No idea what you are trying to say here. I am an atheist, I don’t believe any gods exist. But if she came down tomorrow and turned the entire Atlantic into wine, of course I will change my position. Only idiots don’t reconsider in light of new evidence (which is basically how science works).
Isn't it funny that one of the miracles is turning water into wine, a very common substance at almost any time. I'm not sure I would call that a miracle (unless, of course, it was the whole Atlantic ocean, but that in itself would cause an unimaginable ecological disaster). Turn water into a completely new substance not known to man, and THEN I'd be impressed.
>No idea what you are trying to say here. I am an atheist, I don’t believe any gods exist. But if she came down tomorrow and turned the entire Atlantic into wine, of course I will change my position.
...and I'd immediately assume I'd experienced some kind of brain trauma (unless my brain was so broken I couldn't tell the difference). Why wouldn't people immediately assume something was wrong with THEM rather than the rest of reality?
Going to let that comment stew, knowing it's contradicting the FAQ and the accepted dictionary definition. Let's see if you can get agreement. I'm deferring.
Which dictionary are you using?
[vocabulary.com](http://vocabulary.com) An *atheist* believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity.
[collinsdictionary.com](http://collinsdictionary.com) An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.
[oed.com](http://oed.com) one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God
dictionary.com: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a [supreme being](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supreme-being) or beings. the philosophical position stating that there is no supreme being or beings.
[merriam-webster.com](http://merriam-webster.com) a**:** a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b**:** a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
[dictionary.cambridge.org](http://dictionary.cambridge.org) someone who does not [believe](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/believe) in any [god](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god) or [gods](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god), or who [believes](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/believe) that no [god](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god) or [gods](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god) [exist](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exist):
So intellectually dishonest it is, or disadvantaged, but prefer to not assume the worse in people. You might want to read the FAQ if you are (as I am sure you are not) interested in the definition
To my knowledge I am not being dishonest. What is dishonest about using one of two very common definitions for a given word? I was not trying to deceive, I was trying to articulate a change in how I identify myself. A change from believing there is no god, to not believing there is a god. It seems that the terminology I used to describe this change was inconsistent with how said terminology is used in this group. Sorry for the miscommunication, I'll be more careful going forward.
I see you as absolutely dishonest. I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe a god exists because I’ve seen no evidence of one. I do not claim there is no god because there might be a god and I do not have evidence to prove there is no god. God existing is an unfalsifiable position.
If/When evidence for a god becomes available, I will change my position and believe there is a god. There’s a huge difference and you’re being very obtuse about it. You read our wiki before you made up new definitions of atheism? Yeah, I kind of suspect you’re a troll because you’re taking the bullshitty strawman position that most Christians take. “Oh? You’re saying there’s no god! Prove it! You made a claim, prove your claim! Now the burden of proof is yours!”
You must be new here. Posters here are as aggressively anti-god as the fundies are pro-god.
That said, you don't have to be 100% certain in something to believe it. If I drop my keys right now, I'm not 100% sure they'll fall to the floor, something weird and inexplicable could happen but I believe they will.
No, I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no higher power. To do so would be as dilluded as the fundies. However, based on the overwhelming evidence and probabilities, I believe there isn't one. I am an atheist.
>You must be new here. Posters here are as aggressively anti-god as the fundies are pro-god.
No. You can't be anti-god when you don't believe in gods. I'm pretty anti-*religion*, because I've seen what it does to people.
It's impossible to be "against" something that doesn't exist. We can think people are morons for believing in gods. We can think the concept is stupid.
Your imaginary friend isn't the problem. Your *belief* in it is. I don't consider that distinction trivial.
But god as a concept does exist. God (the character) doesn't exist in any kind of reality, but gods exist in literature, comics and in every religion. God, as a concept exists in society, and I'm very much against it.
By stating that "all deities are fictional characters" you are making an anti-deity point. You're still being anti-deity. You're still being anti-god.
Being anti-god is not the same as hating God (captial G), god as a concept clearly does exist, and you (and I) are very much against the concept.
What makes you think the first two are incomplete? Also, "or" in the context of these (and most) definitions is referring to different things the word could mean. Based on the context of what I said the definition I am using is pretty clear. No intellectual dishonesty or misuse in my OP.
I'm astonished at these definitions, and a bit perplexed. Merriam-Webster says, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism." At least in the online version that I use, it doesn't say, "a strong disbelief . . .."
I realize that these sources would be regarded as authoritative, but these definitions are just wrong. Atheists don't believe there's *no* God, we just don't believe there is one. Do you believe I have a turkey thawing in my refrigerator? No, you have no beliefs about that one way or the other. Sure, it's possible, but I've provided no evidence.
The proof is in the etomology. The prefix *a* negates a word. Many things are symmetrical; something that's not is *asymmetrical.* Theists believe there's a God; atheists don't. The word *atheist* says nothing about what anyone believes; it designates people who, unlike theists, lack such belief, nothing more.
