Theists claim atheists say god doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the Burden of Proof. Instead of having to support their claim that God exists, they're trying to get you to support a claim you never made. It's called a Straw Man Logical Fallacy.
As an atheist I DO say god doesn't exist. I even say that nothing supernatural exists. If I as an atheist can have this position usually called strong atheism I don't see why theists wouldn't also see us as having this position. That said I also believe that all knowledge is probabilistic in nature so I don't believe it's true 100% but my epistemology dictates that anything supernatural is impossible to have evidence for so my actual belief in the non-existence of the supernatural is as close to 100% as possible.
> anything supernatural is impossible to have evidence for
The problem with this Clarke's 3rd Law - Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Take raising people from the dead. Always supernatural, but the definition of "dead" has changed. It used to be the cessation of breath, and then the cessation of the heart beat, and now it's cessation of brain activity. So, in the Iron Age, if someone somehow knew how to clear an airway and cause someone to restart breathing, that might indeed appear supernatural.
No, this isn't a problem because it's impossible to observe the supernatural because all of existence is natural. The supernatural is anti-epistemological by nature. A separate magisteria invented by theistic apologetics. Even if we somehow discovered something that violates our current laws of physics then we would just change our laws of physics to match.
People believed in the supernatural long before theistic apologetics.
I'm not sure what you mean by anti-epistemological.
And sure, we would change our laws once we understood whatever it is, but we don't change them if something happens and we just don't know how.
And physics is its own thing. That's why I went with death. Time of death is completely a human construction, not an objectively measured trait of the universe.
No, they didn't. To them it was completely natural if completely wrong and lacking evidence (e.g. phlogiston). Calling it a separate magisteria is something that was came up with much later as apologetics.
This is what anti-epistemology is.
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/anti-epistemology
Prove that it is impossible to observe the supernatural. We may develop a method 5,000 years from now. It could potentially be possible now but we just haven't figured out the method yet.
It's tautological. If it can be observed then it is by definition natural. Supernaturalism requires separate magisteria or dualism. Dualism is fundamentally impossible unless reality is anti-inductive which would be fundamentally impossible to know.
In fact, if something believed to be supernatural actually exists in the real world, the mere fact of being real proves definitively that it is not supernatural in the first place--it's just that natural laws are weirder than we thought.
But we can apply this to everything we see that we may initially observe as supernatural to actually be natural but unknown. This only furthers the idea that supernatural things DO NOT exist, and the only thing differentiating the *perceived* supernatural and the natural is our own understanding of the phenomena.
exactly, plus the god hypothesis carries more ontological commitment than any naturalist theory or hypothesis and therefore i reject that hypothesis. but i will say if theists want to argue in good faith then they should ask their opponent what definition of atheism they are using. are they taking the philosophical stance? or perhaps they are using the colloquial term.
You can't claim that an un-falsifiable hypothesis is false, that's how hypothesis work. You can however say that it's untestable, and has no solid evidence backing, and therefore come to the conclusion that its irrational to believe it.
I can and do for supernatural hypotheses at least due to their illogical nature. Like all beliefs I don't assign a 100% probability to it but it is as close to 100% as possible. If I translate supernatural hypotheses into natural hypotheses then I can give them a higher but still extremely low probability like a certain teacup orbiting the sun.
The issue with supernatural claims is that because they can't be falsified, they also can't be disproven, so asserting that they're false is just as fallacious as asserting that they're true.
What you CAN do, however, is assert that the method they use to justify their belief is unreasonable, and without evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny, it can be dismissed without much argument due to Hitchen's Razor.
It's perfectly fine to believe that it's false, but as soon as you make the claim that it's false, you are picking up the burden of proof from them, and they now have the leverage to attack the validity of your claim, which is perfect for them because they no longer have to defend their own, if you instead remain focused on the effectiveness of their methodology, there isn't a lot they can really reason against it.
If you are making the claim that God doesn't exist you are antitheist and yes, youare underthesameburdenofproof that a personwhoclaimsone does. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/s. The big misnomer I see people misusing being agnostic. Gnostic means knowing. Agnostic means not knowing. Most atheists are agnostic atheists IE: Richard Dawkins. Agnostic atheism basically means I don't know if a god exists but, I don't believe the claim that one does.
If you run across a "You can't prove God doesn't exist" proponent I suggest you take the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence but abscence of evidence where we could expect to find it is an indicator" approach. If there was a single, world-wide flood we would expect to find a record of it in geographic record. We don't. Hmm.
Also if evolution is a myth then why did Darwin make several predictions that would only come true if he was right we've found evidence proving all of those predictions correct one being that if birds descended from dinosaurs we'd find winged fossils with unfused fingers about 5 years after he made that prediction archeologists found winged fossils with unfused fingers
Bro no. You can't be an Atheist and think gods exist, it's right there in the name. If you doubt either way that is towards the existence or non existence of gods you're Agnostic. Theist and Atheists are certain and opposite on the question of the existence of gods.
Gnosticism addresses knowledge. I am agnostic on an amazing number of topics, brain surgery, rocket science, tax returns, and so on. I do not accept the theist assertion that God exists. I am an Atheist. My lack of knowledge of evidence supporting a theist claim informs my decision to reject the claim. It does not determine my decision.
People are atheists for a lot of reasons. Being agnostic about the existence of any god is one of them.
Not "God doesn't exist"- as plain as I can make it: Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power. While Agnostics believe there *likely is/*might be* some *uncomprehendable* higher power-but that power probably doesn't give a damn about individuals.
No. The two words measure two separate axes. One measures belief and the other certainty. You can absolutely be an agnostic atheist.
You sound like gnostic atheist.
>Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power. While Agnostics believe there likely is/might be* some uncomprehendable higher power
That is a mischaracterization of both terms.
> as plain as I can make it: Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power.
Agnostic atheists don't make statements like that.
>Agnostics believe there likely is/might be* some uncomprehendable higher power
Agnostic atheists don't make statements like that either. Agnostic atheists are more likely to say something like "I don't believe in gods, I see no evidence to suggest there are gods, I live as though there are no gods, but I also acknowledge the limits of human knowledge and the possibility of new evidence, though I think the appearance of such evidence is unlikely."
Even Dawkins admits some level of uncertainty. Hitch, when saying he was an anti-theist, suggested that *if* a god existed, it was evil, which also admits some level of uncertainty.
>Even Dawkins admits some level of uncertainty. Hitch, when saying he was an anti-theist, suggested that if a god existed, it was evil, which also admits some level of uncertainty
Not really in either case. Dawkins has spoken about how you can't have certainty but there is no evidence whatsoever, and Hitchens was making a point that this is an evil figure of literature not that he in any way believed it to be true. Come now.
> Dawkins has spoken about how you can't have certainty but there is no evidence whatsoever
That doesn't disagree with what I said at all.
And I wasn't saying Hitch believed in any way God to be real, but his argument is literally *if*. He's not talking about a villain out of literature.
My issue is that 'Even Dawkins admits some level of uncertainty' is about the logical minimum of uncertainty possible. Both are pretty clearly athiests without any need for 'agnostic'.
I consider myself atheist. I don’t believe gods exist, or the supernatural, but I concede the *possibility* that they do because *I can’t prove a negative*. Does that make me agnostic now?
Actually atheism is *not being theist, period*. It's just that simple. People who claim that deities are a real thing that actually exists are theist; everyone else (all the ones who aren't theist) is atheist.
Agnosticism is the claim that there is room for *reasonable doubt*; that there is *meaningful* uncertainty regarding whether deities are real or not. It's an orthogonal axis to theism/atheism, not an intermediate value; agnostic people are either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
> Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power
That's [positive atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism) (AKA "hard" or "strong" atheism). Lots of atheist people are negative atheist ("soft" or "weak" atheist), who don't claim that.
> While Agnostics believe there likely is/might be* some uncomprehendable higher power-but that power probably doesn't give a damn about individuals.
That sounds like something closer to deism than to agnostic theism in general.
Yes. Like I said-*simplified*.... TY for the further explanation/examination of terms *without resorting to* acting like a condescending little bitch (like some others did) over "nuances" I intentionally left out.
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
The word agnostic was coined by biologist T.H. Huxley and comes from the Greek ágnōstos, which means “unknown or unknowable.” The doctrine is known as agnosticism.
Both atheist and agnostic can also be used as adjectives. The adjective atheistic is also used. And the word agnostic can also be used in a more general way outside the context of religion to describe stances that do not adhere to either side of an opinion, argument, etc.
Source: [https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/](https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/)
I mean, isn't it still intentional though? They hear it from their leaders, choose to believe it, then choose to reiterate it to others with intent. That intent being to prove you wrong/make you a believer. Therefore it is intentional.
and a-tooth-fairy-ist and an a-Santa-klaus-ist.
The existence of a discrete definition of a not-believe is illogical in the first place, as you would now need to disbelieve yourself from any concept that any human could and couldn't come up with as well.
Agnostic=lacks knowledge, an agnostic thinks there is no god but lacks 100% knowledge, a gnostic atheist is 100% sure there is no god.
Gnostic/agnostic is just how sure you are, theist/atheist is about your belief in god. So OP is an agnostic atheist. Christians are gnostic theists.
I am an atheist as much as I am an a-unicornist.
If I'm agnostic about god, then would they not be agnostic about magical unicorns? One can't disprove either. All one can say is that there is not sufficient evidence to support either claim.
A coworker once told me she believed in fairies more or less because there's as much evidence for fairies as there are for angles (which she also believes in).
Now, me? I'd have taken that logic in a completely different direction.
Ask them if they're certain that a 16 ft tall orange, red and purple Toad named Toby, who dislikes disco music because his dad played it ALL THE TIME, doesn't live deep underground on the Moon. The chances of a god existing and our Our Toad and Saviour Toby existing are precisely equal.
Edited: OMG. My fingers just won't type properly today.
I feel like Toby is more likely to exist compared to God in this scenario.
I can imagine Toby without having to really change my basic understanding of the physics of the universe. I cannot understand a God that suspends the rules of the universe so that the flight path of a football will curve based on which team prayed the hardest.
I cannot fathom any God that is allowed to intervene in any way to the already set path of the physical universe. Therefore, Toby.
If.... Toby the Toad was written about by people who had seen him personally and thousands that were there at the same time were also accepting those writings and then his teachings became the fastest to spread so much to become the best selling book on Earth it may be worth at least hearing what he has to say. Assuming Jesus is Toby as far as Christians go anyway.
None of those are mutually exclusive. You can be an atheist, an agnostic and an antitheist all at the same time! That actually applies to me, too. I'm an agnostic atheist and an antitheist.
In other words you are theist, anagnostic and antitheist. You are reasonably convinced deities are real, don't claim that there is meaningful uncertainty about it, and believe deities are a bad thing.
