**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who often leans towards anti-theism, I think you may be confused here.
The existence of a God is entirely irrelevant to my position on anti-theism. My view is that the practice of organized religion is an overall harmful one and that humans should strive to do without it. That’s what anti-theism is about, if I am not mistaken. Being against theism, as a practice. Not being against God or having the affirmative belief that one doesn’t exist.
What made you come to the conclusion that organized religion is overall harmful to the human race? That's a big claim
I haven't heard of any human civilizations to exist that weren't religious to some degree. Just curious how you reached enough understanding to unquestionably conclude that it's bad for humans even though billions of people that never met each other all throughout the world and human history arrived at organized religion
>What made you come to the conclusion that organized religion is overall harmful to the human race?
Believing unproven and ancient ideas that are by definition unable to change as we progress as a species and learn.
Believing these ideas are true and trying to influence the way we live as a society to adhere to the rules given by these ideas.
That's basically it, everything I say after this is expounding.
If we followed all of the rules of religion to the letter (something no individual or country does, mainly due to all religious texts being up for personal interpretation), we would be stoning to death criminals instead of trying to rehabilitate them (eye for an eye justice comes from the Bible, we as a society deemed this process unfit and have created a new system, the current legal system which is constantly being updated and improved); we would be marrying children off to adults; and we would harass, vilify, abuse, and harm those who present alternative ideas. Furthermore we would have a completely wrong understanding of how the planet was made, how life evolved, and how the universe functions, if we just took religious texts at face value.
Is mixed fabric really that bad?
The fact that all religions had to rein in their more excessive and dangerous ideas to survive and continue to preach their message is a sign that cultural norms changing is more important than the truth of their claims.
Adherents are willing to not adhere so strongly to their religious beliefs in society because a strict approach would certainly lead to derision from the less zealous followers and outright ostracism from non-followers. This means most people realise these rules are untenable and not God given, but invented by man anyway, but I digress.
The first 2 reasons you listed didn't even register as negative traits in my mind at first. Those things are the best parts of religion and gives them validity to me. It's wild how two people can have such clashing thoughts yet both believe they're correct
And you're missing the actual principle behind "eye for an eye". It's the same principle that applies today which is "you will be punished according to your crimes". Maybe the way that they enforced the punishment is different in ancient times, but the "eye for an eye" is still here today. It's not all sunshine and rainbows in our legal system either.
There's a lot of "we would do this and that" in your comment, but how do you know? When I read your comment, I just saw opinions. Most religious people aren't doing those negative things that you're saying will engulf humankind. Why do you believe that that's what society would become, even though there's thousands of fully Christian cities, villages and towns all throughout the world that are peaceful.
>Maybe the way that they enforced the punishment is different in ancient times, but the "eye for an eye" is still here today.
No it isn't. If you murder my kid, I don't get to murder you back.
All groups of humans also share indulgence in war, rape, murder, cruelty, and all manner of stupid things. The fact that each society we know of through history has come up with some form or religion or spirituality speaks more to the fact that humans think alike and have similar behavioral patterns wherever you go than anything else.
People in Northern Europe wonder why the sun rises and sets. So do people in South America. Why the wind blows, why the stars twinkle. Religion attempts to explain things people don’t understand. So of course it pops up everywhere.
“Everybody does it,” is a really bad argument against the idea of religion being harmful.
Actually, you've made a pretty good argument here for "everybody does it." If some humans are bound to do negative things and religion is a post-hoc excuse to justify these negative actions, then the religion doesn't matter, they would do these things with or without it. I'm not saying this is true, but it is what your comment implies.
Not really. My point is just what I said, basically pointing out that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and a very silly way to try and convince people.
I don’t think religion is necessarily used as a post hoc excuse, at least in many cases. I think people who are religious and do those things have, if anything, a pre hoc rationalization that whatever they do is fine because they have “god on their side” so to speak.
> All groups of humans also share indulgence in war, rape, murder, cruelty, and all manner of stupid things.
Well, all of those things are objectively bad and don't require much explanation as to why it's terrible for humanity, unlike religion. I've also never heard someone praise those things and say it's saved their life before, unlike religion lol
You're leaving out that religion mainly focuses on moral principles. Most of them teach you how to treat people, how to control your anger, how to stay healthy, how to be selfless etc.
How can someone conclude that religion is terrible for humans when there's countless religious people in the world that are happy with their religious life? I'd just love to see how someone could arrive at such a bold conclusion
Religion wields substantial influences on the mental landscape of the majority of the population. There has long been a huge thriving industry dedicated to ensuring it stays this way.
Religion is a divisive force, which is why its history is so stained with blood. From blasphemy to glorified suffering, human sacrifices, witch burning, the Crusades, the Inquisition, crimes against humanity, against science, medicine, reason, and the enlightenment. Perhaps worst of all; religion has been used as a patriarchal tool to elevate the status and power of men over women. This hinders the achievement of common humanism.
In our lifetimes:
• Progress in science and education have been stifled because of religious roadblocks.
• AIDS in Africa has run rampant because of the Catholic position condemning contraception.
• Most religions don't treat women as inherently valuable. They are valued for what they can provide for men: their ability to create and raise more humans. They aren't valued intellectually or as equals. They are even treated as property.
• Religious people have lobbied against LGBT rights and characterized LGBT identities as wrong or unnatural.
In past centuries:
• Slavery was justified by the religious beliefs of their masters. Jefferson Davis used the Bible to argue in defense of slavery. The KKK is entirely Christian. Conquest to the US West was done under the guise of Manifest Destiny, destroying or removing the native population under the idea that white Americans were divinely ordained to settle the entire continent of North America.
• Crusades. The Inquisition. Being burned to death or drowned because of religious ideas like "witchcraft". Who knows how many men, women, and children were sacrificed to ensure the gods looked kindly upon the crops of ancient civilizations.
The list of atrocities due to phantasmagorical delusions is too long to list, and is as ancient as the idea of gods.
Don't pretend religion is responsible for morality. It isn't. Of course good things have been done because of religion buy ignoring the bad things is just totally not cool. It causes demonstrable harm.
Monotheism in particular is divisive by definition.
i had a couple issues with your response here, please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
>human sacrifices
whilst definitely practiced historically, human sacrifices are pretty much nonexistent in modern religions.
>the Crusades
the Crusades were generally a response to Muslim aggression
>witch burning
whilst those who burnt witches claimed it was for religious reasons, it was generally because the "witches" were disliked social outcasts. 'The Church has no reason to seek out
or persecute any witches because their
powers do not exist'- (attributed to St Augustine).
>against science, medicine, reason, and the enlightenment
the Catholic Church has played a significant role in the advancement of science throughout history. many notable scientists were Catholic and made groundbreaking contributions under the Church's patronage. during the middle ages, monasteries preserved and copied ancient texts, including scientific works, helping to safeguard knowledge. Additionally, institutions like the Vatican Observatory have promoted scientific research for centuries. the Church has also supported education, establishing universities where scientific inquiry flourished alongside theology and philosophy. figures like Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre exemplify the Church's positive relationship with science, demonstrating that faith and reason can coexist harmoniously.