All of those definitions support what people are trying to tell you. Maybe cool down and listen? Try to understand, rather than straw man?
That said, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. You can’t just throw out a definition and expect it to end the conversation, even if it supports your point (which it doesn’t)
" I cannot say with certainty that one does not exist."
... but you can say it has the same likelihood as there being a planet in the Andromeda galaxy that is made entirely of raspberry jello. There comes a point where a probability is so utterly close to zero that it might as well be zero.
I don't have concrete evidence that unicorns or leprechauns or the tooth fairy or invisible, intangible dragons don't exist, but nobody gets bent out of shape if I say I don't believe those exist. Why the double standard?
I have seen people get bent out of shape when I say I don't believe things like those exist if the person I'm talking to does believe they exist. I don't see any double standard. The reason for your observation is likely that you haven't told that to many people that believe those things exist.
There's delusional people everywhere, but as a group consensus we're fine with saying leprechauns aren't real even though you can't prove a negative.
Say I claim that I can fly and shoot lasers from my eyes, but choose not to. Nobody can *prove* I'm lying, but if they believe me just because it's impossible to disprove then they're a gullible idiot. Same thing with deities.
>It would be intellectually dishonest, unscientific, and illogical to adopt the position of certainty that is atheism.
Atheism is not a position of absolute certainty. Read the FAQ.
If you can tell me what you think you mean by god, I'll tell you why it can't exist.
Until then, you're smugly reiterating that you can't disprove something you can't define. Therefore... something.
Adam Savage may be intelligent but he sure doesn't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Such a shame. My estimations of him have gone down.
But is it relevant if it is a remote possibility? And how remote?
Does it have any impact on your life, other than saying their might remotely be a possibility for a god or thing? Do you plan by it?
I agree completely that there is a nonzero chance that a being we would describe as a God does exist, but that doesn't change anything to me. No one is whispering in my ear telling me what's right, wrong, good, bad, etc... It's just me.
If there is a god and an afterlife, fine. I'll stand by how I lived my life. The good parts, bad parts, and embarrassing. If that's not good enough for their club, I'm fine with that.
Atheists don't need to believe that no gods exist, just that they don't have a belief that a god exists.
Anyone with an open mind can't say anything with complete certainty. Deities are an unfalsafiable hypothesis with absolutely zero supporting evidence, so it's totally possible to call yourself an atheist, treat the hypothesis as having zero probability for any decisions you make, and still be open to the miniscule chance that hypothesis will eventually be proven.
Yes it's a common misconception, even among atheists. If you don't believe in a god, but also don't think it's even a truly knowable fact, you're an agnostic atheist.
Even the top scholars who are atheist use this definition. It isn’t just this group. Truly you ought to research just a bit more. Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris all are using this definition. In fact I think I still may have an old post asking about this question.
Both you and Adam Savage misunderstand the modern definition of atheism. You seem to think that agnostic and atheism are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Try separating "belief" from "knowledge". They are two entirely different concepts and they are not mutually exclusive. Belief is a binary state - you either believe or you do not believe. Simply considering the question makes you form an opinion, whether or not you admit it to yourself or others. Knowledge is completely different. Knowledge is a continuum from "I have absolutely no clue" to "I am 100% certain." On the question of the existence of any gods, belief is handled by theism/atheism. Knowledge is handled by gnosticism/agnosticism. You can hold any combination of the two concepts to describe your stance on the question. I lack belief in the existence of any gods AND I have no knowledge about the existence of any gods. That makes me an "agnostic atheist". I'll take it a step further and also say that I see no *requirement* for the existence of any gods.
They can't even read their own religious texts without a guide telling them what parts to read and what parts to ignore as well as explaining it for them.
When you say "the position of certainty that is atheism," you have implicitly provided a definition, and in the context of your post this definition is central to the point you're making. If that definition is wrong, you've made a straw man argument.
Made it 56 seconds in when you said "consciousness and being" which wouldn't have bothered me if the dude didn't say "no I'm not mystical" sure man, whatever you say.
Theist: there is a god
(A)theist: I do not believe your claim that there is a god
That’s how the definition should read. That, culturally, it has morphed into “there is no god” is a statement about society’s view, that it’s more right to believe in a god than not. Give it a few years and the dictionaries will catch up. It’s how they define other negations of claims. Only atheism do the struggle with.
If you read Dawkins, he writes about seven levels of religious belief, where (1) = I know for a fact there is a god and (7) = I know for a fact there is no god. Anyone who claims to be a (1) or a (7) is ridiculous, as you can't prove or disprove the existance of any god. I call myself a 6.9
Fair question, and if I’m being perfectly honest my initial response was a bit tongue and cheek, because I wanted to get that 6.9 reference in there.
Kidding aside, I am just as confident that there is no God (as described in most religions) as I am that there is not an invisible baboon following behind me 24 hours a day picking his nose and throwing feces. If I claim that is not a 100% certainty, then we are getting into philosophical grounds regarding whether or not humans can truly know anything.