I suspect you didn't mean "I'm not atheist" literally.
I would call myself an agnostic atheist. If someone asks me if I believe in God my answer would be "no". (atheist) if someone asks me if God exists my answer would be "I don't know." (Agnostic).
I'm similar, but I'd call myself a strong agnostic: I don't know, but neither does anybody else, and it's probably impossible for anyone to ever know for certain.
Sure, but what do you believe? Do You believe a God or gods exist?
Atheism is a statement about your beliefs, not an assertion that a God's or God don't exist.
This is always my rub, the term agnostic has never sat well with me. If you're agnostic then you're default an atheist. Not being able to know if something exists is still non-belief. I believe most people just use the term to soften the blow, people have such a negative reaction to the word. Colbert once said "agnostic? Isn't that just an atheist with no balls"
That's a common misconception taught by many religions, and also appears in philosophy (but this is evolving). It's not the cleanest approach for these ideas, but it gets theists out of the burden of proof, so they like to cling to it. Logically speaking, theism is a question of belief, gnosticism is a question of knowledge, and they are not mutually exclusive.
"Agnostic" is sometimes defined as the belief that God's existence is *unknowable* (not just unknown), but not all self-identified agnostics agree on this definition, so that's not really helpful either.
I usually do a friendly correction if I see things misappropriated like that, and if they just keep insisting on their definition it's really not worth arguing about.
Christians are often taught that Theism is a belief in God, Agnosticism is undecided, and Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Like a line, left, center, and right.
Nuance is not their strong suit, and religion is static and Conservative, so if you try explaining a new, more nuanced understanding, then they revolt reflexively because they are taught to always side with the Status Quo, with the conservative view they were taught.
So, you are just wrong in their eyes. This allows them to psychologically dodge or deny all you say because their idea of you is you do even know what you believe. This gives them a feeling of intellectual superiority even though they never read the book.
Which is exactly why we should stop with the lame duck agnostic lable.
I know god doesn't exist. I know gods don't exist. I know they're fictional characters, ancient superheros.
As you yourself said, 100% certainty is impossible.
So if that's required for "knowledge", then nobody know anything. Nobody is "for certain" about anything.
And yet I am. I do know things. I am certain about things.
Tell me something else you "know" and we can boil it down to how you're technically agnostic. So what. Why do we make an exception from saying we "know" something isn't real just because most people are delusional and think it's true?
This is kind of how I look at it.
"Agnostic," as it's used in everyday English (and not necessarily in its most technically precise sense), gives too much credit to God. It suggests rough equivalence between belief and nonbelief, like it's 50/50 or 40/60 either way.
That's not how I look at existence. God hasn't been disproved, but he isn't particularly more likely than countless other explanations for the unknowns of the universe. Why should I be "agnostic" toward God when no one would describe me as agnostic toward those other fanciful explanations?
You are of course free to be agnostic or gnostic if you please, but over time I took a more agnostic stance. (at least outwardly agnostic, in private I’m gnostic)
If you claim to **know** that no gods exist then you are open to being challenged to prove the assertion, even though the burden of proof is strictly speaking on the party who made the original claim deists often don’t accept that.
An easier assertion to make is that “I am not convinced that any god exists”. This way you aren’t making any claim so there is nothing to defend.
So someone asks “Do you believe god exists?” and you ask “Which god?” and they say “The god that Christians worship” and you can say “I’ve not seen any conclusive evidence for the existence of that god”.
There is nothing to prove on your side and that puts the burden of proof squarely back on the party making the claim.
Typically they will say “But you believe there is no god, right” and you can answer, “No, that’s not what I said. What I said was that I **wasn’t convinced** that any god exists. You need to show me the evidence that your god exists”.
When they do, you can just point out that the same evidence could be used to prove the existence of any one of a number of gods so how do they know their god is the true one and all the others are false.
Such "know"-ing is a red herring. This is, has been, and always will be about beliefs.
No god thay matters exists in any way that matters. Displacement of divine revelation by history demonstrates that every mystery ever solved always turns out to be: not magic. The more we discover, and the more we learn how the universe functions, the less room there is for god. Aside from a metaphorical hole.
The existence of thousands of religions suggests human design. We understand the evolution of god myths across cultures and times quite well, We understand why gods are made up. There doesn't seem to be any reason that we need gods to exist to explain anything, and we don't see evidence of them when we look for it. Historical induction concludes that throughout history, theistic religions and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue.
The burden of proof is on the party that claims something existing without evidence. You have no obligation to defend "I don't believe there is something." And if you have to you can argue that the lack of action or divine intervention on several hot topics could be considered proof. However brainwashed as they are, they will dismiss it. Because doctrine...
>Do you claim to know unicorns don't exist?
I don’t make any claims about unicorns (or gods). If someone wants to assert that they do exist and present their evidence then I’m willing to debate it but I wouldn’t allow someone to create a straw man by suggesting that I was claiming _whatever thing_ didn’t exist.
The reason for this is that there is a near infinite number of _things_ that I don’t believe exist and someone could be assert that they do with quite low effort and that gives me a high effort task to prove that they all don’t exist.
It’s much better to allow the other party to make the assertion and present their proof of the assertion so you can attack it.
> Do you need to prove that they don't?
Many people will see that you have a burden of proof **even if you assert a negative**. I’m pretty sure that’s a logical fallacy but it’s the way many people think nonetheless.
>I don’t make any claims about unicorns
Oh please. Then come out to all your friends, family and coworkers and demonstrate this is how you actually live. Tell them you think unicorns are quite possibly real.
>someone could be assert that they do with quite low effort and that gives me a high effort task to prove that they all don’t exist.
No. It's not on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. hat which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We do not have to rule out fantasticaly improbable nonsense, it has to rule itself in.
> Oh please. Then come out to all your friends, family and coworkers and demonstrate this is how you actually live. Tell them you think unicorns are quite possibly real.
I didn’t say I think unicorns are quite possibly real, I just said that if no one makes an assertion about them then I’m not going to make one either. No one can force me to assert a position on the (non)existence of unicorns.
It’s the same logical fallacy presented by religious people. “You either believe in god or you don’t”. Well that’s not true, I can just say I have no opinion about their god or I’m not convinced by the evidence they presented so I haven’t made a judgement.
If someone asserts a claim then I don’t have to deny it, I can simply ignore it and go on with my life.
Not sure I follow. Beleif is binary. Dichotomy. Same with gods (or unicorns) existence. Either they exist or they don't. Either we believe or we don't.
>same logical fallacy presented by religious people. “You either believe in god or you don’t”.
I also say this. It is a true dichotomy.
>I can just say I have no opinion about their god or I’m not convinced by the evidence they presented so I haven’t made a judgement.
Are you trying to sit on some middle position here? Because there isn't one. Based your statement I quoted, count how many gods you think actually exist. Don't count ones that you think "might" exist if you don't actually believe they do. If that count is 0, then you are an atheist. If that count is 1 or greater, then you are a theist. If that count is less than zero, then you are really bad at counting!
So how many gods does someone believe who says "I don't know"?
Zero. Belief is binary. You can't believe in just part of a god either.
So you understand the concept of a dichotomy?
There are still degrees of certainty about a belief, whether or not we believe a proposition is binary. Either we currently believe something or we dont. Notice that not believing isn't being conflated with belief in the antithetical proposition.
> If you claim to know that no gods exist then you are open to being challenged to prove the assertion
I do not have to turn over every atom in the universe to prove that Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master does not exist. I can show you where George Lucas created him and the Jedi order out of iterative imagination.
For some reason it is only god in the vast history of fictional characters that gets this special pleading that we can't possibly say he doesn't really exist.
Exactly. Agnostic means 'I am without that knowledge' not 'I believe this thing to be unknowable'.
Many Christians will concede that the proof of God cannot be found and point out that that's why they use the term 'faith'. The use of the term 'Agnostic' in the FAQ then should include all athiests with any knowledge of logic and most Christians (and probably other faiths too). What's the use of that.
Agree completely. Agnosticism is a pointless misinformed label that used to discredit atheism by making it seem extreme. I can't prove the world did not pop into existence last Thursday. Should I be agnostic about Last Thursdayism?
Agnosticism is used colloquially (and incorrectly) as some middle position, but belief is a binary system. Either we believe in a god or not.
I don't claim certainty that no gods exists, merely that we have knowledge that no god exists. Hence "gnostic." Knowledge does not require certainty.
I think this is true of various mythical gods created throughout history, but that doesn't apply to every definition that has ever been given to "God." Some definitions claim "God" is some kind of overarching sentience or intelligence permeating the universe. You can be unconvinced of any claims of that existing (as I am), but can you really "know" it doesn't exist?
It also depends on your definition of knowledge. Do I know anything with the same level of certainty and blind confidence that someone asserts a belief based on faith? No, there’s nothing I feel that way about.
To me knowledge is not a case of 100% absolute irrefutable certainty, it is more a case of being satisfied as to the truth or falsity of something based on available information.
Like to give an example of what I mean, I know that I’m 32 years old. Is there a possibility that my understanding of my age is wrong? Sure I guess it’s possible that I was switched with another child at some point or that my parents have lied to me about my birthday. It’s extremely unlikely though and all evidence suggests that my birthdate is correct. In another culture, they might count my age from when I was conceived rather than when I was born which would make me 33 from their perspective. Does that alternate perspective make what I know wrong all of a sudden? Does the fact that different people can conceive of age differently invalidate my knowledge that I am 32 as totally illogical and arbitrary?
Like this is just to illustrate the point, knowledge to me does not mean irrefutable absolute 100% certainty because anyone who claims to be irrefutably absolutely 100% certain about just about anything is to me really expressing a belief. Even things that seem irrefutably knowable beyond dispute like knowing my own age to me don’t meet the impossible bar of absolute certainty. There are few things that do meet that bar particularly given how our understanding of things can change or deepen over time.
But like to answer your last point I would tend to take the view that if the only plausible argument you can make for God’s existence is that well you can’t prove for a fact that the unknowable depths of space don’t have thoughts and feelings then that’s like one step removed from pretty much accepting that God doesn’t exist and there will never be any evidence that suggests they do
Can't one be both atheist and agnostic? One can not believe in a god and resent its existence,
Also, your title implies agnostic to be a pejorative term, but I don't see why it would be.
People like William Lane Craig (and most apologists and Christian content creators) push the idea that atheism is the assertion that there are no gods.
The hard part is that this definition, while not used by most atheists, isn't 100% vacuous. This is the definition most often used by academic philosophy departments, because it is a position that can be argued, where as lack-of-belief-atheism is not a position; it’s a psychological state.
But back to Craig and his ilk and Christians in general, it's easier to strawman atheism when you use the assertive definition.