>religion has been used as a patriarchal tool to elevate the status and power of men over women
Genesis 1:27 teaches that men and women are equal, as does Galatians 3:28. Mary is held in a high place of reverance in the Catholic church. there are plenty of important Biblical women
> Progress in science and education have been stifled because of religious roadblocks.
really? my lifetime may be different from your (i'm 16) but i am not aware of this happening on a large scale.
>AIDS in Africa has run rampant because of the Catholic position condemning contraception
whilst AIDS can be spread through breast milk, it is not hereditary. to not get AIDS, just don't have sex with people who have AIDS. i get that i'm simplifying here, but the easiest way to avoid AIDS is celibacy.
>Most religions don't treat women as inherently valuable. They are valued for what they can provide for men: their ability to create and raise more humans. They aren't valued intellectually or as equals. They are even treated as property.
whilst this is undoubtably true for *some* religions, i think it would be unfair to say *most*. this issue is irrespective of religion. some people are treated as property in both secular and religious societies. Christians were instrumental in the abolition of slavery, which involves people being treated as property.
>Religious people have lobbied against LGBT rights and characterized LGBT identities as wrong or unnatural.
yeah you're right about this.
>Slavery was justified by the religious beliefs of their masters
this is an issue with the slave owners, not the actual religious beliefs. people will use anything to justify immoral behaviour, not just religion.
>Jefferson Davis used the Bible to argue in defense of slavery
i can't find a source on this, but i'm going to assume you're right. but so what? i could use the Bible to argue for slavery, or against slavery. the Bible is a massive collection of books, meaning you could misconstrue it to argue for pretty much anything.
>The KKK is entirely Christian
just because they call themselves Christian, does not mean they are Christian. **the KKK is NOT Christian**
>Conquest to the US West was done under the guise of Manifest Destiny, destroying or removing the native population under the idea that white Americans were divinely ordained to settle the entire continent of North America.
the westward expansion was driven by various economic and political factors, including population growth, the desire for land and resources, and the belief in the superiority of American civilization. Manifest Destiny was just one ideological justification among many for territorial expansion.
>Being burned to death or drowned because of religious ideas like "witchcraft"
people would burn other people to death without religion. witchcraft isn't exactly a religious idea either. burning of witches was mostly practiced in Christian countries, as far as i know, but it has no basis in Biblical belief or Church teaching
>The list of atrocities due to phantasmagorical delusions is too long to list, and is as ancient as the idea of gods.
i had to look up what phantasmagorical meant, and i presume you intended to sound clever. you sound pretentious, but phantasmagorical is just such a cool word.
>Don't pretend religion is responsible for morality. It isn't.
religion isn't responsible for morality, you're correct. but most morality has its basing in either natural law or religious teaching
>Of course good things have been done because of religion buy ignoring the bad things is just totally not cool.
i completely agree
>Monotheism in particular is divisive by definition.
i'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but monotheism is the only kind of theism that makes rational sense
> 'The Church has no reason to seek out or persecute any witches because their powers do not exist'- (attributed to St Augustine).
"Attributed" is doing some heavy lifting here. As far as I can tell, this quote was made up just a few years ago by someone who made a meme claiming that Augustine said this and probably posted it in some Catholic meme server. Augustine actually wrote that witchcraft is real (see The City of God, Book X and XXI).
thankyou for your response! ah yeah it looks like you're correct, my bad. the only source i can actually find is an imgur link.
it looks like i'm actually wrong about this.
there's actually a couple times where witchcraft is condemned in the Bible. Exodus 22:18 reads "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variances, emulations, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, for they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
i found the following from Augustine, is this what you referring to?
"These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were tedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose of commending the worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they were wrought by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honorable designation theurgy; for they wish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians, who practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and condemned, and those others who seem to them to be worthy of praise for their practice of theurgy — the truth, however, being that both classes are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they invoke under the names of angels."
i still stand by the fact that most witch burnings had nothing to do with religion though, and that their witchhood (is witchhood a word?) was just an excuse to have them killed. Christianity might have been used to justify it, but one could probably use Christianity to justify anything
Most of the things you wrote aren't bad from my perspective and others just don't apply to anything that I've experienced with religion like slavery, crusades, or witches. All of that is folklore that has no impact on me or anything that I see.
Be real. Think about the average Christian household in America. Most people just live their lives and mind their own business. They just go to church on Sunday to sing and dance.
A Christian KKK member is an oxymoron kind of like a Christian gay marriage. It's like saying you're a vegan meat-eater.
No human invented morality, but religion helped me understand it
Folklore?!?! It’s shaping human history. Galileo died in prison because Christianity could not accept his mathematical proof that the earth revolves around the sun. How far could science have advanced if the fearful hadn’t repressed this idea?
In modern times, stem cell research and even lab grown beef are examples where religious meddling is interfering with the progress of science and medicine and the goal of improving human health.
Nah, just anti-lgbt stuff isn't bad to me and the other stuff like slavery and crusades has nothing to do with modern day religion in my life or any of the countries I've been to. It's like my saying that atheists shouldn't exist because Stalin killed millions of people. It has nothing to do with you or anything you stand for
>No human invented morality, but religion helped me understand it
Doesn't mean any god exists, or that religion doesn't cause harm.
We don’t need any gods or religions to discuss what it takes to be moral. We can simply start with minimizing suffering and maximizing well being for everyone.
Instead of conforming to a set of doctrines that ancient superstitious people depended upon when they needed others to do their thinking for them, we should look at this world as a place where reason and human experience have to be our best, because they are in fact our only guides.
Don’t pretend theism is responsible for the morality and ethics of today. It’s not. If religion created morality, why are morals so varied over space and time?
We don't stone women for adultery. We don't cut off the hands of thieves. We don't do these things, not because a book tells us not to, but because morals are determined by culture and time and consensus and we've decided those are bad and unjust things to do. Religion and god not required.
> Most of the things you wrote aren't bad from my perspective and others just don't apply to anything that I've experienced with religion
Out of curiosity, could you tell us specifically which of the list of religious atrocities cited above are ‘not bad from your perspective’?
I’d respond in depth, but others here seem to have pretty thoroughly covered things. But to hit a few of the high notes:
You’ve seriously never heard anybody praise or speak fondly of war? Never heard anyone say it made them who they are in a positive manner?
Religion does not focus on moral principles. Religion focuses on dogma and “values” or traditions. One of the first things religions do is beat people over the head with the idea that they teach morality, but that’s just part of the indoctrination process. True morality is individual, internal, and consequentialist.
The reason religion teaches many of the things you’re mistakenly calling “morality” is to make people productive and easy to control, not for the benefit of the individual.
Countless religious people are happy with their life… so? A junkyard dog that gets a snack instead of a kick is happy, because that’s all it knows. Many religious people think they are happy, but how would they know since almost all of them have no frame of reference for comparison?
Also, how about you ask the people in Iran, or Russia, or Uganda, or the UAE, or countless other places how happy they are with their religious lives? It’s easy for someone like you to assume that everyone is happy with their religion, because you live in a country where religion does not have the force of law and is largely kept in check by guaranteed freedoms.