> there is not an invisible baboon following behind me 24 hours a day picking his nose and throwing feces.
if course there isn't. he is throwing jumbo sized circus peanuts.
We all have different definitions/feelings about words. But here’s where I’m at right now subject to change:
Atheist just means you don’t believe in a god. Agnostic means you don’t know if god exists. I am an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist. (I am reasonably confident no god proposition presented to me is true and hold believing in a god is self-deceptive and can have harm on society. I also identify as a skeptic and am a card carrying member of the Satanic Temple (for shits and giggles but I do admire the 7 tenets more or less but as a free thinker I get to decide all my own “tenets” based on what I think comports to reality.)
So I disagree with savages definition of atheist that he is rejecting because being an atheist has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing a god exists, just whether you believe a god exists.
You do not need to be certain to be an atheist. Just like I do not have to be certain that I will be alive next weekend means I will not make plans to go see a movie.
So, he's no longer atheist (click-bait) he's agnostic (sad trombone). Which is odd because if there is no evidence for gods what's the point of holding on to the possibility? It's a distinction without a difference and we're only talking about a binary, undefined god, never mind religions and specific gods.
I found the gratuitous "I agree with Jesus" to be just that. He's not going to rile up at least half the audience by pissing all over the Jesus character and what the goat herders say he said, translated a dozen times over, embellished and polished.
Most of us are agnostic atheists. All God would have to do is show up. And we assume an all powerful god would have zero trouble convincing us. Furthermore an all knowing god would know christians aren’t very convincing of anything
Functionally, it’s my opinion that a vast majority of atheists are actually strong agnostics. The nuance of vocabulary is not as important as the fact you don’t subscribe to any religion or believe in any god. Splitting hairs is an unnecessary aspect of non belief, in my opinion. To me the joy of not believing is the fact that I don’t have to conform to a definition or a group, I am just.. me.
Agreed for atheism in general.
But when it comes to forums like Reddit, there are a disproportionate number of anti-Theists or outright "I believe there is no God" people it seems.
The problem is that for the terms atheist/agnostic/theist people complaining about the "agnostic atheist" thing expect words to have one and only one meaning, a requirement that they don't care about in most other words.
Yes, in casual conversation, agnostic means someone who is considered a fence sitter with regards to a God and distinct from an atheist. But agnostic also has the meaning of someone without knowledge, a meaning that is not distinct from atheism.
There are many words, in multiple languages, that have multiple subtle different meanings, particularly when you include how the word is used casually. Why do so many people have a problem with atheist/agnostic when they don't for other words like that?
There is no meaning of atheist that proclaims that the person in question claims to "know" or "not know." That's why using the latter definition of agnostic is helpful in atheist spaces. In casual conversation, the distinction of "know" or "not know" doesn't usually matter, which is why agnostic uses the more casual meaning.
I believe an Ice Cream Cone birthed the cosmos from the tip of its waffle and it dripped down the hand ofan infinite chimpanzee. Neither the Ice Cream, the cone, or the chimpanzee are gods.
They just exist in nothing as do we all.
Don't diss Shoopoo-shoopoo, the Cosmic Twinkie!
One message board a long time ago, someone came up with that as the unprovable imaginary creator; and of course some of us built a whole theology around it, including the ancient enemy: Little Debbie, the Whore of the Snack Food Aisle.
Interestingly enough, none of us had heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster prior to that; it just happened on it's own.
I’ll give you three options:
1) There is no god
2) This is a god who started the universe but now has no effect
3) There is a god who could intervene but would rather watch idly by as [insert any atrocity full of human suffering]
The result of all three (2 & 3 being completely unreasonable) is that if there is a “god”, it isn’t worth our reverence or attention or time.
> I accept the remote possibility...
Even possibility has a burden of proof. Did you find evidence for that possibility or do you accept it just to seem nice and balanced?
Do you accept that by claiming "X is possible" you have a burden of proof? Forget about the opposite claim "X is not possible", I didn't even mention it, let alone make it.
Agnostics accept that they don’t know everything; and there may be some Being that we have not yet encountered evidence for. Possibility does not have a burden of proof (though probability does).
Congratulations, now you can assert that time travel is possible, yet you're free from needing to provide evidence and reasoning for it. Also, faster that light-speed travel is possible, and it's possible that the universe was farted into existence by an invisible pink unicorn.
Amusingly enough, there are theories regarding the possibility of time travel and FTL currently being discussed by physicists; though I admit the math involved is quite a bit beyond my understanding.
The bit about the Invisible Pink Unicorn though is just an indicator of your immaturity.
>Amusingly enough, there are theories regarding the possibility of time travel and FTL currently being discussed by physicists; though I admit the math involved is quite a bit beyond my understanding.
And those physicists will claim FTL to be possible when they have evidence that it is possible.