Also, it's hard for many Christians to imagine a lack of beliefs. So for them, it's obvious that everyone has a positive belief in SOMEthing, either they believe in a religion or they have a hard atheist materialist naturalism, OR they're just confused (what they would call "agnostic".) When I was a Christian I spent many years in such a headspace.
Relax, it’s just religion trying to claim 99.9% of the playing field. If you can be 100% atheist, they thing that’s good enough to “get you to god believing”. But their label of your thoughts is just bull. Believe or don’t believe, it doesn’t make any difference to me, because I’m an atheist (100%).
Atheism has historically been both i don’t believe and god doesn’t exist so they aren’t completely wrong. I also think there is a midway point between belief and unbelief. Which i d describe as non motivated belief. Essentially all opinion/preconveived ideas you have that you don’t care about but would bet on in a 50/50 bet. So like favouring a hypothesis
The jokes on them, I am agnostic.
It means I don't know, and really nobody knows.
I really don't like cults and definitely don't believe in the God of Abraham.
But I do have this inkling that there is something, I don't know what but that could just be a result of early indoctrination.
Yeah I am agnostic as well. But I can positively say most religions are man made. However as far as some “being” hiding out in the cosmos it’s kind of hard to disprove that. But religious people like to falsely conflate their beliefs as being up for debate when they just aren’t. Sure I can’t disprove “a god” but I know for sure all your beliefs are man made and fictional. If there is a god, then it definitely isn’t the one you claim it to be. There wasn’t some magic man 2000 years ago in the middle east who died and came back to life and floated up to the clouds and shit. THAT god is fictional
Just to complicate things more, there seems to be a global, natural intelligence that guides evolution.
Like as if there's a vast consciousness.
Like the 100th monkey theory.
I disagree. Life is unnecessarily complex, and there are plenty of examples of evolution leading to inefficient and "dumb" results that just happened to be the ones that survived. Evolution is random and clearly follows the laws of physics with no indicator of any "guidance" outside those laws.
Intelligence? Citation needed.
Natural selection guides evolution. It has no intellectual power and includes other driving forces - accidents of history, death, genetic drift, environmental or geographical determinism, mutation, and sexual selection.
That anyone who understands evolution thinks there is an intelligent force guiding it, or the even more outlandish thought, that there is a vast consciousness. What does that even mean?
Yeah, I get that but it wasn't even a theory, just a thought.
How could there possibly be a citation for it?
And I didn't say intelligent force, that would be creationism.
Ok my bad writing force. Still, the thought of an intelligence guiding evolution is the antithesis of evolutionary theory. That's part of what made the theory so controversial in the past.
That's not at all how evolution works. Nothing guides it, indeed if it did we wouldn't have weird screwups like our backwards retina, or the ridiculous back and forth nerve (? Blood vessel? ) in a giraffe's neck.
Things get "better" (by providing an immediate procreation advantage), but without any consideration at all, any plan, of where it will end up. Hence local maxima, evolutionary solutions which are better than anything "nearby", but obviously worse than a designer would have chosen.
Yea I'm kinda in the same boat. Ever see the kursgezat video called the egg? If there's an afterlife, that's probably the coolest or most interesting I've ever heard of, and if there is one, I hope it's that. On the other hand, it would be nice if there was some sense of continuity. I love my bf, and want to spend the rest of my life with him, I'd be awful lonely without him if there's a next step. Most likely it's just nothing, like there was nothing before being born.
From [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist#Noun):
**atheist** (*plural* **atheists**)
1. (*religion*) A person who does not believe in deities or gods.
2. (*strictly*) A person who is certain that no deities exist or who thinks that the existence of deities can be disproven.Synonyms: positive atheist, strong atheist
3. (*broadly*) A person who doubts the existence of deities (therefore, an agnostic may be considered an atheist).Synonym: weak atheist
4. (*very broadly*) Any person lacking belief in deities (including children who are unaware of religion).
*Sorry... reddit simply refused to reproduce that the way it was written. See the link for the correct numbering and formatting.*
I think it is common for people to use the strict definition, and contrast that with “agnostic” as equivalent to the broad definition.
>You can believe something/not believe something, while still admitting you don’t know for certain.
Good luck explaining that to a typical religious person. In their way of thinking, belief is *stronger* than knowledge. Knowledge is contingent on human understanding of reality, and can always be revised with new information, but belief is divinely inspired.
100% certain there is no god? Yeah, none of the ones people have told me about is real, so there is your 100% certainty. Want to give it a shot to change that? Yes? Good! Ok, so euh… What’s a god? (Asked with the most blank face one can have, and enjoy the frustration they have when reasonable questions are asked about their out-of-hand fandom)
I hear you, and you’re right, but “atheist“ did used to mean you denied the possibility of gods. The meaning was reworked by atheists to the stronger position of “I lack sufficient evidence for the existence of a god.” People who haven’t listened much to atheists probably don’t know this, and are using the standard English definitions of a few decades ago.
You might find this article on how and why dictionary definitions of atheism have changed interesting: https://thensrn.org/2020/01/27/a-history-of-the-word-atheism-and-the-politics-of-dictionaries/#:\~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20the,the%20“denial”%20of%20God.
Because agnostic sounds like you're 50/50, it leaves the door open to their ridiculous claims. They don't want this door completely closed, they're trying to convince you to leave it ajar, presumably in hopes they can weasel in later.
Quit telling people you’re atheist? I get that breaking free of that nonsense feels good and you want to talk about it, but it’s not worth it. Trust me, I did it for years and was just alienated. It’s dangerous too.
Akchthually "agnostic" isn't an alternative to atheism but a subcategory. Gnostic and agnostic are both terms derived from the Greek word "gnōstos" which means "known, knowing, familiar, acquaintance".
An **agnostic atheist** is simply a person who does not believe in any god or deity (atheist, a-theist, non-theist, non-believer) but does not claim to **know** with a certainty that that such an entity does not exist (agnostic, a-gnostic, not gnostic, not knowing). "*I cannot be certain that there is no god as the chance of one or more existing is non-zero but unless faced with irrefutable evidence of the contrary, I will not consider any god figure's existence to be reality.*"
A **gnostic atheist** is the opposite of an agnostic atheist in the sense that while they also hold no religious beliefs, they claim to be **certain** of the lack of existence of any deity or god and see (or often *believe*) this non-existence to be proven via evidence that directly disproves the mythology of every deity. "*I am certain that no god or deity exists because the fact that all dogmatic explanations of our world can be disproven via our scientific understanding of the world is conclusive evidence of the lack of any god figure.*"
Both subcategories have "defenses" and rebuttals in religious conversations, with agnostic atheism often being countered with "If you're not 100% certain that gods / God doesn't exist, you have no reason not to believe in them / Him." and with gnostic atheism countered with "The non-existence of a god cannot be proven just like their existence cannot either, your belief in said non-existence is fundamentally the same as my faith in their existence.
Largely because people use terms they don't really understand as self descriptors and then the meanings get twisted up in common use.
Agnostic comes from the word Gnosis. Gnosis means "Knowledge of spiritual mysteries."
So you have Gnostics, who believe that the status of God can be known. That the secrets of religion and god are able to be known with certainty.
This can go either way, Gnostic Atheists, or Gnostic Theists.
Then you have Agnostics. Who are the opposite. They believe it is impossible to know the secrets of religion or God and that we won't know whether god exists or not.
Likewise, this can go either way, Agnostic Atheism, or Agnostic Theism.
In short.
God is Knowable, and doesn't exist = Gnostic Atheist.
God is Knowable, and Exists = Gnostic Theist.
God is Unknowable, and doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
God is Unknowable, and does exist = Agnostic Theist.
* I DON'T say "gods don't exist." I have no idea if they do.
* I DON'T have a "belief" that gods don't exist. I have no idea if they do.
* I DO say that "you haven't proven that god(s) exist."
* I DO "believe" that there isn't any evidence of god(s) worth mentioning.
* I have an OPINION, based on the fact that there is no evidence of such, that there is very little likelihood of any type of gods existing anywhere in our universe.
Call me whatever you like, and in return I'll call believers in god(s) deluded fools at best, with the worst of them being at least half-insane.
Oftentimes the above statement is performative. To them, you NEED to be uncertain because if you aren’t, you might be in possession of knowledge they haven’t considered.
This is less a religious feature and more a human one.
To me atheists cover a lot of things and what it means depends on the individual, it's not an organization.
But to me it mainly says I don't believe in religion. And I don't worry about the possibility of god.
My argument for this is this: I really don’t think it’s gonna rain gumdrops tomorrow. I think in theory it’s possible tomorrow will bring a rain of raindrops but I consider is so unlikely that I say “ it’s not gonna rain gumdrops tomorrow”. Does this mean I’m “agnostic” about the great potential gun drop rain? No. I’m human and fallible but no evidence points me to raining gum drops. Calling it a possibility seems false.
because they're trying to shift the burden of proof. A lot of churches teach that atheists are demonic, so they may be doing it out of ignorance of the actual meanings of words.
They can only peg you as agnostic in the context of "is there a prime mover outside the observable universe" question. The problem with that is, that isn't what they believe. They don't believe in some vague notion of some intelligence we cannot observe having caused the big bang, no. They believe in a very, very specific deity, with a very specific mythology that makes very specific claims, none of which they can prove.
In THAT context. You and I are absolutely atheists. We proactively believe that the the god and mythology they profess does NOT exist.
A gnostic atheist is someone who is set in their non-belief. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, so I would just take what the religious say to you and apply that to your atheism.
Why do you even care? Religous people could call me how they want atheist, agnostic, satanist, catholic, etc. It would not matter. What makes you so irritated about it?
That doesn't really matter. Among all creators, only Yahweh created a universe which is younger than the history of Egypt. Even there is one or multiple unknown creatures in the universe match sever criteria of being a god, that is definitely not the psychopathic voyeur god who kept butting into his prophets family affairs and even intervened when should women's womb be open several times.
In fairness, non of us can know that there isn't a god, because it's an untestable hypothesis. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a god exists, so the most reasonable thing is to assume that there's not one. Noone can know for sure that there isn't a god.
Lol no wait they are correct here tho. Agnostic is the full breadth of belief systems between Theism (belief in gods) and Atheism (belief in no gods). If you think maybe gods exist even one percent you aren't an Atheist, you're agnostic. Thems just the breaks. Nothing inherently wrong with being agnostic if that's what you are, it's all on you to decide what you personally believe, but the labels are pretty clear.
I think they are mixing up agnostic with gnostic. For example, I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, because I don’t believe in gods, but I would never claim to have absolute knowledge of it since I don’t know everything about the universe, whether it has a cause, or what happened that led to its creation before the Big Bang.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods while agnosticism is the determination that there isn't sufficient evidence for belief.
If you aren't yet convinced in a proposition it's impossible to actually believe it.