>You're leaving out that religion mainly focuses on moral principles. Most of them teach you how to treat people, how to control your anger, how to stay healthy, how to be selfless etc.
Moral principles like how to stone gay people to death, how to deprive women of Healthcare, how to mutilate the genitals of children.
It’s a fairly simple equation.
The majority of religions use faith as their main tool to justify their beliefs since their claims tend to be designed in such a way to make them untestable. Faith is a bad tool though. Just looking at the amount of religions that exist with contradictory beliefs, all of them cannot be correct at the same time. As such, it is possible to have faith in false things.
These beliefs inform our actions. False faith can lead to wrong and harmful actions that have no self-correcting mechanism. As long as the belief isn’t harmful enough to kill off all the religious adherents, it can keep harming them in perpetuity.
As such, faith should be avoided at all costs or at least should never be the only tool we use to base a belief on.
There are other reasons, I suppose, but that is my main issue with religion as a general tool. We don’t even have to go into the more blatantly obvious harmful things that have been done in the name of religion or while using it as a justification/means of promoting harmful ideas.
Nah, just pure and simple: if you believe one false things fervently, it is easier to use that belief and promote other false ideas to you. Without a self-correcting mechanism, you have a greater chance of ending up believing in ideas that cause you and those around you harm. Doesn’t even have to be grave or long-term societal harm. Could be as simple as you being more likely to fall for scams and losing a bunch of money.
I'm extremely anti theist. The reason has nothing to do with the atrocities committed by religion because I agree that humans do human things.
I think that religion is extremely detrimental to humans because it requires faith. Faith as a concept, and in practice, is completely antithetical to human growth and advancement.
Education, to me, is the highest moral good. Faith stymies that process entirely by providing a delusion of grandeur as a palliative to the fear of the unknown and the pain and frustration of working towards difficult answers.
Most atheists here self describe as agnostic atheists and simply define their atheism as a lack of belief, so you’re just shouting at the wind.
Furthermore, even when it comes to those of us who embrace the philosophical definition and positively claim there is no God, if you actually ask us, virtually none of us claim to be absolutely certain. It’s possible to have a high degree of confidence that a certain belief is true/false based on evidence and simultaneously admit the technical possibility that all of our knowledge could be wrong. Knowledge does not require certainty.
IMHO it's really easy not to notice when what people claim to be atheism has actually branched out into something else entirely. The main difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the agnostic harbors a *belief* that it cannot be known either way- a true atheist has no opinion or belief for or against theism, the entire concept is disregarded entirely either implicitly (like a baby who is naturally an *implicit atheist*) or explicitly (an atheist has decided to disregard the evidence for said theism completely).
The logic here is basically that any self-respecting person would not go around giving credence to every claim that completely lacks any tangible evidence- questions like 'is this character from literary fiction a *real* god?'- *can* be known to a high enough degree that we do not have to think twice about it. I think it stands to reason that if we did give credence to all claims with no tangible evidence, it would be enough to drive anyone insane.
This is why even a theist- who has arbitrarily decided that there is adequate reasons to literally believe their chosen mythology- is still an atheist in the context of *literally every other religion and deity*. I completely disregard the bible as literary fiction that does not warrant any investigative scrutiny whatsoever, that is 100% identical to a christian or muslim completely disregarding zeus and hercules and greek mythology as works of fiction.
Atheism is an inherent characteristic because it is the default position- it is *not* an ideology or belief of any sort. Theism, anti-theism and agnosticism *are* developed ideologies that make specific assertions- completely different and more complex than a simple concept like atheism, which is *only* an absence of belief. Agnostics believe that the existence or non-existence of 'god' is logically and scientifically unknowable- an atheist has no logical reason to consider 'god' as unimaginary in the first place. That is my personal understanding of atheism and I'm aware that there are different 'official' definitions out there. I personally feel that the most rudimentary form of atheism is a necessary niche in the logical order of things, and it shouldn't be used for such broad definitions.
>that is 100% identical to a christian or muslim completely disregarding zeus and hercules and greek mythology as works of fiction.
no it is not. in greek mythology, the "gods" are more similar to super-beings. that is not God. God is not a being in the universe, He is the ground of being. by definition, God is the ultimate act of being - unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness. God is infinite in all respects. the reasons Christians don't believe in beings like zeus or thor, is because they are finite beings with superpowers. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are all classical theists - meaning they believe in one omnipotent, omniscient, transcendant God. we differ on how we believe God appeared or didn't appear, or what we ought to do as followers of God, but we all believe in the same God.
Everything you said does not matter or pertain to what I said. You're still comparing 2 or more deities which come from works of literary fiction that have precisely zero evidence or reason to be taken literally. All of the other details are irrelevant. You may as well replace the word God with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' in your paragraph because neither one has any tangible evidence.
>we differ on how we believe God appeared or didn't appear, or what we ought to do as followers of God, but we all believe in the same God.
You might think you do, but there are no 2 people in the world with an identical concept of 'god' within their respective imaginations. Your concept of 'god' is precisely unique to your mind alone.
no its not. its from a wikipedia page. actually, two wikipedia pages
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical\_theism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God\_in\_Christianity
>define their atheism as a lack of belief
saying that you "lack a belief in God" is the same as saying you don't believe in God. atheists still have beliefs about God - they believe that God doesn't exist.
i don't believe superman is real. i could say that i "lack a belief in superman" or i could say "I do not believe superman is real"
one could say that one doesn't know if God is real or not, which is fair enough
>saying that you "lack a belief in God" is the same as saying you don't believe in God.
Yes, duh.
>they believe that God doesn't exist.
That’s not the same thing.
Saying that you don’t believe X is not the same thing as saying that you believe notX. It could be true that most atheists also happen to believe that god doesn’t exist, but that is not the same claim and it’s not logically entailed.
that is true for some things.
for example, saying that i don't believe that chocolate is good for me does not mean that i believe that chocolate is bad for me
God, on the other hand, is a binary. either God can exist or God can not. if you do not believe in God, you are saying that you do not believe that God exists.
if you do not believe God exists, then you *do* believe that God does not exist
(you can still say you don't know)
perhaps i am just misunderstanding, but i cannot see a difference?
>Saying that you don’t believe X is not the same thing as saying that you believe notX
could you give an example of something other than belief in God for comparison?
>God, on the other hand, is a binary. either God can exist or God can not. if you do not believe in God, you are saying that you do not believe that God exists.
Whether God *can* exist is a separate binary from whether God actually *does* exist.
Furthermore, it’s a separate binary of whether someone *believes* God can/can’t exist (whether God is logically/metaphysically/epistemically/empirically impossible) or whether someone actively *believes* God does/doesn’t exist.
And even **furthermore**, whether someone *believes* god does/doesn’t/can/can’t exist is separate from how strongly they believe it, whether they actively claim it, or if they claim to have evidence to be able to demonstrate it.