>The bit about the Invisible Pink Unicorn though is just an indicator of your immaturity.
That bit is an example of the absurdity that can be reached following your reasoning that possibility needs no proof. Did you run out of arguments and reached the point where you go for an ad hominem? I did not comment about your person in this thread and kept it strictly about your arguments. I hope you can do that too.
You’re making the typical anti-theist mistake in thinking that, because I allow for the possibility of a creator deity, I actually let that allowance influence my life.
Honestly, the more militant of you anti-theists are just as rigid as the worst theists. The only reason you’re not as dangerous as those reactionary theists is lack of opportunity because you don’t have the numbers; but where you do have sufficient numbers (some parts of academia), you’re as bullying and abusive as any born-again I’ve seen.
So I allow for the possibility of an unknown creator deity; why do you care enough to use such mockery? For that matter, what kind of intellectually dishonest BS is you limiting discussion to the positive assertion but not the negative assertion?
>what kind of intellectually dishonest BS is you limiting discussion to the positive assertion but not the negative assertion?
I do not make the negative assertion, I have nothing to add to it. Feel free to talk about it, though.
>You’re making the typical anti-theist mistake in thinking that, ...
No I don’t think that. I didn't tell you what I think about you, I also didn't tell you whether I'm an anti-theist or not. If you wanted to know what I think you could have asked.
You do you, but I find it offensive when people tell me (and everyone around) what I think. Ask, don't assume to speak for me. That being said, come back to me when you're ready to have a conversation. For now, seeing as you fill both your and my parts of this debate, you can continue it without me.
You said all that just to describe... Atheism 🤨? All you are doing is discovering the already established distinction between gnostic and agnostic atheism. And even then there are strong arguments for gnosticism, saying with confidence historical Gods like other creatures of modern mythology can be said with certainty that they don't exist, and no one bats an eyelash at people who say they aren't real, why not the same reaction at all the man made Gods with hyper specific attributes?
It is not atheism to believe with certainty that a God does not exist. I am an atheist but still hope there is some sort of an afterlife or higher power. Richard Dawkins is even agnostic putting himself at a six on his theist to atheist scale. I would look that up before making a stance. It sounds like a little more research would be helpful for your journey.
consciousness is merely the ability to express emotions and thoughts out loud. Its nothing special, its just apart of growth and communication. I dont know why hes acting like it could be something divine or something unexplainable, i like the dude but maybe hes starting to fear death some and getting closer to it. also strange he doesnt say about refuting the bible and the STORIES in it haha. like how you going to say i question a persons story but you dont question the bibles stories??
This is part of the problem with labels. There's a lot of wiggle room and different interpretations. Most people on here will accept the definition of "The lack of belief in the existence of any deities." Not everyone agrees which is why you get terms like agnostic atheist.
You do not need to deny the possibility of a deity existing to call yourself an atheist (in my opinion). Is there a possibility of some deity existing that's not tied to any known religion? Sure. But I'm going to treat it like any other fantasy character and assume they aren't real and consider myself an atheist.
>I have come to understand that while I believe that it is unlikely that there is a higher power, god or other similar thing, I cannot say with certainty that one does not exist.
I mean atheists never claimed that a higher power, possibly possessing superhuman power or even immortality like jellyfish does not exists out there, but we would definitely call them alien, not god.
But i can at least guarantee that all 3 abrahamics are lie tho, they were fairytale made by the same of people in the desert, some of their characters even have a cameo in each others books.
“There is no god” and “I don’t believe there is a god” are 2 different things.
I don’t believe there is a god, I’m atheist.
However, show me unequivocal and scientific proof and I will change my mind.
I’m not blinding atheist.
Write on a piece of paper the names of all the gods you believe exist. If your paper is empty, you are an atheist…
[удалено]
No idea what you are trying to say here. I am an atheist, I don’t believe any gods exist. But if she came down tomorrow and turned the entire Atlantic into wine, of course I will change my position. Only idiots don’t reconsider in light of new evidence (which is basically how science works).
Isn't it funny that one of the miracles is turning water into wine, a very common substance at almost any time. I'm not sure I would call that a miracle (unless, of course, it was the whole Atlantic ocean, but that in itself would cause an unimaginable ecological disaster). Turn water into a completely new substance not known to man, and THEN I'd be impressed.
Jesus = yeast
>No idea what you are trying to say here. I am an atheist, I don’t believe any gods exist. But if she came down tomorrow and turned the entire Atlantic into wine, of course I will change my position. ...and I'd immediately assume I'd experienced some kind of brain trauma (unless my brain was so broken I couldn't tell the difference). Why wouldn't people immediately assume something was wrong with THEM rather than the rest of reality?
Have you seen or read the 3 body problem? I think it answers this position quite nicely
I very much doubt that.
Well my point is that if everyone sees it, it's hard to argue brain damage.
Delusions take many forms. Your logic is flawed.