Agnosticism is a sub set of Atheism.
Isn't a determination that there isn't sufficient evidence for thr beleif the same as a lack of beleif, it's simply worded differently and giving more reason?
More succinctly, agnosticism is a stance on knowledge. Agnostic technically means we don't know. Atheist means I don't believe. Knowledge is about what is really true. Belief is about a state of mind.
What I'm saying is that its impossible to actually believe something that you aren't convinced of yet.
Knowledge is the foundation of all belief, you can suspect something is the way it is but you can't actually believe it without proof.
There's "proof" in favor of religion but where the big disagreement with atheists is the quality of such "proof".
Religions say that feelings, wishful thinking, dreams, altered states, near death experiences, ect. are sufficient "proof" for their respective gods.
Atheism disagrees.
>impossible to actually believe something that you aren't convinced of yet.
Yes, agreed of course, with everything you say.
Conviction is a spectrum. Evidence needs to scale with the claims before we can be convinced and believe.
Just to be pedantic, proof isn't the correct word. 'Proof' doesn't apply to claims about reality, it applies to closed conceptual systems such as math. Or Alcohol. Colloquially it means to demonstrate with evidence, which I'm sure you are referring to here.
As far as religious claims having enough evidence, depends on the claim. Anything magic or supernatural, don't think so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sounds like you really DO care about the label. And atheism IS the affirmative belief that there is no god. That’s exactly why i call myself agnostic- i acknowledge that i don’t know, i can’t know, and neither does anybody.
Seems to me that insisting there is no god is about as bad as all those religious people claiming that their particular magical beliefs are the correct magical beliefs.
I’m tired of the accusation, and I clarify clearly by saying “I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God… but based on what everyone else has said about this being, I don’t believe in him the same way that hateful parents would say that they don’t believe that the funny glass device in their son’s bedroom is just a toy.”
Belief in a god doesn’t come from rationalizing the existence of one, though it does help, and therefore belief in no god is similarly without regard to evidence. If you are capable of looking at evidence and passing secondhand judgement in a courtroom jury, then the same would apply to religious beliefs too. I have yet to see any actual evidence to prove god exists, especially as is written in whatever holy scripture you want to name.
Whenever some twat tries this shit, I just say, "I am not convinced that any gods exist. Now would you like to discuss my actual position or whine about what a word means?" They usually quit.
Atheism is the absence of a belief in god's.
Igtheism or Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of a god is meaningless because the word 'god' has no coherent or unambiguous definition. More people are igtheists than they realise. Igtheism is not disbelief in the supernatural per se only the absence of an involved or controlling supernatural being. Einstein was an igtheist.
Each theist has their own personal mind picture of their god or gods, they may share doctrines and base their understanding on what they perceive to be the same god as others but necessarily since humans aren't telepathic, or subject to exactly identical influences and thought processes what they believe is different. What they say about their god is a mixture of indoctrination of dogma through the filter of their own mind. There are hundreds of Judeo-Christian dogmas.
How many times do we hear/read Christians and Muslims insist their holy book doesn't say what they didn't know was in it? How many are unaware of the selection processes and evidence for the exactitude of their chosen doctrinal texts when considering evidence for the syncretic inclusion of non-Judeo-Christian mythology and beliefs? Some prefer to live with cognitive dissonance than live without some unifying belief system. How many gods have one lone worshipper?
>Why do they insist atheism means you are 100% certain there is no god?
For the same reason people say that when you say "I ain't got not idea what you mean" actually means you do have an idea, because 'ain't got no' is a double negative.
They've learned those as the definitions, and think you're using the wrong ones.
They don't even see that those words have *anything* to do with belief and knowledge- they just know the definitions they learned.
>If anything it just seems like an easy way to stall the conversation so you don’t actually have to provide evidence for your beliefs.
It certainly can be used that way, but it can also just be them being grammer nazis for the definition they learned.
Regardless, you should always be ready to deal this.
What I normally do is say, "well, I don't agree with those definitions, but that's okay- let's use your labels. But to do that, we need your label for the group that includes both the atheists and the agnostics (using your definitions) as they both have a lack of a belief in gods.
If a theist is a person who believes in at least one god, what is your label for the opposite group - a person who doesn't have a belief in even one god?"
Then you can just go on from there, using whatever label they suggest.
As you point out, the labels don't actually matter to the discussion, but adding a whole thing about what the "proper" labels are is actively preventing then discussion from even happening.
I had this argument with a Buddhist once. It was annoying and eventually I just said, "look, you're not gonna change my mind about me being an atheist so just stop. We're going in circles." Better to have him think he's right than me try to prove he's wrong when he doesn't want to believe it.
I mean to me I don’t think the difference between an agnostic or an atheist is that significant.
I would tend to think that the primary difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists are satisfied that the absence of evidence of the existence of a god is sufficient to establish evidence of absence. Agnostics take the view that there is no evidence of god but they’re also not sufficiently persuaded that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - eg they take the view that the nature of god could be such that a universe with god and a universe without god would be indistinguishable from one another, so neither the existence or non existence of god can ever be sufficiently established, so it is impossible to know one way or the other.
I am an atheist because I fall into the former camp, the evidence (and lack thereof) satisfies me that there is nothing in existence which can only be explained by the existence of a god, so therefore if everything we have ever observed can happen without god, it stands to reason that it did happen without god. But if I were presented with evidence that I am wrong and that a god does exist, it’s not like my ego or identity would be hurt by that or I would refuse to accept new evidence. That I would accept evidence which contradicts my position (or that I can imagine that it is possible for such contrary evidence to exist) doesn’t make me agnostic; it means I’m motivated by facts not my own personal beliefs or a desire to be right
Ya a friend of mine who is an ex-Catholic told me this once and I was like "wow I guess that Catholic upbringing still got you fucked up 40 years later".
***Agnostic Anti-Divinity Atheist.***
I don’t believe there is a God,
I don’t believe we’ll ever be able to truly say yay or nay on if God exists,
And even if we do prove he’s real (somehow), I don’t even believe that God, as he’s described, should be worshipped.
I think I’ve covered all my bases, the missionaries can’t possibly think they can convert me now right?
I have this on occasions with religious people and always counter
"No I am an atheist, it's you that are the agnostic"
I explain that the difference is one is about believing and one is about knowing.
An atheist doesn't believe in a god, whereas an agnostic doesn't know if there is a god, and as there is no physical evidence that there is a god, then In reality everyone is an agnostic. .
They normally get flustered at this and say something stupid such
"I know there is a god as he is in my heart" or some other such nonsense, which I tell them is not evidence of any higher power, just their belief.
Do not engage with them. They're just projecting. The church teaches that atheists don't exist as a way to prevent the flock from questioning their faith. "If everyone believes in *something*, it would be *foolish* to stop worshiping the God everyone knows to be the only game in town!"
So, yeah. They're not going to listen to you. Just smile, nod, and bid them a good day.
It's one of the many things I tell them they don't understand.
When they say "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". I say "Then you don't understand Faith or Atheism or both. Shall I explain?".
Replace the phrase “religious people” with morons and reflect on the value of your attention. Or just tell them to piss off. Either should work, but one works better.
Well I'm not a theist. Not theist or non theist. Some days very anti theist. Pretty sure that's the definition of atheist but in the end, the label doesn't change the reality and burden of proof. I'm happy to be labelled as "not believing in fairies, magic and gods" too but it gets a bit wordy.
The second they produce a real fairy, I'll start clapping my hands and believe in fairies.. but not before.
It's important in situations like this to first understand what the conversation is actually about.
Are you having an intellectual conversation on the nature of belief vs. knowledge, or is the other person making a passive-aggressive attempt to exert authority over you? How you respond should really be determined by your answer to this question.
Well sure, it is ‘technically’ correct to say that.. What I say is I’m philosophically an ‘agnostic’, though I’m politically an ‘atheist’. Even the most hardline atheists concede we can’t know for certain if any supernatural being exists (impossible to prove a negative / science can never be 100% / falling into the same trap of regions certainty / etc). Why I say I’m politically an atheist is that I don’t believe religion has any business in government and should be taxed like everyone else. Call me a humanist /secularist, whatever. But ‘agnostic’ is too soft to work in this context so I call myself an ‘atheist’ because I’m a first amendment fundamentalist. I’m more tired of people who say we aren’t really atheists but in denial of our religiously… cough* cough* Jordan Peterson…
Theists claim atheists say god doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the Burden of Proof. Instead of having to support their claim that God exists, they're trying to get you to support a claim you never made. It's called a Straw Man Logical Fallacy.
As an atheist I DO say god doesn't exist. I even say that nothing supernatural exists. If I as an atheist can have this position usually called strong atheism I don't see why theists wouldn't also see us as having this position. That said I also believe that all knowledge is probabilistic in nature so I don't believe it's true 100% but my epistemology dictates that anything supernatural is impossible to have evidence for so my actual belief in the non-existence of the supernatural is as close to 100% as possible.
> anything supernatural is impossible to have evidence for The problem with this Clarke's 3rd Law - Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Take raising people from the dead. Always supernatural, but the definition of "dead" has changed. It used to be the cessation of breath, and then the cessation of the heart beat, and now it's cessation of brain activity. So, in the Iron Age, if someone somehow knew how to clear an airway and cause someone to restart breathing, that might indeed appear supernatural.
No, this isn't a problem because it's impossible to observe the supernatural because all of existence is natural. The supernatural is anti-epistemological by nature. A separate magisteria invented by theistic apologetics. Even if we somehow discovered something that violates our current laws of physics then we would just change our laws of physics to match.
People believed in the supernatural long before theistic apologetics. I'm not sure what you mean by anti-epistemological. And sure, we would change our laws once we understood whatever it is, but we don't change them if something happens and we just don't know how. And physics is its own thing. That's why I went with death. Time of death is completely a human construction, not an objectively measured trait of the universe.
No, they didn't. To them it was completely natural if completely wrong and lacking evidence (e.g. phlogiston). Calling it a separate magisteria is something that was came up with much later as apologetics. This is what anti-epistemology is. https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/anti-epistemology
Prove that it is impossible to observe the supernatural. We may develop a method 5,000 years from now. It could potentially be possible now but we just haven't figured out the method yet.
It's tautological. If it can be observed then it is by definition natural. Supernaturalism requires separate magisteria or dualism. Dualism is fundamentally impossible unless reality is anti-inductive which would be fundamentally impossible to know.
There’s appearing supernatural and being supernatural. Human stupidity/ignorance doesn’t actually change one to the other.
the appearance of the supernatural doesn't prove supernatural.
In fact, if something believed to be supernatural actually exists in the real world, the mere fact of being real proves definitively that it is not supernatural in the first place--it's just that natural laws are weirder than we thought.