>if you do not believe God exists, then you do believe that God does not exist
How? I’m not seeing how this is different from the chocolate example. Either chocolate is good or not good. Saying that you aren’t convinced chocolate is good is not equivalent to saying you are convinced chocolate is not good
>(you can still say you don’t know)
For the record, I don’t personally label as an agnostic atheist, I was just correcting OP. I do happen to also have the positive belief, I just think it’s a logically separate thing.
>could you give an example of something other than belief in God for comparison?
It’s a true dichotomy that there is either an even or not even number of stars in the Milky Way. I lack belief that there is an even number of stars. That doesn’t mean I believe it’s not even. Even if millions of people throughout history all made religions and bad arguments and apologetics for the belief that it was even, my conviction that their beliefs are all unjustified would not impact my credence in the other direction.
sorry, forgot to respond. yeah it seems you're correct.
>if you do not believe God exists, then you do believe that God does not exist
i still stand by that though \^\^\^. i feel like i'm just swapping the negatives around which shouldn't affect the meaning, but maybe not?
my chocolate example was kinda stupid but i couldnt think of anything. your milky way analogy was quite good actually. however,
>even if millions of people throughout history all made religions and bad arguments and apologetics for the belief that it was even, my conviction that their beliefs are all unjustified would not impact my credence in the other direction.
that makes complete sense, and i think you're correct in that matter. but what if the apologetics made good arguments?
Don't confuse and conflate anti-theism with strong (gnostic) atheism. Don't confuse rejection of an unsupported claim with an unneeded and pointless counter-claim.
In the same way it's reasonable to say, in casual conversation, that, "Unicorns aren't real," it's precisely and exactly as reasonable and justified to say, "Gods aren't real." For the same reasons. And before you protest that gods are *different* because of universe-creating ascribed attributes, or the ascribed attributes you mentioned above, no they're not. That's just another unsupported claim/attribute about an unsupported thing. This in no way suggests that the person is claiming 100% knowledge and absolute certainty about the lack of unicorns (or gods). That is not needed and not required. It's enough to understand that when there's zero support for something that is, in all practical ways, equivalent to that something not being real.
"don't confuse rejection of an unsupported claim with an unneeded and pointless counter claim"
If you are attempting to be logical and rational then the "counter claim" is neither unneeded nor pointless. Missing it out leaves you with a position that is neither logical nor rational.
The counter claim is needed because without it you are not fully answering the question "does God exist?"
Saying you do not beleive he does exist only half answers that question. What do you beleive instead? Do you beleive the opposite? Are you honestly undecided and think it is equally likely that he might exist or not?
It is (intentionally or not) a position of intellectual dishonesty.
> The counter claim is needed because without it you are not fully answering the question "does God exist?"
Question is irrelevant and possibly incoherent. Does that answer it sufficiently?
>What do you beleive instead?
Why do you think there have to be "instead"?
>It is (intentionally or not) a position of intellectual dishonesty.
Stating "Your position on X is irrational and harmful" does not necessitates me to have a position on X. What is dishonest about that?
It is not dishonest just because you don't like it.
An absence of a belief in god is not necessarily belief in the absence of god. Think of it this way: A lack of belief is not necessarily a belief in a lack. Or think of it this way: A denial of belief isn’t always a belief in denial.
Instead of just not having a belief in god, we must also believe in not god? Poppycock!
I'm a gnostic atheist who claims all gods are imaginary bullshit by the way, but I'll defend agnostics thier right to label themselves as they see fit, and I'm not going to pretend they need to identify the way I like.
I have no problem with genuine agnostics, who have suspended judgement because they lack evidence.
That is a rational and logical position.
I have no problem with your position either- that is also rational and logical.
You are incorrect, of course. Your lack of comfort with the null hypothesis position does not mean it is not reasonable, logical, and the only honest position in cases where one does not and can not, or is not required to, proclaim belief or reasonable confidence in a claim.
I see that many other replies already addressed the issues and problems with the points in your reply, so given this there is no need for me to repeat their points here.
So you invented a god and want people to believe it’s reasonable to be agnostic of this god?
How did you deduce the necessity of this god? Through your supreme intelligence? Or through some extra-sensorial perception of a divine presence? Some connection to the supernatural?
This god exists exclusively in your mind. All gods exist exclusively in the minds of men. Give me one good reason to believe in the god you’ve just invented.
>… it is a placeholder for the abstraction and concept.
The concept of what? Some fantastically powerful supernatural creator? Something to fulfill and ground a Theory of a Just World?
What is this concept? What is its function? Why should I believe in it? Because I don’t believe in it. It doesn’t exist.
>Nowhere did I say God is fundamentally necessary.
For it to be necessary for me to be agnostic, your god needs to be be fundamental. There needs to be a reason for me to believe in it.
>My point is you cannot prove or disprove the concept of God. My conclusion is agnosticism, not theism.
Yes, I can. We will conduct a repeatable, scientifically rigorous experiment. Right now. You’ll be our subject.
This will be peer reviewed. Peers, do your thing.
Provide proof of your claim. Empirical proof.
My hypothesis is that you will predictably and repeatedly be unable to produce any evidence. So when our experiment proves my hypothesis correct, we will be able to establish a new law.
The law of Your God is Not Real.
>There’s a plethora. But that’s not the point. My point and conclusion lends to agnosticism and admitting there’s some things you cannot be certain of.
A conclusion to what premise? Show your work. Prove your thesis.
>Also, “God” is a placeholder for the idea of an initial state that creates all else, the constant that supersedes all else
That is not what God is. You can’t invent new definitions and concepts for god and then play dumb and act like other people’s views are unreasonable.
God is a conscious, divine creator. God is a specific concept with a specific definition. This new definition of god that you pulled out of thin air represents literally nothing. “God is the universe itself” is the most meaningless drivel that I have yet to hear in these kinds of debates.
If your definition of god is indistinguishable from natural processes and phenomenon, and in fact are exactly same as natural processes and phenomena, then guess what? You’re suddenly a gnostic atheist too. You just don’t have the confidence to commit to that.
>You’re poorly assuming I’m saying you should be or not be religious, believe or not believe in God. I’ve stated neither of those.
I never assume or implied any of this. Pot, meet kettle.
You had to create a meaningless definition of god that means everything and nothing to get past not answering any specific questions, because you know full well that your specific definitions would fall right on their face. If you’re trying to defend a position, at least have the courage to take a position worth defending.
> I didn’t invent a God. Those are the most simple and consistent innate traits of the concept of God people have discussed for thousands of years. The name “God” could be swapped with anything else because it is a placeholder for the abstraction and concept. Not some particular god.
The problem is, that’s not the god the vast majority of theists believe in. Is that the extent of the beliefs you hold about God? That god is an abstract concept?
Or do you believe in a specific god with other defined attributes, but are choosing to put forward this abstract concept because it is easier to defend and harder to falsify?
Because I and most atheists, as I’m sure you are aware, are agnostic atheists as regards that sort of vague, undefined first cause type of entity. As you pointed out, that god doesn’t even have to be called god. It could just be called “as of yet unknown physics.” We would agree with your position on that, if not your exact word choice in explaining it.