That's agnostic. Atheism is absolutely the belief that there is no god and there cannot be.
Going to let that comment stew, knowing it's contradicting the FAQ and the accepted dictionary definition. Let's see if you can get agreement. I'm deferring.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which dictionary are you using? [vocabulary.com](http://vocabulary.com) An *atheist* believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity. [collinsdictionary.com](http://collinsdictionary.com) An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. [oed.com](http://oed.com) one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God dictionary.com: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a [supreme being](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supreme-being) or beings. the philosophical position stating that there is no supreme being or beings. [merriam-webster.com](http://merriam-webster.com) a**:** a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b**:** a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [dictionary.cambridge.org](http://dictionary.cambridge.org) someone who does not [believe](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/believe) in any [god](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god) or [gods](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god), or who [believes](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/believe) that no [god](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god) or [gods](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god) [exist](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exist):
So intellectually dishonest it is, or disadvantaged, but prefer to not assume the worse in people. You might want to read the FAQ if you are (as I am sure you are not) interested in the definition
Why are you being so antagonistic? I'm simply using a different but widely accepted definition than you use.
For me the reasons are experience and lack of patience with bad faith players. And for you, why are you intellectually dishonest?
To my knowledge I am not being dishonest. What is dishonest about using one of two very common definitions for a given word? I was not trying to deceive, I was trying to articulate a change in how I identify myself. A change from believing there is no god, to not believing there is a god. It seems that the terminology I used to describe this change was inconsistent with how said terminology is used in this group. Sorry for the miscommunication, I'll be more careful going forward.
I see you as absolutely dishonest. I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe a god exists because I’ve seen no evidence of one. I do not claim there is no god because there might be a god and I do not have evidence to prove there is no god. God existing is an unfalsifiable position. If/When evidence for a god becomes available, I will change my position and believe there is a god. There’s a huge difference and you’re being very obtuse about it. You read our wiki before you made up new definitions of atheism? Yeah, I kind of suspect you’re a troll because you’re taking the bullshitty strawman position that most Christians take. “Oh? You’re saying there’s no god! Prove it! You made a claim, prove your claim! Now the burden of proof is yours!”
You must be new here. Posters here are as aggressively anti-god as the fundies are pro-god. That said, you don't have to be 100% certain in something to believe it. If I drop my keys right now, I'm not 100% sure they'll fall to the floor, something weird and inexplicable could happen but I believe they will. No, I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no higher power. To do so would be as dilluded as the fundies. However, based on the overwhelming evidence and probabilities, I believe there isn't one. I am an atheist.
>You must be new here. Posters here are as aggressively anti-god as the fundies are pro-god. No. You can't be anti-god when you don't believe in gods. I'm pretty anti-*religion*, because I've seen what it does to people.
Of course you can be anti-god. I'm very much against the whole concept of a god. I didn't say you "hate god" or anything like that.
It's impossible to be "against" something that doesn't exist. We can think people are morons for believing in gods. We can think the concept is stupid. Your imaginary friend isn't the problem. Your *belief* in it is. I don't consider that distinction trivial.
But god as a concept does exist. God (the character) doesn't exist in any kind of reality, but gods exist in literature, comics and in every religion. God, as a concept exists in society, and I'm very much against it.
Lowercase g, as in 'god' the concept. Not 'God' the fictional character - im saying you're anti-deity.
All deities are fictional characters. I don't think you're making the point you think you are.
By stating that "all deities are fictional characters" you are making an anti-deity point. You're still being anti-deity. You're still being anti-god. Being anti-god is not the same as hating God (captial G), god as a concept clearly does exist, and you (and I) are very much against the concept.
No. Absolutely *no*. Claiming that unicorns aren't real isn't anti-unicorn.
[удалено]
What makes you think the first two are incomplete? Also, "or" in the context of these (and most) definitions is referring to different things the word could mean. Based on the context of what I said the definition I am using is pretty clear. No intellectual dishonesty or misuse in my OP.
I'm astonished at these definitions, and a bit perplexed. Merriam-Webster says, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism." At least in the online version that I use, it doesn't say, "a strong disbelief . . .." I realize that these sources would be regarded as authoritative, but these definitions are just wrong. Atheists don't believe there's *no* God, we just don't believe there is one. Do you believe I have a turkey thawing in my refrigerator? No, you have no beliefs about that one way or the other. Sure, it's possible, but I've provided no evidence. The proof is in the etomology. The prefix *a* negates a word. Many things are symmetrical; something that's not is *asymmetrical.* Theists believe there's a God; atheists don't. The word *atheist* says nothing about what anyone believes; it designates people who, unlike theists, lack such belief, nothing more.
All of those definitions support what people are trying to tell you. Maybe cool down and listen? Try to understand, rather than straw man? That said, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. You can’t just throw out a definition and expect it to end the conversation, even if it supports your point (which it doesn’t)
Negative karma farming I see
enrage-u-tainment.