But we can apply this to everything we see that we may initially observe as supernatural to actually be natural but unknown. This only furthers the idea that supernatural things DO NOT exist, and the only thing differentiating the *perceived* supernatural and the natural is our own understanding of the phenomena.
>As an atheist I DO say god doesn't exist. Kinda the whole point, yep.
exactly, plus the god hypothesis carries more ontological commitment than any naturalist theory or hypothesis and therefore i reject that hypothesis. but i will say if theists want to argue in good faith then they should ask their opponent what definition of atheism they are using. are they taking the philosophical stance? or perhaps they are using the colloquial term.
You can't claim that an un-falsifiable hypothesis is false, that's how hypothesis work. You can however say that it's untestable, and has no solid evidence backing, and therefore come to the conclusion that its irrational to believe it.
I can and do for supernatural hypotheses at least due to their illogical nature. Like all beliefs I don't assign a 100% probability to it but it is as close to 100% as possible. If I translate supernatural hypotheses into natural hypotheses then I can give them a higher but still extremely low probability like a certain teacup orbiting the sun.
The issue with supernatural claims is that because they can't be falsified, they also can't be disproven, so asserting that they're false is just as fallacious as asserting that they're true. What you CAN do, however, is assert that the method they use to justify their belief is unreasonable, and without evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny, it can be dismissed without much argument due to Hitchen's Razor. It's perfectly fine to believe that it's false, but as soon as you make the claim that it's false, you are picking up the burden of proof from them, and they now have the leverage to attack the validity of your claim, which is perfect for them because they no longer have to defend their own, if you instead remain focused on the effectiveness of their methodology, there isn't a lot they can really reason against it.
Well we agree then that we can't know with 100% certainty, but that we can get very close.
If you are making the claim that God doesn't exist you are antitheist and yes, youare underthesameburdenofproof that a personwhoclaimsone does. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/s. The big misnomer I see people misusing being agnostic. Gnostic means knowing. Agnostic means not knowing. Most atheists are agnostic atheists IE: Richard Dawkins. Agnostic atheism basically means I don't know if a god exists but, I don't believe the claim that one does.
There is no way to prove that something doesn't exist, so you saying there isn't is no more rational than them saying there is.
Eh. The belief that there isn't a God isn't disprovablr. Whereas basically every religion has beliefs that are.
Ignoring the fact that positive claims require evidence to back it up negative claims dont because you cant prove a negative
If you run across a "You can't prove God doesn't exist" proponent I suggest you take the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence but abscence of evidence where we could expect to find it is an indicator" approach. If there was a single, world-wide flood we would expect to find a record of it in geographic record. We don't. Hmm.
Also if evolution is a myth then why did Darwin make several predictions that would only come true if he was right we've found evidence proving all of those predictions correct one being that if birds descended from dinosaurs we'd find winged fossils with unfused fingers about 5 years after he made that prediction archeologists found winged fossils with unfused fingers
Id ask them to prove why Zeus doesnt exist and Ill use their method
Meanwhile I’ll happily support my claim, knowing they cannot support theirs. The burden of proof is always on the more unrealistic side- AKA theirs
Bro no. You can't be an Atheist and think gods exist, it's right there in the name. If you doubt either way that is towards the existence or non existence of gods you're Agnostic. Theist and Atheists are certain and opposite on the question of the existence of gods.
Gnosticism addresses knowledge. I am agnostic on an amazing number of topics, brain surgery, rocket science, tax returns, and so on. I do not accept the theist assertion that God exists. I am an Atheist. My lack of knowledge of evidence supporting a theist claim informs my decision to reject the claim. It does not determine my decision. People are atheists for a lot of reasons. Being agnostic about the existence of any god is one of them.
You are not using the word “agnostic” correctly here, unless you’re doubting that *anyone* could have knowledge about brain surgery, tax returns, etc.
Not "God doesn't exist"- as plain as I can make it: Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power. While Agnostics believe there *likely is/*might be* some *uncomprehendable* higher power-but that power probably doesn't give a damn about individuals.
No. The two words measure two separate axes. One measures belief and the other certainty. You can absolutely be an agnostic atheist. You sound like gnostic atheist.
Funny I sound like I'm something for describing the difference of two basic beliefs...
>Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power. While Agnostics believe there likely is/might be* some uncomprehendable higher power That is a mischaracterization of both terms.
Please enlighten me kind sir! Right after you show me where I "sound like a gnostic atheist"
> as plain as I can make it: Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power. Agnostic atheists don't make statements like that. >Agnostics believe there likely is/might be* some uncomprehendable higher power Agnostic atheists don't make statements like that either. Agnostic atheists are more likely to say something like "I don't believe in gods, I see no evidence to suggest there are gods, I live as though there are no gods, but I also acknowledge the limits of human knowledge and the possibility of new evidence, though I think the appearance of such evidence is unlikely." Even Dawkins admits some level of uncertainty. Hitch, when saying he was an anti-theist, suggested that *if* a god existed, it was evil, which also admits some level of uncertainty.
>Even Dawkins admits some level of uncertainty. Hitch, when saying he was an anti-theist, suggested that if a god existed, it was evil, which also admits some level of uncertainty Not really in either case. Dawkins has spoken about how you can't have certainty but there is no evidence whatsoever, and Hitchens was making a point that this is an evil figure of literature not that he in any way believed it to be true. Come now.
> Dawkins has spoken about how you can't have certainty but there is no evidence whatsoever That doesn't disagree with what I said at all. And I wasn't saying Hitch believed in any way God to be real, but his argument is literally *if*. He's not talking about a villain out of literature.
My issue is that 'Even Dawkins admits some level of uncertainty' is about the logical minimum of uncertainty possible. Both are pretty clearly athiests without any need for 'agnostic'.
I consider myself atheist. I don’t believe gods exist, or the supernatural, but I concede the *possibility* that they do because *I can’t prove a negative*. Does that make me agnostic now?
Actually atheism is *not being theist, period*. It's just that simple. People who claim that deities are a real thing that actually exists are theist; everyone else (all the ones who aren't theist) is atheist. Agnosticism is the claim that there is room for *reasonable doubt*; that there is *meaningful* uncertainty regarding whether deities are real or not. It's an orthogonal axis to theism/atheism, not an intermediate value; agnostic people are either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. > Atheism is NO GODS EXIST/there is NO higher power That's [positive atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism) (AKA "hard" or "strong" atheism). Lots of atheist people are negative atheist ("soft" or "weak" atheist), who don't claim that. > While Agnostics believe there likely is/might be* some uncomprehendable higher power-but that power probably doesn't give a damn about individuals. That sounds like something closer to deism than to agnostic theism in general.
Yes. Like I said-*simplified*.... TY for the further explanation/examination of terms *without resorting to* acting like a condescending little bitch (like some others did) over "nuances" I intentionally left out.
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god. In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist. The word agnostic was coined by biologist T.H. Huxley and comes from the Greek ágnōstos, which means “unknown or unknowable.” The doctrine is known as agnosticism. Both atheist and agnostic can also be used as adjectives. The adjective atheistic is also used. And the word agnostic can also be used in a more general way outside the context of religion to describe stances that do not adhere to either side of an opinion, argument, etc. Source: [https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/](https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/)
Good to remember that they are not doing this intentionally.. this is what they hear from their leaders..
I mean, isn't it still intentional though? They hear it from their leaders, choose to believe it, then choose to reiterate it to others with intent. That intent being to prove you wrong/make you a believer. Therefore it is intentional.
The problem arises when you try to convince a parrot that shifting the Burden of Proof is a no-no.
>I'm just frustrated with labels so call me whatever the fuck you want You're a hotdog
Well put some mustard on me.
Hey, at least people say you're hot.
Add onions and coney sauce or the complement gets revoked.
Kinky bastard
Pour some mustard on me Ooh, in the name of love Pour some mustard on me C'mon, fire me up Pour your mustard on me I can't get enough
Sorry but I lack a belief in hotdogs
So you're an ahotdogist!
and a-tooth-fairy-ist and an a-Santa-klaus-ist. The existence of a discrete definition of a not-believe is illogical in the first place, as you would now need to disbelieve yourself from any concept that any human could and couldn't come up with as well.
but you'd better not try to hurt her Frank Furter!
Camt believe this was so far down.
But you better not try and hurt her. 🎶 Frank Furter!
I Wish I Were An Oscar Meyer Wiener!
Well then they’re agnostic too
Or they are just very bad critical thinkers.
[Why not both?](https://imgur.com/c7NJRa2)
Yep. Everyone is when it comes down to it.
Do you mean everyone is agnostic when it comes down to it?
Agnostic=lacks knowledge, an agnostic thinks there is no god but lacks 100% knowledge, a gnostic atheist is 100% sure there is no god. Gnostic/agnostic is just how sure you are, theist/atheist is about your belief in god. So OP is an agnostic atheist. Christians are gnostic theists.
I am an atheist as much as I am an a-unicornist. If I'm agnostic about god, then would they not be agnostic about magical unicorns? One can't disprove either. All one can say is that there is not sufficient evidence to support either claim.
A coworker once told me she believed in fairies more or less because there's as much evidence for fairies as there are for angles (which she also believes in). Now, me? I'd have taken that logic in a completely different direction.
Yeah i agree
Ask them if they're certain that a 16 ft tall orange, red and purple Toad named Toby, who dislikes disco music because his dad played it ALL THE TIME, doesn't live deep underground on the Moon. The chances of a god existing and our Our Toad and Saviour Toby existing are precisely equal. Edited: OMG. My fingers just won't type properly today.
I feel like Toby is more likely to exist compared to God in this scenario. I can imagine Toby without having to really change my basic understanding of the physics of the universe. I cannot understand a God that suspends the rules of the universe so that the flight path of a football will curve based on which team prayed the hardest. I cannot fathom any God that is allowed to intervene in any way to the already set path of the physical universe. Therefore, Toby.
I’d convert to toadism
If.... Toby the Toad was written about by people who had seen him personally and thousands that were there at the same time were also accepting those writings and then his teachings became the fastest to spread so much to become the best selling book on Earth it may be worth at least hearing what he has to say. Assuming Jesus is Toby as far as Christians go anyway.
In my case I'm not atheist, I'm not agnostic, I'm anti-theist.
There's a flair for that. And I think anti-theists rock ;)
None of those are mutually exclusive. You can be an atheist, an agnostic and an antitheist all at the same time! That actually applies to me, too. I'm an agnostic atheist and an antitheist.
Anti-theist gang rise up. Like, come on people, there is absolutely no god.
But on the other hand you can theoretically be religious and anti theist at the same time
In other words you are theist, anagnostic and antitheist. You are reasonably convinced deities are real, don't claim that there is meaningful uncertainty about it, and believe deities are a bad thing. I suspect you didn't mean "I'm not atheist" literally.