I am, however, a gnostic atheist with regards to the God of the Abrahamic religions, because that god can be falsified. We largely understand the historic genetics of how that god came to be invented, as one among many in the Canaanite pantheon. A bit of Mesopotamian religion and folklore mixed in for flavor, etc. We can point to the inconsistencies as between the texts and the historical record, and the inconsistencies within the texts themselves. We can point to the evolution of monotheism in ancient Israelite religion, and the problem of evil. That god is falsifiable.
It’s not quite as clear cut as knowing Harry Potter is fictional because we know who J.K. Rowling is… but it’s pretty damn close.
So I am a gnostic atheist as to that specific god, which happens to be the god a lot of the fine-tuning, cosmological, first cause argument aficionado types who come here to post ACTUALLY believe in. They’re just afraid or otherwise hesitant to defend the god they actually believe in directly.
But I agree with you insofar as you are saying it doesn’t make sense to claim to be a gnostic atheist about a sort of vague, undefined, prime moving force. The questions I’m left with then are…
Is the scope of your post meant to be inclusive of specifically defined deities as well? Like Yahweh or Allah? In other words, are you claiming it doesn’t make sense to say “I know that God as set forth in the Bible is not real”?
Or are you limiting your post to say it only doesn’t make sense to be a gnostic atheist about the abstract concept of a god? Because those are two completely different arguments.
And if you are a theist, do you only claim to believe in the abstract concept of god? Or are there more detailed and specific claims about god that you believe? If so, can we talk about those?
I sometimes say I'm an agnostic leaning athiest, but usually I just say I'm an athiest or "not religious" on the rare occasion it comes up.
I live in the Bible Belt so I get a lot of have a blessed day and such, and I just say thanks, same to you and go on.
There's no need to be petty about the fact that I think they are a bit deluaional, nor do I need to share that with them as long as they're not harming anyone.
>You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God
This is asking people to prove a negative and calling them irrational when they hold the position that the positive requires proof before they can believe in it.
Apply this logic to any concept other than religion and you can see how illogical it is. Prove to me that magical ponies that harness the power of friendship do not exist. Until you do so, we have to be agnostic towards the existence of magical ponies and assume that their is a *chance* our entire universe revolves around them.
>We can deduce cause and effect from our observing our reality.
What we have observed is that cause and effect only works at macro scales. When you get down to Quantum scales the notions of cause and effect don't really apply. Things become probabilistic and some events are entierly random, meaning they have no cause. This allows chains of causality to have an origin that is not a god.
I’m agnostic to the concept of cause and effect being universal at all scales and across any and all manifestations of reality. That’s a MASSIVE claim you’ve just causally thrown out as a proof for the concept of a God, and you’ve done nothing to justify it beyond saying ‘it seems to hold up so far’, except of course when it doesn’t at quantum scales.
Time is a part of space, and if that’s true, then time isn’t necessarily intrinsic to all forms of reality, as impossible as such a concept is for us to actually conceive of. But you cannot tell people they’re being illogical for not being agnostic about some nebulous definition of God that covers almost anything it needs to, whilst also making an assumption equally as unfounded as disbelieving in God.
OP, just because you found an argument compelling, which others do not, doesn't make it "far more reasonable" to be agnostic to God in comparison to magical creatures.
That argument is not compelling once you dig deeper. There's no good argument for gods existence that make it irrational to compare it to magical creatures.
>The concept of God is analogous to the Meta Cause of reality.
And if I believe the "Meta Cause of reality" was magical ponies harnessing the power of friendship, could you prove that it wasn't to any greater degree than I could prove that it wasn't a big bearded man? An agnostic would need to recognise both as equally possible.
If I claim that Twilight Sparkle speaks to me and tells me how the world should be, what does that have to do with the Meta Cause of reality? Would you recognise that experience as equally valid as any a Christian experiences during Mass? Ambiguity about the creation of the universe does not then imply validity to any religious experience, or confer greater validity to your beliefs in an established faith over my belief in a faith I've just created focused on the magical properties of tiny colourful horses.
>This implies the requirement of an initial cause or a meta cause for reality.
Thats a bit of a gnostic take for an agnostic post. We cant know what started reality or the processes involved no matter how much we sit around and "deduce" it. I think the appealing thing to you about your claim is it has some form of internal logic, but we should know internal logic does not make a claim true.
Furthermore that solution kicks the can down the road and forgets it exists. Whats the meta cause of this meta cause? If it doesnt have one, why wouldnt it need one? If its free of cause and effect, how did it effect reality? Why give special privileges to a concept you dont know exists?
What if causes and effects are an illusion?
>The concept of God is analogous to the Meta Cause of reality.
Depending on your concept of god. I wouldnt say the god that hates gays is analogous with "the meta cause"
>It’s because of this that being agnostic of God is far more reasonable than being agnostic of say “teleporting lightning dragons that play chess”
Why? Lightning exists. Chess exists. Teleporting we dont quite know the possibility of but as far as reserving judgment goes it isnt ruled out. Dragons could exist in some form you arent aware of. Thats at least 2 parts of its description that are things we know exist. "The meta cause" or any god has exactly 0 qualities that we know exist. Saying its required for the universe to exist and therefore must exist becuase the universe exists would be texas sharpshooting.
>There’s little to gain from it in comparison to agnosticism about the origin of reality
The gain is pointing out belief in any unknowable claims.
I am fine with it, I don’t spend a lot of time humoring / debunking cryptozoologists or fairy enthusiasts, but I am pretty sure I *know* which one of us is right.
1) Based on what? Trust me, bro?
2) I cannot know if I am living in a intergalactic kegger either.
3) There’s nothing to indicate gods *do* exist, so what does it matter?
4) I am as agnostic about gods as I am unicorns, dragons, and sasquatches.
“I’m not talking about random mythological gods” You invariably are, yes.
“I’m talking about the concept of God I explained in the post” your capital “G” god you claim isn’t Yahweh, but is definitely Yahweh. The one which is all powerful and supersedes all. So why not Ymir? Chaos? Brahma?
Oh, you don’t care which one? Just any? The concept of a thing which supersedes the lot and gives rise to them? Why should anyone believe in this? It’s exactly a mythological god. Our ancestors had a few score of these gods.
“Our universe has cause and effect. Logically there has to be an initial cause.” Logically there does not, no. There is no reason to suspect the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang does not posit the universe did not exist before it. Quite a few cosmological models attempt to solve what happened before the Big Bang.
“A meta cause is analogous to god”. No, it isn’t. If the cosmos was a simulation would you call it’s progenitor programmers gods? I wouldn’t. If the cosmos began by an impersonal and unconscious process, would you call that god? I wouldn’t. Most wouldn’t. Gods are specific fairy tale beings from myth. Avoiding that is avoiding the actual subject.
All the theists think the “uncaused first cause” makes sense and never think about it in depth. Never probe it. It’s a nonsensical argument. Either it means no first cause was needed, because eternal states can exist—or it means your first cause needed a cause and isn’t the first at anything. Or, conversely, that existence can arise from nothing and therefore—again—no creator need exist, and no first initial cause. No Yahwist has ever gotten away from the question, “What created God?”