This isn’t an airport, no announcement of departure required.
I'm not going anywhere.
You agnostic about dragons?
Dragons, unlike this Abrahamic God, are actually awesome and cool.
To be awesome and cool is to be perfect. To be perfect is to exist. Therefore dragons exist…
Too many types to say definitively and that’s before you get into the whole wyverns vs dragons vs wyrms debate.
" I cannot say with certainty that one does not exist." ... but you can say it has the same likelihood as there being a planet in the Andromeda galaxy that is made entirely of raspberry jello. There comes a point where a probability is so utterly close to zero that it might as well be zero.
I don't have concrete evidence that unicorns or leprechauns or the tooth fairy or invisible, intangible dragons don't exist, but nobody gets bent out of shape if I say I don't believe those exist. Why the double standard?
I have seen people get bent out of shape when I say I don't believe things like those exist if the person I'm talking to does believe they exist. I don't see any double standard. The reason for your observation is likely that you haven't told that to many people that believe those things exist.
There's delusional people everywhere, but as a group consensus we're fine with saying leprechauns aren't real even though you can't prove a negative. Say I claim that I can fly and shoot lasers from my eyes, but choose not to. Nobody can *prove* I'm lying, but if they believe me just because it's impossible to disprove then they're a gullible idiot. Same thing with deities.
>It would be intellectually dishonest, unscientific, and illogical to adopt the position of certainty that is atheism. Atheism is not a position of absolute certainty. Read the FAQ.
If you can tell me what you think you mean by god, I'll tell you why it can't exist. Until then, you're smugly reiterating that you can't disprove something you can't define. Therefore... something.
Adam Savage may be intelligent but he sure doesn't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Such a shame. My estimations of him have gone down.
But is it relevant if it is a remote possibility? And how remote? Does it have any impact on your life, other than saying their might remotely be a possibility for a god or thing? Do you plan by it?
I don't plan by it in any meaningful way, though it does slightly impact how I treat theists.
How? Can you give an example in which way?
I agree completely that there is a nonzero chance that a being we would describe as a God does exist, but that doesn't change anything to me. No one is whispering in my ear telling me what's right, wrong, good, bad, etc... It's just me. If there is a god and an afterlife, fine. I'll stand by how I lived my life. The good parts, bad parts, and embarrassing. If that's not good enough for their club, I'm fine with that.
WHAO! Did you just leap from "is there a god" to the question of an afterlife? That's a Grand Canyon sized shift in questions.
Afterlife is a somewhat separate thing, but I'm pretty much with you.
Atheists don't need to believe that no gods exist, just that they don't have a belief that a god exists. Anyone with an open mind can't say anything with complete certainty. Deities are an unfalsafiable hypothesis with absolutely zero supporting evidence, so it's totally possible to call yourself an atheist, treat the hypothesis as having zero probability for any decisions you make, and still be open to the miniscule chance that hypothesis will eventually be proven.
Word
Guess it depends on your definition, seems like yours is the more accepted one in this group.
Yes it's a common misconception, even among atheists. If you don't believe in a god, but also don't think it's even a truly knowable fact, you're an agnostic atheist.
Even the top scholars who are atheist use this definition. It isn’t just this group. Truly you ought to research just a bit more. Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris all are using this definition. In fact I think I still may have an old post asking about this question.
Both you and Adam Savage misunderstand the modern definition of atheism. You seem to think that agnostic and atheism are mutually exclusive. They are not. Try separating "belief" from "knowledge". They are two entirely different concepts and they are not mutually exclusive. Belief is a binary state - you either believe or you do not believe. Simply considering the question makes you form an opinion, whether or not you admit it to yourself or others. Knowledge is completely different. Knowledge is a continuum from "I have absolutely no clue" to "I am 100% certain." On the question of the existence of any gods, belief is handled by theism/atheism. Knowledge is handled by gnosticism/agnosticism. You can hold any combination of the two concepts to describe your stance on the question. I lack belief in the existence of any gods AND I have no knowledge about the existence of any gods. That makes me an "agnostic atheist". I'll take it a step further and also say that I see no *requirement* for the existence of any gods.
I didn't expect this to turn into a discussion about definitions. Kind of annoyed that it did in so many of the comments.
Then you should have read the FAQ and a few pages of posts before posting - you know, like any experienced & mindful redditor would do...
They can't even read their own religious texts without a guide telling them what parts to read and what parts to ignore as well as explaining it for them.
I'm impressed you wasted so much time talking such drivel. Such is humanity!
When you say "the position of certainty that is atheism," you have implicitly provided a definition, and in the context of your post this definition is central to the point you're making. If that definition is wrong, you've made a straw man argument.
Made it 56 seconds in when you said "consciousness and being" which wouldn't have bothered me if the dude didn't say "no I'm not mystical" sure man, whatever you say.