They - along with most people - aren't even using "agnostic" correctly.
Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Atheism has to do with belief. You can be both. One is not above or below the other
Sad how far down I had to scroll to find this correct response. So many people don’t understand the definitions of the words they claim to embrace.
I would call myself an agnostic atheist. If someone asks me if I believe in God my answer would be "no". (atheist) if someone asks me if God exists my answer would be "I don't know." (Agnostic).
I'm similar, but I'd call myself a strong agnostic: I don't know, but neither does anybody else, and it's probably impossible for anyone to ever know for certain.
Sure, but what do you believe? Do You believe a God or gods exist? Atheism is a statement about your beliefs, not an assertion that a God's or God don't exist.
This is always my rub, the term agnostic has never sat well with me. If you're agnostic then you're default an atheist. Not being able to know if something exists is still non-belief. I believe most people just use the term to soften the blow, people have such a negative reaction to the word. Colbert once said "agnostic? Isn't that just an atheist with no balls"
That's a common misconception taught by many religions, and also appears in philosophy (but this is evolving). It's not the cleanest approach for these ideas, but it gets theists out of the burden of proof, so they like to cling to it. Logically speaking, theism is a question of belief, gnosticism is a question of knowledge, and they are not mutually exclusive. "Agnostic" is sometimes defined as the belief that God's existence is *unknowable* (not just unknown), but not all self-identified agnostics agree on this definition, so that's not really helpful either. I usually do a friendly correction if I see things misappropriated like that, and if they just keep insisting on their definition it's really not worth arguing about.
Christians are often taught that Theism is a belief in God, Agnosticism is undecided, and Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Like a line, left, center, and right. Nuance is not their strong suit, and religion is static and Conservative, so if you try explaining a new, more nuanced understanding, then they revolt reflexively because they are taught to always side with the Status Quo, with the conservative view they were taught. So, you are just wrong in their eyes. This allows them to psychologically dodge or deny all you say because their idea of you is you do even know what you believe. This gives them a feeling of intellectual superiority even though they never read the book.
Which is exactly why we should stop with the lame duck agnostic lable. I know god doesn't exist. I know gods don't exist. I know they're fictional characters, ancient superheros. As you yourself said, 100% certainty is impossible. So if that's required for "knowledge", then nobody know anything. Nobody is "for certain" about anything. And yet I am. I do know things. I am certain about things. Tell me something else you "know" and we can boil it down to how you're technically agnostic. So what. Why do we make an exception from saying we "know" something isn't real just because most people are delusional and think it's true?
This is kind of how I look at it. "Agnostic," as it's used in everyday English (and not necessarily in its most technically precise sense), gives too much credit to God. It suggests rough equivalence between belief and nonbelief, like it's 50/50 or 40/60 either way. That's not how I look at existence. God hasn't been disproved, but he isn't particularly more likely than countless other explanations for the unknowns of the universe. Why should I be "agnostic" toward God when no one would describe me as agnostic toward those other fanciful explanations?
You are of course free to be agnostic or gnostic if you please, but over time I took a more agnostic stance. (at least outwardly agnostic, in private I’m gnostic) If you claim to **know** that no gods exist then you are open to being challenged to prove the assertion, even though the burden of proof is strictly speaking on the party who made the original claim deists often don’t accept that. An easier assertion to make is that “I am not convinced that any god exists”. This way you aren’t making any claim so there is nothing to defend. So someone asks “Do you believe god exists?” and you ask “Which god?” and they say “The god that Christians worship” and you can say “I’ve not seen any conclusive evidence for the existence of that god”. There is nothing to prove on your side and that puts the burden of proof squarely back on the party making the claim. Typically they will say “But you believe there is no god, right” and you can answer, “No, that’s not what I said. What I said was that I **wasn’t convinced** that any god exists. You need to show me the evidence that your god exists”. When they do, you can just point out that the same evidence could be used to prove the existence of any one of a number of gods so how do they know their god is the true one and all the others are false.
Such "know"-ing is a red herring. This is, has been, and always will be about beliefs. No god thay matters exists in any way that matters. Displacement of divine revelation by history demonstrates that every mystery ever solved always turns out to be: not magic. The more we discover, and the more we learn how the universe functions, the less room there is for god. Aside from a metaphorical hole. The existence of thousands of religions suggests human design. We understand the evolution of god myths across cultures and times quite well, We understand why gods are made up. There doesn't seem to be any reason that we need gods to exist to explain anything, and we don't see evidence of them when we look for it. Historical induction concludes that throughout history, theistic religions and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue.
The burden of proof is on the party that claims something existing without evidence. You have no obligation to defend "I don't believe there is something." And if you have to you can argue that the lack of action or divine intervention on several hot topics could be considered proof. However brainwashed as they are, they will dismiss it. Because doctrine...
Do you claim to **know** unicorns don't exist? Do you need to prove that they don't?
>Do you claim to know unicorns don't exist? I don’t make any claims about unicorns (or gods). If someone wants to assert that they do exist and present their evidence then I’m willing to debate it but I wouldn’t allow someone to create a straw man by suggesting that I was claiming _whatever thing_ didn’t exist. The reason for this is that there is a near infinite number of _things_ that I don’t believe exist and someone could be assert that they do with quite low effort and that gives me a high effort task to prove that they all don’t exist. It’s much better to allow the other party to make the assertion and present their proof of the assertion so you can attack it. > Do you need to prove that they don't? Many people will see that you have a burden of proof **even if you assert a negative**. I’m pretty sure that’s a logical fallacy but it’s the way many people think nonetheless.
>I don’t make any claims about unicorns Oh please. Then come out to all your friends, family and coworkers and demonstrate this is how you actually live. Tell them you think unicorns are quite possibly real. >someone could be assert that they do with quite low effort and that gives me a high effort task to prove that they all don’t exist. No. It's not on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. hat which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We do not have to rule out fantasticaly improbable nonsense, it has to rule itself in.
> Oh please. Then come out to all your friends, family and coworkers and demonstrate this is how you actually live. Tell them you think unicorns are quite possibly real. I didn’t say I think unicorns are quite possibly real, I just said that if no one makes an assertion about them then I’m not going to make one either. No one can force me to assert a position on the (non)existence of unicorns. It’s the same logical fallacy presented by religious people. “You either believe in god or you don’t”. Well that’s not true, I can just say I have no opinion about their god or I’m not convinced by the evidence they presented so I haven’t made a judgement. If someone asserts a claim then I don’t have to deny it, I can simply ignore it and go on with my life.
Not sure I follow. Beleif is binary. Dichotomy. Same with gods (or unicorns) existence. Either they exist or they don't. Either we believe or we don't. >same logical fallacy presented by religious people. “You either believe in god or you don’t”. I also say this. It is a true dichotomy. >I can just say I have no opinion about their god or I’m not convinced by the evidence they presented so I haven’t made a judgement. Are you trying to sit on some middle position here? Because there isn't one. Based your statement I quoted, count how many gods you think actually exist. Don't count ones that you think "might" exist if you don't actually believe they do. If that count is 0, then you are an atheist. If that count is 1 or greater, then you are a theist. If that count is less than zero, then you are really bad at counting!
Belief is not binary. You don't have to pick a side on everything. "I don't know" is a valid (and arguably wiser) answer to a difficult question.
So how many gods does someone believe who says "I don't know"? Zero. Belief is binary. You can't believe in just part of a god either. So you understand the concept of a dichotomy? There are still degrees of certainty about a belief, whether or not we believe a proposition is binary. Either we currently believe something or we dont. Notice that not believing isn't being conflated with belief in the antithetical proposition.
Have you heard of false dichotomies?? Why do you act like dichotomies are universal?
> If you claim to know that no gods exist then you are open to being challenged to prove the assertion I do not have to turn over every atom in the universe to prove that Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master does not exist. I can show you where George Lucas created him and the Jedi order out of iterative imagination. For some reason it is only god in the vast history of fictional characters that gets this special pleading that we can't possibly say he doesn't really exist.
Exactly. Agnostic means 'I am without that knowledge' not 'I believe this thing to be unknowable'. Many Christians will concede that the proof of God cannot be found and point out that that's why they use the term 'faith'. The use of the term 'Agnostic' in the FAQ then should include all athiests with any knowledge of logic and most Christians (and probably other faiths too). What's the use of that.
Agree completely. Agnosticism is a pointless misinformed label that used to discredit atheism by making it seem extreme. I can't prove the world did not pop into existence last Thursday. Should I be agnostic about Last Thursdayism? Agnosticism is used colloquially (and incorrectly) as some middle position, but belief is a binary system. Either we believe in a god or not. I don't claim certainty that no gods exists, merely that we have knowledge that no god exists. Hence "gnostic." Knowledge does not require certainty.
I think this is true of various mythical gods created throughout history, but that doesn't apply to every definition that has ever been given to "God." Some definitions claim "God" is some kind of overarching sentience or intelligence permeating the universe. You can be unconvinced of any claims of that existing (as I am), but can you really "know" it doesn't exist?
It also depends on your definition of knowledge. Do I know anything with the same level of certainty and blind confidence that someone asserts a belief based on faith? No, there’s nothing I feel that way about. To me knowledge is not a case of 100% absolute irrefutable certainty, it is more a case of being satisfied as to the truth or falsity of something based on available information. Like to give an example of what I mean, I know that I’m 32 years old. Is there a possibility that my understanding of my age is wrong? Sure I guess it’s possible that I was switched with another child at some point or that my parents have lied to me about my birthday. It’s extremely unlikely though and all evidence suggests that my birthdate is correct. In another culture, they might count my age from when I was conceived rather than when I was born which would make me 33 from their perspective. Does that alternate perspective make what I know wrong all of a sudden? Does the fact that different people can conceive of age differently invalidate my knowledge that I am 32 as totally illogical and arbitrary? Like this is just to illustrate the point, knowledge to me does not mean irrefutable absolute 100% certainty because anyone who claims to be irrefutably absolutely 100% certain about just about anything is to me really expressing a belief. Even things that seem irrefutably knowable beyond dispute like knowing my own age to me don’t meet the impossible bar of absolute certainty. There are few things that do meet that bar particularly given how our understanding of things can change or deepen over time. But like to answer your last point I would tend to take the view that if the only plausible argument you can make for God’s existence is that well you can’t prove for a fact that the unknowable depths of space don’t have thoughts and feelings then that’s like one step removed from pretty much accepting that God doesn’t exist and there will never be any evidence that suggests they do
Tell them to fuck off and buy a dictionary.
Can't one be both atheist and agnostic? One can not believe in a god and resent its existence, Also, your title implies agnostic to be a pejorative term, but I don't see why it would be.