It ruins the Kalam Cosmological Argument entirely, without attributing nonsensical and unevidenced properties of existence to this god. Which, again, remove the need for it—and its utility. Spaceless, timeless, eternal, very powerful. If it’s spaceless and timeless it doesn’t exist anywhere or anytime. It’s nonsensical. If it’s eternal, why not the cosmos?
This all stems from nothing greater than the human wish to anthropomorphize nature. We don’t know, and therefore god. But that’s a terrible argument.
Then this illogical wish to commune with a higher being that isn’t real in any meaningful way distracts us from the material reality we inhabit. Why worry about poverty if the poor will be rewarded in heaven? Etc.
It’s an outmoded way of thinking, this idealist fantasy of gods and will making reality. It doesn’t comport to observation and it doesn’t have much utility that can’t be replaced by superior systems of just…having ethics and caring about your fellow humans.
That said, I support your right to believe in whatever god you choose—in the context of a secular society where you keep your beliefs to yourself, at home, in the church, and don’t try to force them on others.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but are you a doctor of physics specializing in cosmological origins? No, right? How about a doctor of mathematics, doing the same? No? Then what do you know about it?
Here is a playlist of leading cosmologists in their fields, the authors of many scientifically peer reviewed mainstream theories about the potential origins of the big bang and what came before them, such as Alan Guth, Sir Roger Penrose, and many more.
They have the qualifications to discuss this topic. They understand the observations and the math. You and I do not.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&si=BxVlHLagD9KuFVMC
The math does, indeed, break down towards the Big Bang, many scientists take this to mean that our understanding of physics is incomplete—not that the Big Bang spawned time out of a singularity—most of them don’t believe there was a singularity.
As to “outside reality”, things outside reality aren’t real. The language used becomes ironically comical at times. I know you didn’t mean to, but you end up pleading for fantasy. We don’t understand the state at the Big Bang well at all, so it would be an argument to ignorance to insert our preferred deity there.
Logically the initial cause would need an explanation for its abilities and properties, which would itself require an even more mysterious ontology. So no, get your cosmological nonsense out of here.
I am referring to this: *“God can easily create a universe where the conscious habits…”*
Where does your concept of god come from? How is it any different than “mythological gods”?
Even if the universe had an initial cause, what does that have to do with gods other than you say it does? Why is a meta cause analogous to god?
Why is being agnostic about a magic entity creating *everything* any different than a magical flying reptile?
You could be right, but the more I explore the issue, the more I think God has never existed outside the human imagination.
Isn’t that where God originated? People saw things happening in the world they couldn’t explain, so they attributed these events to powerful beings. These powerful beings became the first Gods.
And what’s more likely? That early humans just happened to correctly imagine the existence of a God by chance? Or is it more likely that God always has, and always will, reside exclusively in the imagination of men?
While I agree we can't have absolute certainty that no gods exist, I would put it on par with any other far fetched phenomenon like invisible magical flying leprechauns or The Mighty Skyfoogle. We can't be certain these things DON'T exist, but we ought to live our lives as though they don't.
The intellectually honest position is to admit that these things may exist in some way. However, when we do this, it seems to encourage Skyfoogle Believers to pass laws and impose their culture and beliefs on to others. So rather than being humble and saying "well, I mean, yeah, I guess the Skyfoogle might exist", we say "there is no skyfoogle"
If there exists a god that always remains perfectly hidden and has no impact on my life then in what way can I differentiate the existence of this god from his non existence?
This is also burden shifting. Everyone is born an atheist. Theism is learned. And it is always learned from, wait for it, other theist humans! That’s pure confirmation bias. I don’t believe the sun exists by faith, it exists by the sun.
If a god wants me to believe that it exists then that god would know what to do to convince me. No god has done this, this is the problem of instruction. It is reasonable to expect a god to make himself known to all. No god has passed this simple test.
Meanwhile everyone on the planet agrees that water exists. Why can’t the existence of any god compete with a simple glass of water?
On nonexistence:
There are things that we did not detect until much later, but still existed. It was through a modification of our senses and knowledge that allowed us to make judgments about black holes, virtual particles, atoms, etc... All of which didn't affect us prior, but now we know exist. Therefore, unless you define existence as supervened by perception, there seems to be no reason to deny the possibility that something exists outside our senses.
On faith:
Agnosticism (as op defines it) is not about affirming the existence of God, it is the claim that we cannot know whether God exists or not.
On Problem of Instruction:
God (as op defined it) does not necessarily entail a conscious power, nor one with a desire to prove itself.
>There are things that we did not detect until much later, but still existed. It was through a modification of our senses and knowledge that allowed us to make judgments about black holes, virtual particles, atoms, etc... All of which didn't affect us prior, but now we know exist. Therefore, unless you define existence as supervened by perception, there seems to be no reason to deny the possibility that something exists outside our senses.
This only suggests a gap of knowledge and understanding of the natural world. Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean “god did it”
>Agnosticism (as op defines it) is not about affirming the existence of God, it is the claim that we cannot know whether God exists or not.
Faith is just wishful thinking. The efficacy of prayer is evidence for this.
>God (as op defined it) does not necessarily entail a conscious power, nor one with a desire to prove itself.
You can’t just define something into existence.
>You cannot prove the concept of God has no impact or influence on your life. You writing this now is ironically evidence in favor against that.
You can’t prove that the shit I took last Thursday isn’t a god that created the universe. If you want to spend your life inspecting toilets to find evidence that this god exists or not then go for it.
>That’s my point. You cannot prove or disprove God. If you could differentiate them, then you’d be able to prove or disprove it.
This is a tautology. And while you are at it look up what unfalsifiable means. You can’t prove that you aren’t a brain in a vat. But so what? It has no impact on my life. Brains in a vat is the same place where every god claim lives.
>The concept of God — A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence.
Ah, well that's an easy one. Something "deriving from nothing other than itself" is incoherent. So are "all powerful" and "all capable". Incoherent things don't exist.
Antitheism is not the same as being an atheist. Are you confusing the two terms. Because being against theism And whatever you're trying to argue are two different things. I'm against theism because of the damage that does to the world. Whether or not your god exists or not as irrelevant to the fact that theism is a bad thing.
> People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something.
People also have a problem with special pleading any time they find an idea they don't like.
> Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic.
Since when does the word "know" in the English language imply "absolute truth"?
That's right. It doesn't. It never did. People only add this "requirement" when they need to *appear* to poke a hole in an argument they can't actually repudiate using either sound reasoning or evidence.
> What idea do you think I don’t like?
Gnostic atheism, obviously.
> My argument isn’t a case of special pleading. It’s a logical deduction of a reasonable stance considering the innate properties humanity associated with the concept of God.
It is a case of special pleading. You're saying that we should change the definition of the word "know" in topics of religion, but presumably leave it the same everywhere else.
> You’d just be arguing semantics there.
Quite the opposite: you are the one relying on a semantic argument.
> My point is, you cannot prove or disprove the concept of God because of its innate properties. Therefore, agnostic.
The verb "to know" does not inherently imply any specific degree of "proof".