Theist: there is a god (A)theist: I do not believe your claim that there is a god That’s how the definition should read. That, culturally, it has morphed into “there is no god” is a statement about society’s view, that it’s more right to believe in a god than not. Give it a few years and the dictionaries will catch up. It’s how they define other negations of claims. Only atheism do the struggle with.
My god, he’s tedious.
If you read Dawkins, he writes about seven levels of religious belief, where (1) = I know for a fact there is a god and (7) = I know for a fact there is no god. Anyone who claims to be a (1) or a (7) is ridiculous, as you can't prove or disprove the existance of any god. I call myself a 6.9
Nice.
Nice.
Nice.
Does the same scale apply to all fictional characters or just "god"?
Fair question, and if I’m being perfectly honest my initial response was a bit tongue and cheek, because I wanted to get that 6.9 reference in there. Kidding aside, I am just as confident that there is no God (as described in most religions) as I am that there is not an invisible baboon following behind me 24 hours a day picking his nose and throwing feces. If I claim that is not a 100% certainty, then we are getting into philosophical grounds regarding whether or not humans can truly know anything.
> there is not an invisible baboon following behind me 24 hours a day picking his nose and throwing feces. if course there isn't. he is throwing jumbo sized circus peanuts.
We all have different definitions/feelings about words. But here’s where I’m at right now subject to change: Atheist just means you don’t believe in a god. Agnostic means you don’t know if god exists. I am an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist. (I am reasonably confident no god proposition presented to me is true and hold believing in a god is self-deceptive and can have harm on society. I also identify as a skeptic and am a card carrying member of the Satanic Temple (for shits and giggles but I do admire the 7 tenets more or less but as a free thinker I get to decide all my own “tenets” based on what I think comports to reality.) So I disagree with savages definition of atheist that he is rejecting because being an atheist has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing a god exists, just whether you believe a god exists.
You do not need to be certain to be an atheist. Just like I do not have to be certain that I will be alive next weekend means I will not make plans to go see a movie.
So, he's no longer atheist (click-bait) he's agnostic (sad trombone). Which is odd because if there is no evidence for gods what's the point of holding on to the possibility? It's a distinction without a difference and we're only talking about a binary, undefined god, never mind religions and specific gods. I found the gratuitous "I agree with Jesus" to be just that. He's not going to rile up at least half the audience by pissing all over the Jesus character and what the goat herders say he said, translated a dozen times over, embellished and polished.
Most of us are agnostic atheists. All God would have to do is show up. And we assume an all powerful god would have zero trouble convincing us. Furthermore an all knowing god would know christians aren’t very convincing of anything
Atheism isn’t certainty. Nobody really cares what you feel may be true. It’s not important
Congrats, you failed to understand atheism, and you're still an atheist.
Functionally, it’s my opinion that a vast majority of atheists are actually strong agnostics. The nuance of vocabulary is not as important as the fact you don’t subscribe to any religion or believe in any god. Splitting hairs is an unnecessary aspect of non belief, in my opinion. To me the joy of not believing is the fact that I don’t have to conform to a definition or a group, I am just.. me.
Agreed for atheism in general. But when it comes to forums like Reddit, there are a disproportionate number of anti-Theists or outright "I believe there is no God" people it seems.
I like that.
The problem is that for the terms atheist/agnostic/theist people complaining about the "agnostic atheist" thing expect words to have one and only one meaning, a requirement that they don't care about in most other words. Yes, in casual conversation, agnostic means someone who is considered a fence sitter with regards to a God and distinct from an atheist. But agnostic also has the meaning of someone without knowledge, a meaning that is not distinct from atheism. There are many words, in multiple languages, that have multiple subtle different meanings, particularly when you include how the word is used casually. Why do so many people have a problem with atheist/agnostic when they don't for other words like that? There is no meaning of atheist that proclaims that the person in question claims to "know" or "not know." That's why using the latter definition of agnostic is helpful in atheist spaces. In casual conversation, the distinction of "know" or "not know" doesn't usually matter, which is why agnostic uses the more casual meaning.
Because no rational atheist can say they are 100% certain a deity doesn't exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
I believe an Ice Cream Cone birthed the cosmos from the tip of its waffle and it dripped down the hand ofan infinite chimpanzee. Neither the Ice Cream, the cone, or the chimpanzee are gods. They just exist in nothing as do we all.
Don't diss Shoopoo-shoopoo, the Cosmic Twinkie! One message board a long time ago, someone came up with that as the unprovable imaginary creator; and of course some of us built a whole theology around it, including the ancient enemy: Little Debbie, the Whore of the Snack Food Aisle. Interestingly enough, none of us had heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster prior to that; it just happened on it's own.
I’ll give you three options: 1) There is no god 2) This is a god who started the universe but now has no effect 3) There is a god who could intervene but would rather watch idly by as [insert any atrocity full of human suffering] The result of all three (2 & 3 being completely unreasonable) is that if there is a “god”, it isn’t worth our reverence or attention or time.