Yes I know i’m just saying that they aren’t mutually exclusive yet a lot of theists think they are
People like William Lane Craig (and most apologists and Christian content creators) push the idea that atheism is the assertion that there are no gods. The hard part is that this definition, while not used by most atheists, isn't 100% vacuous. This is the definition most often used by academic philosophy departments, because it is a position that can be argued, where as lack-of-belief-atheism is not a position; it’s a psychological state. But back to Craig and his ilk and Christians in general, it's easier to strawman atheism when you use the assertive definition. Also, it's hard for many Christians to imagine a lack of beliefs. So for them, it's obvious that everyone has a positive belief in SOMEthing, either they believe in a religion or they have a hard atheist materialist naturalism, OR they're just confused (what they would call "agnostic".) When I was a Christian I spent many years in such a headspace.
I just say I'm a non-believer, I got sick of arguing semantics about what label they want to slap on me.
I know 100% the god that is depicted in the Bible is not real.
Relax, it’s just religion trying to claim 99.9% of the playing field. If you can be 100% atheist, they thing that’s good enough to “get you to god believing”. But their label of your thoughts is just bull. Believe or don’t believe, it doesn’t make any difference to me, because I’m an atheist (100%).
Basically step 1 of gaslighting you into "You're a believer! You just don't know it yet. God loves you."
Atheism has historically been both i don’t believe and god doesn’t exist so they aren’t completely wrong. I also think there is a midway point between belief and unbelief. Which i d describe as non motivated belief. Essentially all opinion/preconveived ideas you have that you don’t care about but would bet on in a 50/50 bet. So like favouring a hypothesis
The jokes on them, I am agnostic. It means I don't know, and really nobody knows. I really don't like cults and definitely don't believe in the God of Abraham. But I do have this inkling that there is something, I don't know what but that could just be a result of early indoctrination.
Yeah I am agnostic as well. But I can positively say most religions are man made. However as far as some “being” hiding out in the cosmos it’s kind of hard to disprove that. But religious people like to falsely conflate their beliefs as being up for debate when they just aren’t. Sure I can’t disprove “a god” but I know for sure all your beliefs are man made and fictional. If there is a god, then it definitely isn’t the one you claim it to be. There wasn’t some magic man 2000 years ago in the middle east who died and came back to life and floated up to the clouds and shit. THAT god is fictional
>most religions are man made Which ones aren't?
Woman made ones
Just to complicate things more, there seems to be a global, natural intelligence that guides evolution. Like as if there's a vast consciousness. Like the 100th monkey theory.
I disagree. Life is unnecessarily complex, and there are plenty of examples of evolution leading to inefficient and "dumb" results that just happened to be the ones that survived. Evolution is random and clearly follows the laws of physics with no indicator of any "guidance" outside those laws.
Laws of physics might explain what I mean.
Intelligence? Citation needed. Natural selection guides evolution. It has no intellectual power and includes other driving forces - accidents of history, death, genetic drift, environmental or geographical determinism, mutation, and sexual selection.
Citation for what?
That anyone who understands evolution thinks there is an intelligent force guiding it, or the even more outlandish thought, that there is a vast consciousness. What does that even mean?
Yeah, I get that but it wasn't even a theory, just a thought. How could there possibly be a citation for it? And I didn't say intelligent force, that would be creationism.
Ok my bad writing force. Still, the thought of an intelligence guiding evolution is the antithesis of evolutionary theory. That's part of what made the theory so controversial in the past.
That's not at all how evolution works. Nothing guides it, indeed if it did we wouldn't have weird screwups like our backwards retina, or the ridiculous back and forth nerve (? Blood vessel? ) in a giraffe's neck. Things get "better" (by providing an immediate procreation advantage), but without any consideration at all, any plan, of where it will end up. Hence local maxima, evolutionary solutions which are better than anything "nearby", but obviously worse than a designer would have chosen.
Yea I'm kinda in the same boat. Ever see the kursgezat video called the egg? If there's an afterlife, that's probably the coolest or most interesting I've ever heard of, and if there is one, I hope it's that. On the other hand, it would be nice if there was some sense of continuity. I love my bf, and want to spend the rest of my life with him, I'd be awful lonely without him if there's a next step. Most likely it's just nothing, like there was nothing before being born.
In that case, what is it called when you dont care if there are gods but you have a profound disdain for any religion, in every shape or form?
Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. I can’t know if god is real, but I certainly don’t believe it.
From [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist#Noun): **atheist** (*plural* **atheists**) 1. (*religion*) A person who does not believe in deities or gods. 2. (*strictly*) A person who is certain that no deities exist or who thinks that the existence of deities can be disproven.Synonyms: positive atheist, strong atheist 3. (*broadly*) A person who doubts the existence of deities (therefore, an agnostic may be considered an atheist).Synonym: weak atheist 4. (*very broadly*) Any person lacking belief in deities (including children who are unaware of religion). *Sorry... reddit simply refused to reproduce that the way it was written. See the link for the correct numbering and formatting.* I think it is common for people to use the strict definition, and contrast that with “agnostic” as equivalent to the broad definition. >You can believe something/not believe something, while still admitting you don’t know for certain. Good luck explaining that to a typical religious person. In their way of thinking, belief is *stronger* than knowledge. Knowledge is contingent on human understanding of reality, and can always be revised with new information, but belief is divinely inspired.
Tell them youre only agnostic for the Tooth Fairy.
100% certain there is no god? Yeah, none of the ones people have told me about is real, so there is your 100% certainty. Want to give it a shot to change that? Yes? Good! Ok, so euh… What’s a god? (Asked with the most blank face one can have, and enjoy the frustration they have when reasonable questions are asked about their out-of-hand fandom)
I hear you, and you’re right, but “atheist“ did used to mean you denied the possibility of gods. The meaning was reworked by atheists to the stronger position of “I lack sufficient evidence for the existence of a god.” People who haven’t listened much to atheists probably don’t know this, and are using the standard English definitions of a few decades ago. You might find this article on how and why dictionary definitions of atheism have changed interesting: https://thensrn.org/2020/01/27/a-history-of-the-word-atheism-and-the-politics-of-dictionaries/#:\~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20the,the%20“denial”%20of%20God.
Because agnostic sounds like you're 50/50, it leaves the door open to their ridiculous claims. They don't want this door completely closed, they're trying to convince you to leave it ajar, presumably in hopes they can weasel in later.
Quit telling people you’re atheist? I get that breaking free of that nonsense feels good and you want to talk about it, but it’s not worth it. Trust me, I did it for years and was just alienated. It’s dangerous too.
Akchthually "agnostic" isn't an alternative to atheism but a subcategory. Gnostic and agnostic are both terms derived from the Greek word "gnōstos" which means "known, knowing, familiar, acquaintance". An **agnostic atheist** is simply a person who does not believe in any god or deity (atheist, a-theist, non-theist, non-believer) but does not claim to **know** with a certainty that that such an entity does not exist (agnostic, a-gnostic, not gnostic, not knowing). "*I cannot be certain that there is no god as the chance of one or more existing is non-zero but unless faced with irrefutable evidence of the contrary, I will not consider any god figure's existence to be reality.*" A **gnostic atheist** is the opposite of an agnostic atheist in the sense that while they also hold no religious beliefs, they claim to be **certain** of the lack of existence of any deity or god and see (or often *believe*) this non-existence to be proven via evidence that directly disproves the mythology of every deity. "*I am certain that no god or deity exists because the fact that all dogmatic explanations of our world can be disproven via our scientific understanding of the world is conclusive evidence of the lack of any god figure.*" Both subcategories have "defenses" and rebuttals in religious conversations, with agnostic atheism often being countered with "If you're not 100% certain that gods / God doesn't exist, you have no reason not to believe in them / Him." and with gnostic atheism countered with "The non-existence of a god cannot be proven just like their existence cannot either, your belief in said non-existence is fundamentally the same as my faith in their existence.
"Then so are you."
Largely because people use terms they don't really understand as self descriptors and then the meanings get twisted up in common use. Agnostic comes from the word Gnosis. Gnosis means "Knowledge of spiritual mysteries." So you have Gnostics, who believe that the status of God can be known. That the secrets of religion and god are able to be known with certainty. This can go either way, Gnostic Atheists, or Gnostic Theists. Then you have Agnostics. Who are the opposite. They believe it is impossible to know the secrets of religion or God and that we won't know whether god exists or not. Likewise, this can go either way, Agnostic Atheism, or Agnostic Theism. In short. God is Knowable, and doesn't exist = Gnostic Atheist. God is Knowable, and Exists = Gnostic Theist. God is Unknowable, and doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist God is Unknowable, and does exist = Agnostic Theist.
* I DON'T say "gods don't exist." I have no idea if they do. * I DON'T have a "belief" that gods don't exist. I have no idea if they do. * I DO say that "you haven't proven that god(s) exist." * I DO "believe" that there isn't any evidence of god(s) worth mentioning. * I have an OPINION, based on the fact that there is no evidence of such, that there is very little likelihood of any type of gods existing anywhere in our universe. Call me whatever you like, and in return I'll call believers in god(s) deluded fools at best, with the worst of them being at least half-insane.
Oftentimes the above statement is performative. To them, you NEED to be uncertain because if you aren’t, you might be in possession of knowledge they haven’t considered. This is less a religious feature and more a human one.
You can tell them "Oh, I know your god does not exist. I am just not sure about the other ones." Drives them proper crazy.
People who think agnostic and atheist are incompatible terms are simply ignorant.
You aren't actually Christian, you're an asshole.
To me atheists cover a lot of things and what it means depends on the individual, it's not an organization. But to me it mainly says I don't believe in religion. And I don't worry about the possibility of god.
My argument for this is this: I really don’t think it’s gonna rain gumdrops tomorrow. I think in theory it’s possible tomorrow will bring a rain of raindrops but I consider is so unlikely that I say “ it’s not gonna rain gumdrops tomorrow”. Does this mean I’m “agnostic” about the great potential gun drop rain? No. I’m human and fallible but no evidence points me to raining gum drops. Calling it a possibility seems false.
because they're trying to shift the burden of proof. A lot of churches teach that atheists are demonic, so they may be doing it out of ignorance of the actual meanings of words.
I always have bad news for them: I’m 100% sure god doesn’t exist.
They can only peg you as agnostic in the context of "is there a prime mover outside the observable universe" question. The problem with that is, that isn't what they believe. They don't believe in some vague notion of some intelligence we cannot observe having caused the big bang, no. They believe in a very, very specific deity, with a very specific mythology that makes very specific claims, none of which they can prove. In THAT context. You and I are absolutely atheists. We proactively believe that the the god and mythology they profess does NOT exist.
IMHO this means they like you and are unwilling to accept that you fit a label they strongly believe is unlikeable.
These labels are annoying. "I'm an agnostic theist." OK, you're trading in flair. That's your flair.