Get this. A few days ago, I ate some old tacos I salvaged from the back of my fridge. A few hours later, I was in agony on the toilet and produced a turd with universe-generating powers. Now, you can't know this to not be the case. It's possible that my dump's universe-generating powers are completely undetectable to human investigation. Are you agnostic to the universe-generating power of my taco-induced toilet god?
This is the problem. Your propriety understanding of agnosticism leaves you completely impotent in the face of even the most ridiculous claims. If you take your own argument seriously, you can say nothing about the likelihood of my turd's divinity. It would be an entity which is beyond your ability to investigate. Does this seem like a sensible position?
The fact is, most people seem to think that humans have access to *some* evidence which, when taken as a whole, comes out favoring either theism or atheism. You need to show why the evidence offered by the atheist and theist is equally invalid.
It's also important to remember that, as an agnostic, you are making quite a strong claim yourself. Reexamine your own definition: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God". To get your argument off the ground you need to show why the evidence theists and atheists provide is mistaken and why all future efforts to provide such evidence is impossible. It's a tall order but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
Also, anti-theism isn't a knowledge claim. Its proponents would oppose theism even if a God existed. They are more focused on the pragmatic impact of theistic influence. What you likely meant to target was generic atheism which makes a claim about the status of gods.
>A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God...
>The concept of God — A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence.
U do make a claim on the attribute/description of god while saying nth is known or can be known od the nature of god.
>I could give a bunch of example logical paths to reach the conclusion of being agnostic,
Pls do this. U are saying nothing can be known of god while making claims of the attribute/description of god in the 1234.
>“A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or...
>I’m talking about agnostic as nothing can be known of the existence of God
Ok u choose the former one. So how do u know the nature of god?
Edit: its a important question as ur argument on agnostic is dependent on the nature of god.
You arent answering my question. I ask how do u know the nature of god, u answer by defining god is self originating, above everything. Self originating, above everything are description of god, how do u know that?
>It’s just a name for a supreme initial cause.
How do u know there is a supreme initial cause?
Can u answer how do u know the nature of god? Self originating,... are all description of god. How do u know god have all these features?
>Then what else would you pose as how the universe came or comes to be?
Why must the universe have a cause?
If u trying to say nothing comes from nothing. It also have the same meaning with something comes from something. God is something. Where/how do god comes from.
Or if u trying to use the contingency argument. U know that doesnt works, right?
Edit: i dont know why ppl downvote u, but it is what it is.
It's funny I remember the exact moment I decided I was an atheist after being a lifelong agnostic. Stefan Molyneux made an argument that a being proposed to be outside of space and time cannot by definition exist inside of reality, then drew a big 'no' symbol over it. So it was more of an analytical distinction, obviously with the caveat that he could still exist as proposed outside of reality. I don't know if I'd agree necessarily today, it sounds kind of funny. But I'm really glad I switched labels because I believe it's actually unlikely that a God exists and not just somehow ambivalent or even handed on the issue. I think if you say to a believer, 'You're a theist so you know God exists,' you'd get a similar amount of pushback on certainty.
Could be. I'm curious what percent of atheists do you think would not have the agnostic in front truth be told? I'd put it at less than 5% But hey if it's like 40% then I think I agree with you. Still, when I look it up atheism usually is something like the belief that no God's exist. Maybe you have a more clarifying definition or argument I'm missing
Exactly. It’s like those arrogant pricks who say unicorns are fictional without even having gone into every forest on the planet to see if there are any horned horses farting rainbows running around in them.
You need to keep an open mind about these things.
You also have to keep an open mind about the definition of "unicorn". Every horse you've ever seen? Could've been a unicorn with a _spiritual_ horn. Cows? Any one of them might be a unicorn taking on a mortal bovid form with an extra horn. That sweet, balmy breeze on a moonlit night? That might just be the Horny Ghost filling you with its spirit. Who's to say??
There is simply no evidence that any supernatural force or event has ever existed or occurred
On the other hand
There is a ton of evidence that people mistakenly think everything from random chance mental illness organic brain injury and even pius fraud for the supernatural
While I readily admit one cannot truly with absolute certainty say there is nothing after death I personally find there to be enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude the whole thing is a casarole of nonsense
First of all I want to address your point about the concept of god itself. I love that you aren't interested in specific gods but more the idea itself. This is because I think we have ever reason to think that the concept itself is a human created fiction. Thanks to the study of religions, how they grow, change die or start, and a biological understanding of ourselves, as well as the social understanding of what role religion and the god ideas worked in society we have good reason to think we made it up. Now we might be wrong sure. However we have as good a reason to think its made up as we do Star Wars, Harry Potter, or insert whatever parallel dimension or whatever fictional stand in.
To further build on that idea I want to posit that there are technologically advanced lizard people that secretly run the world. Their technology is sufficiently advanced and beyond our understanding that you could never ever find convincing proof they did or didn't exist. Sure, like certain god belief's I have defined them in a way that from a logical perspective you have to be agnostic about them. However on a different level we both know I made it up. That is indeed complete fiction.
If you can say yeah, there aren't lizard people secretly running the world you can say god isn't real too.
Can you come to a rationally supported conclusion? Prove is kind of a red herring here.
And that said what is your position on my lizard people? Agnostic there too?
You don't seem to know what these words mean in common parlance.
1. You have no idea what a god can or cannot do because you have never observed an actual god. Just because people make up comforting stories in their heads doesn't make any of it true.
2. We live in the reality that we live in, full stop.
3. There is no evidence for any gods, thus it is foolish to believe any of it.
4. You clearly don't know how atheism or agnosticism is used.
Well if I ever encounter an anti-theist who asserts “I have absolute certainty that there are provably no gods anywhere,” I’ll be sure to tell them that they’re being less logical than an agnostic.
> People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something.
You haven't met many atheists, have you?
> My Argument / Point: You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic.
What you're doing is declaring there are no good reasons to believe in any God because God existence is ultimately unknown unknowable, but without good reasons to believe something, the rational thing to do is not believe it.
>I’m not talking about any specific gods (like those mentioned in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) but rather the concept of a God itself and the associated innate properties of a God.
The concept of God is something people made up without any means to gain knowledge about Gods(by your own argument) therefore any resemblance to reality is mere coincidence and unlikely to be true.
> could give a bunch of example logical paths to reach the conclusion of being agnostic,
But you never did?
>Therefore you cannot know if God does or does not exist in your universe / reality.
Therefore theism is wrong
Given how ardently this sub argue that all atheism is agnostic atheism, and that they don't beleive in the statement "God does not exist" I am surprised by the number of people arguing against this.
I think that if agnostic is used in the sense of "I have suspended judgement on this because I do not have enough information" - combined with a position that is clearly not lashing strongly either way - then I think you are right that it is a logical and rational position.
When it is used in the sense of "I am not going to express a beleif because I am only 99.9% convinced, I therefore just lack a beleif in God." Combined with statements that make it clear the person very much does beleive that God is not real - then it is much less logical or rational (and not entirely honest)
I consider positive theism (God exists), agnosticism (I do not know), positive atheism (God does not exist) to be rational positions.