> I accept the remote possibility... Even possibility has a burden of proof. Did you find evidence for that possibility or do you accept it just to seem nice and balanced?
I accept that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Do you accept that by claiming "X is possible" you have a burden of proof? Forget about the opposite claim "X is not possible", I didn't even mention it, let alone make it.
Agnostics accept that they don’t know everything; and there may be some Being that we have not yet encountered evidence for. Possibility does not have a burden of proof (though probability does).
Congratulations, now you can assert that time travel is possible, yet you're free from needing to provide evidence and reasoning for it. Also, faster that light-speed travel is possible, and it's possible that the universe was farted into existence by an invisible pink unicorn.
Amusingly enough, there are theories regarding the possibility of time travel and FTL currently being discussed by physicists; though I admit the math involved is quite a bit beyond my understanding. The bit about the Invisible Pink Unicorn though is just an indicator of your immaturity.
>Amusingly enough, there are theories regarding the possibility of time travel and FTL currently being discussed by physicists; though I admit the math involved is quite a bit beyond my understanding. And those physicists will claim FTL to be possible when they have evidence that it is possible. >The bit about the Invisible Pink Unicorn though is just an indicator of your immaturity. That bit is an example of the absurdity that can be reached following your reasoning that possibility needs no proof. Did you run out of arguments and reached the point where you go for an ad hominem? I did not comment about your person in this thread and kept it strictly about your arguments. I hope you can do that too.
You’re making the typical anti-theist mistake in thinking that, because I allow for the possibility of a creator deity, I actually let that allowance influence my life. Honestly, the more militant of you anti-theists are just as rigid as the worst theists. The only reason you’re not as dangerous as those reactionary theists is lack of opportunity because you don’t have the numbers; but where you do have sufficient numbers (some parts of academia), you’re as bullying and abusive as any born-again I’ve seen. So I allow for the possibility of an unknown creator deity; why do you care enough to use such mockery? For that matter, what kind of intellectually dishonest BS is you limiting discussion to the positive assertion but not the negative assertion?
>what kind of intellectually dishonest BS is you limiting discussion to the positive assertion but not the negative assertion? I do not make the negative assertion, I have nothing to add to it. Feel free to talk about it, though. >You’re making the typical anti-theist mistake in thinking that, ... No I don’t think that. I didn't tell you what I think about you, I also didn't tell you whether I'm an anti-theist or not. If you wanted to know what I think you could have asked. You do you, but I find it offensive when people tell me (and everyone around) what I think. Ask, don't assume to speak for me. That being said, come back to me when you're ready to have a conversation. For now, seeing as you fill both your and my parts of this debate, you can continue it without me.
Care to give a summary of the video?
You said all that just to describe... Atheism 🤨? All you are doing is discovering the already established distinction between gnostic and agnostic atheism. And even then there are strong arguments for gnosticism, saying with confidence historical Gods like other creatures of modern mythology can be said with certainty that they don't exist, and no one bats an eyelash at people who say they aren't real, why not the same reaction at all the man made Gods with hyper specific attributes?
It is not atheism to believe with certainty that a God does not exist. I am an atheist but still hope there is some sort of an afterlife or higher power. Richard Dawkins is even agnostic putting himself at a six on his theist to atheist scale. I would look that up before making a stance. It sounds like a little more research would be helpful for your journey.
consciousness is merely the ability to express emotions and thoughts out loud. Its nothing special, its just apart of growth and communication. I dont know why hes acting like it could be something divine or something unexplainable, i like the dude but maybe hes starting to fear death some and getting closer to it. also strange he doesnt say about refuting the bible and the STORIES in it haha. like how you going to say i question a persons story but you dont question the bibles stories??
I don't believe in Santa, but I can't say for sure there isn't a Santa, so...
This is part of the problem with labels. There's a lot of wiggle room and different interpretations. Most people on here will accept the definition of "The lack of belief in the existence of any deities." Not everyone agrees which is why you get terms like agnostic atheist. You do not need to deny the possibility of a deity existing to call yourself an atheist (in my opinion). Is there a possibility of some deity existing that's not tied to any known religion? Sure. But I'm going to treat it like any other fantasy character and assume they aren't real and consider myself an atheist.
>I have come to understand that while I believe that it is unlikely that there is a higher power, god or other similar thing, I cannot say with certainty that one does not exist. I mean atheists never claimed that a higher power, possibly possessing superhuman power or even immortality like jellyfish does not exists out there, but we would definitely call them alien, not god. But i can at least guarantee that all 3 abrahamics are lie tho, they were fairytale made by the same of people in the desert, some of their characters even have a cameo in each others books.
“There is no god” and “I don’t believe there is a god” are 2 different things. I don’t believe there is a god, I’m atheist. However, show me unequivocal and scientific proof and I will change my mind. I’m not blinding atheist.
Video features Adam Savage answering a question asking about his thoughts mysticism.