself."
No, I do not have anything.

"After all, you have already created a perfect political system to replace democracy. :-D"
I never claimed that anything is perfect, I just demonstrated how to improve the current political system.
Are you claiming that democracy cannot be improved?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - "Of course, but

Dimitrios - "Of course, but not with regard to theories, claims and proposition the value of which science can decide."

To be agnostic as regards the particulars of the universe, for example, it is reasonable. Chill out man.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.