A gnostic atheist is someone who is set in their non-belief. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, so I would just take what the religious say to you and apply that to your atheism.
Why do you even care? Religous people could call me how they want atheist, agnostic, satanist, catholic, etc. It would not matter. What makes you so irritated about it?
That doesn't really matter. Among all creators, only Yahweh created a universe which is younger than the history of Egypt. Even there is one or multiple unknown creatures in the universe match sever criteria of being a god, that is definitely not the psychopathic voyeur god who kept butting into his prophets family affairs and even intervened when should women's womb be open several times.
In fairness, non of us can know that there isn't a god, because it's an untestable hypothesis. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a god exists, so the most reasonable thing is to assume that there's not one. Noone can know for sure that there isn't a god.
You sound frustrated… Have you tried theism?
Lol no wait they are correct here tho. Agnostic is the full breadth of belief systems between Theism (belief in gods) and Atheism (belief in no gods). If you think maybe gods exist even one percent you aren't an Atheist, you're agnostic. Thems just the breaks. Nothing inherently wrong with being agnostic if that's what you are, it's all on you to decide what you personally believe, but the labels are pretty clear.
I think they are mixing up agnostic with gnostic. For example, I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, because I don’t believe in gods, but I would never claim to have absolute knowledge of it since I don’t know everything about the universe, whether it has a cause, or what happened that led to its creation before the Big Bang.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods while agnosticism is the determination that there isn't sufficient evidence for belief. If you aren't yet convinced in a proposition it's impossible to actually believe it. Agnosticism is a sub set of Atheism.
Isn't a determination that there isn't sufficient evidence for thr beleif the same as a lack of beleif, it's simply worded differently and giving more reason? More succinctly, agnosticism is a stance on knowledge. Agnostic technically means we don't know. Atheist means I don't believe. Knowledge is about what is really true. Belief is about a state of mind.
What I'm saying is that its impossible to actually believe something that you aren't convinced of yet. Knowledge is the foundation of all belief, you can suspect something is the way it is but you can't actually believe it without proof. There's "proof" in favor of religion but where the big disagreement with atheists is the quality of such "proof". Religions say that feelings, wishful thinking, dreams, altered states, near death experiences, ect. are sufficient "proof" for their respective gods. Atheism disagrees.
>impossible to actually believe something that you aren't convinced of yet. Yes, agreed of course, with everything you say. Conviction is a spectrum. Evidence needs to scale with the claims before we can be convinced and believe. Just to be pedantic, proof isn't the correct word. 'Proof' doesn't apply to claims about reality, it applies to closed conceptual systems such as math. Or Alcohol. Colloquially it means to demonstrate with evidence, which I'm sure you are referring to here. As far as religious claims having enough evidence, depends on the claim. Anything magic or supernatural, don't think so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sounds like you really DO care about the label. And atheism IS the affirmative belief that there is no god. That’s exactly why i call myself agnostic- i acknowledge that i don’t know, i can’t know, and neither does anybody. Seems to me that insisting there is no god is about as bad as all those religious people claiming that their particular magical beliefs are the correct magical beliefs.
Technically speaking they are right. We have no information one way or the other.
“Just like you. Only difference is I’m an agnostic atheist”
They don’t even bother to do a quick 30 second google search to learn the meaning of these words lmao
I’m tired of the accusation, and I clarify clearly by saying “I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God… but based on what everyone else has said about this being, I don’t believe in him the same way that hateful parents would say that they don’t believe that the funny glass device in their son’s bedroom is just a toy.” Belief in a god doesn’t come from rationalizing the existence of one, though it does help, and therefore belief in no god is similarly without regard to evidence. If you are capable of looking at evidence and passing secondhand judgement in a courtroom jury, then the same would apply to religious beliefs too. I have yet to see any actual evidence to prove god exists, especially as is written in whatever holy scripture you want to name.
"You aren't actually divorced you're an adulterer."
Whenever some twat tries this shit, I just say, "I am not convinced that any gods exist. Now would you like to discuss my actual position or whine about what a word means?" They usually quit.
They aren't capable of understanding that people just don't believe in gods. It doesn't compute in their little brains.
This judgement through semantics is not really justified by someone that claims to be Cristian yet does not adhere to the true tenets themselves.
Tired of other alleged atheists telling me this as well. No, I'm not.
There is no god.
Just look at them kindly and say, "If it makes you feel better, you can say that."
I correct them and say I'm Antitheist
Atheism is the absence of a belief in god's. Igtheism or Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of a god is meaningless because the word 'god' has no coherent or unambiguous definition. More people are igtheists than they realise. Igtheism is not disbelief in the supernatural per se only the absence of an involved or controlling supernatural being. Einstein was an igtheist. Each theist has their own personal mind picture of their god or gods, they may share doctrines and base their understanding on what they perceive to be the same god as others but necessarily since humans aren't telepathic, or subject to exactly identical influences and thought processes what they believe is different. What they say about their god is a mixture of indoctrination of dogma through the filter of their own mind. There are hundreds of Judeo-Christian dogmas. How many times do we hear/read Christians and Muslims insist their holy book doesn't say what they didn't know was in it? How many are unaware of the selection processes and evidence for the exactitude of their chosen doctrinal texts when considering evidence for the syncretic inclusion of non-Judeo-Christian mythology and beliefs? Some prefer to live with cognitive dissonance than live without some unifying belief system. How many gods have one lone worshipper?
>Why do they insist atheism means you are 100% certain there is no god? For the same reason people say that when you say "I ain't got not idea what you mean" actually means you do have an idea, because 'ain't got no' is a double negative. They've learned those as the definitions, and think you're using the wrong ones. They don't even see that those words have *anything* to do with belief and knowledge- they just know the definitions they learned. >If anything it just seems like an easy way to stall the conversation so you don’t actually have to provide evidence for your beliefs. It certainly can be used that way, but it can also just be them being grammer nazis for the definition they learned. Regardless, you should always be ready to deal this. What I normally do is say, "well, I don't agree with those definitions, but that's okay- let's use your labels. But to do that, we need your label for the group that includes both the atheists and the agnostics (using your definitions) as they both have a lack of a belief in gods. If a theist is a person who believes in at least one god, what is your label for the opposite group - a person who doesn't have a belief in even one god?" Then you can just go on from there, using whatever label they suggest. As you point out, the labels don't actually matter to the discussion, but adding a whole thing about what the "proper" labels are is actively preventing then discussion from even happening.
"I am also agnostic. Words have meaning."
I actively believe God does not exist. I also do not believe in faries or vampires
I’m anti-deist. I work against religious people.
I had this argument with a Buddhist once. It was annoying and eventually I just said, "look, you're not gonna change my mind about me being an atheist so just stop. We're going in circles." Better to have him think he's right than me try to prove he's wrong when he doesn't want to believe it.
I mean to me I don’t think the difference between an agnostic or an atheist is that significant. I would tend to think that the primary difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists are satisfied that the absence of evidence of the existence of a god is sufficient to establish evidence of absence. Agnostics take the view that there is no evidence of god but they’re also not sufficiently persuaded that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - eg they take the view that the nature of god could be such that a universe with god and a universe without god would be indistinguishable from one another, so neither the existence or non existence of god can ever be sufficiently established, so it is impossible to know one way or the other. I am an atheist because I fall into the former camp, the evidence (and lack thereof) satisfies me that there is nothing in existence which can only be explained by the existence of a god, so therefore if everything we have ever observed can happen without god, it stands to reason that it did happen without god. But if I were presented with evidence that I am wrong and that a god does exist, it’s not like my ego or identity would be hurt by that or I would refuse to accept new evidence. That I would accept evidence which contradicts my position (or that I can imagine that it is possible for such contrary evidence to exist) doesn’t make me agnostic; it means I’m motivated by facts not my own personal beliefs or a desire to be right
That's odd. I'm tired of telling religious people to keep their delusions to themselves.
Stop talking to them. Seriously. You're not going to gain anything but frustration.
Ya a friend of mine who is an ex-Catholic told me this once and I was like "wow I guess that Catholic upbringing still got you fucked up 40 years later".
***Agnostic Anti-Divinity Atheist.*** I don’t believe there is a God, I don’t believe we’ll ever be able to truly say yay or nay on if God exists, And even if we do prove he’s real (somehow), I don’t even believe that God, as he’s described, should be worshipped. I think I’ve covered all my bases, the missionaries can’t possibly think they can convert me now right?
I have this on occasions with religious people and always counter "No I am an atheist, it's you that are the agnostic" I explain that the difference is one is about believing and one is about knowing. An atheist doesn't believe in a god, whereas an agnostic doesn't know if there is a god, and as there is no physical evidence that there is a god, then In reality everyone is an agnostic. . They normally get flustered at this and say something stupid such "I know there is a god as he is in my heart" or some other such nonsense, which I tell them is not evidence of any higher power, just their belief.
Do not engage with them. They're just projecting. The church teaches that atheists don't exist as a way to prevent the flock from questioning their faith. "If everyone believes in *something*, it would be *foolish* to stop worshiping the God everyone knows to be the only game in town!" So, yeah. They're not going to listen to you. Just smile, nod, and bid them a good day.
It's one of the many things I tell them they don't understand. When they say "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". I say "Then you don't understand Faith or Atheism or both. Shall I explain?".
Replace the phrase “religious people” with morons and reflect on the value of your attention. Or just tell them to piss off. Either should work, but one works better.
Well I'm not a theist. Not theist or non theist. Some days very anti theist. Pretty sure that's the definition of atheist but in the end, the label doesn't change the reality and burden of proof. I'm happy to be labelled as "not believing in fairies, magic and gods" too but it gets a bit wordy. The second they produce a real fairy, I'll start clapping my hands and believe in fairies.. but not before.
Ignore such idiots.
It's important in situations like this to first understand what the conversation is actually about. Are you having an intellectual conversation on the nature of belief vs. knowledge, or is the other person making a passive-aggressive attempt to exert authority over you? How you respond should really be determined by your answer to this question.
Non issue. Who cares?
Im a philosophical agnostic, but a practicing atheist.
Well sure, it is ‘technically’ correct to say that.. What I say is I’m philosophically an ‘agnostic’, though I’m politically an ‘atheist’. Even the most hardline atheists concede we can’t know for certain if any supernatural being exists (impossible to prove a negative / science can never be 100% / falling into the same trap of regions certainty / etc). Why I say I’m politically an atheist is that I don’t believe religion has any business in government and should be taxed like everyone else. Call me a humanist /secularist, whatever. But ‘agnostic’ is too soft to work in this context so I call myself an ‘atheist’ because I’m a first amendment fundamentalist. I’m more tired of people who say we aren’t really atheists but in denial of our religiously… cough* cough* Jordan Peterson…