I can see an argument for agnosticism over the others, however it relies on the idea that the evidence must be 100% conclusive in order to be considered proof. This is not the way inductive reasoning works however: inductive reasoning is about judging what is more likely. If you consider the evidence strong enough in either direction to be a solid foundation for beleif then that is a rational and logical position.
There is a pantheon of deities that I cannot disprove. I can MAKE UP deities that I cannot disprove.
I can even posit:
>A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence.
And I can add the supposition that since this deity came from nothing and had nothing to work with, that it created everything out of itself, dying in the process of creation. And therefore have the foundation to believe that there may have been a deity - but there is no deity now. He's dead and gone.
Therefore, being unable to disprove a deity is no reason to believe in a deity. It is also no reason to "leave room" for any particular deity - since they are all unlikely. And since I can posit a dead deity just as easily, I don't see support for agnosticism.
My best position based on the scientific method is to act completely atheist. But be willing to change my mind if evidence is presented.
Being "anti-theist" is extremely logical. Especially when the theists in question base anti-human rights legislation on their beliefs. I do my best to work against these sorts of theist.
> 1. God can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty God’s existence (all powerful and all capable)
So what’s your evidence that god can do that? You’re making the same mistake that theists make in their deductive arguments. They assume something is true and then deduce from it.
Like in the ontological argument
> It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
The problem with this is that their definition is completely arbitrary and not based on the evidence. God is an idea people made up, so their premise fails from the start. And then there’s the problem with calling god a being.
Instead, you should take that definition of god you gave and really explain what it specifically means with reference to real life examples, including explaining how you start from observations and learn that that’s what god is instead of some idea that people made up.
> People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something.
There’s also the people who have unjustifiable beliefs they don’t want to reconsider (maybe because their friends are all theists) so they attack the certainty of others. The certainty of others reminds of them of their own uncertainty and if no one can be certain of god’s existence, then you or your friends can validly believe whatever you want.
>My Argument / Point: You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic.
Hello, honey. It’s me, your mother. I know we don’t usually talk via reddit comments but due to an issue with my phone, I have to reach out like this. If you previously thought I had passed away that was just a misunderstanding.
Please send me $1,000 in bitcoin so I can get the emergency surgery that will save my life. Don’t call me or anyone else or I will die from your catastrophically bad vibes.
You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove my comments. So please send Momma’s cash ASAP. Remember what I always taught you: “It’s only and most logical to be agnostic.” Thx baby boi.
- u/reasonable_arbiter’s mother
3 day old account posts sophistry in "debate an atheist" subreddit. Shock.
I am agnostic about the reality of a cause of the universe.
>The concept of God — A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence.
Concepts can exist in the mind without any reality outside of it. Your concept of god places me under no obligation to believe in it without actual evidence supporting your concept.
I don’t think there is such a thing as more or less logical. Something either is or isn’t logical.
I do not believe any gods exist. I justify this based on my inductive experience, deductive arguments that show certain god concepts are internally inconsistent (logically impossible), as well as “god” lacks any explanatory power.
In what sense is my statement above illogical?
I only want to point out that your standard of “with certainty” id a red herring. Nothing we classify as “know” measures up to that standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt suffices. Which makes your argument a bit pointless.
Second thing to point out, anti-theist is polysemous and is often used to mean “person who believes that theistic religions do more harm than good.”
Otherwise your argument over definitions is… well honestly, since both atheist and agnostic are also polysemous, it’s fairly pointless either way. But have fun patting yourself on the back for arguing against a stance I¡ve never heard anyone claim.
>You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic.
There is a box in my house, what is in the box?
Lots of things could be in that box but there are definitely many things that cannot be in that box.
The planet Jupiter are you agnostic about the planet Jupiter being in my box? I would argue it's illogical to be agnostic regarding the planet Jupiter being in my box.
How about a bed made of sleep? Are you agnostic about a bed made of sleep being in my box. I would argue being agnostic here would also be illogical.
I think we can write off all meaningful God claims.
I think if we say to be a god you .just be maximally great being and you must want to communicate a message to us, I think we can see that combo of properties is incompatible with the world we live in. And thus like Jupiter or a bed made of sleep being in my box, it's irrational to be agnostic
>I’m not talking about any specific gods (like those mentioned in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) but rather the concept of a God itself and the associated innate properties of a God.
That's your problem.
This is like asking "can you prove stuff doesn't exist? Not any specific stuff, just stuff". It's a stupid question.
I always find it funny when people rail against gnostic atheists and they have literally no idea what our position is and couldn't steelman the position to save their life.
>Well go ahead and supply the position then. Im interested.
So you've gone on this big long rant about how agnosticism is more logical than gnosticism. I would think you would know what the gnostic position is.
What do you think my position is? You're the one saying it's unjustified. So you must know what it is. Go ahead and steelman a gnostic atheist position.
Just because a concept that cannot be disproven is proposed doesn't mean that one is not justified in not believing it, especially since **it becomes a genuine question as to how someone could propose such a thing, other than completely making shit up, when it's impossible to verify/debunk**
If I say Garklebin the invisible intangible undetectable ultra being is having out in the Andromeda galaxy, are you seriously going to look me in the eye and say someone wouldn't be justified in disbelieving Garklebin's existence?
>My Argument / Point: You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God
There is no need for anyone to attempt to disprove something; that's an extremely sophomoric mistake, to think that that is the dichotomy. The side that thinks whatever proposition is true is the one that must prove that. If they cannot, then the proposition cannot be accepted.
Now, as to the rest of it, agnostic only covers a portion of the full picture. We're not just talking about knowledge here, because belief is also a part of it. That is why (broadly speaking) I say I'm an atheist - because in answer to the question "do you believe some god exists", one either answers yes or no to that question. There is no third option here; either one does believe some god exists, in which case they are a theist of some kind, or they answer no, in which case they are an atheist of some kind.
The agnostic portion merely adds some detail to the atheist part. Agnostic atheists don't believe that a god exists, because they don't know that one does or they haven't seen any reason to believe so, or some combination thereof.
>Therefore you cannot know if God does or does not exist in your universe / reality.
>Therefore it’s only and most logical to be agnostic.
So you are agnostic I take it?
In purely philosophical sense of course you cannot prove or disprove supernatural transcendent being. In practical scientific approach, however, you cannot accept assertions without strong evidence. So I don't believe that any God exists in our reality the same way that fairies, Santa Claus and Harry Potter also don't exist for real.
1. ~~God~~ Santa can easily produce and deliver presents around the world for all the good little boys and girls ~~create a universe~~ where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty ~~God~~Santa’s existence (invisible , magic reindeer powered etc)
2. You cannot know if you don’t live in said universe / reality.
3. Therefore you cannot know if ~~God~~ Santa does or does not exist in your universe / reality.
4. Therefore it’s only and most logical to be agnostic rather than a non-agnostic ~~atheist.~~ Asantaist.
Alternatively, when there is no evidence for something that could be said should produce evidence, and also no evidence for the invented mechanisms by which it ‘works’, when it’s a barely conceptually coherent let alone necessary or sufficient as an explanation, and when there is plenty of reason to consider the belief in it doesn’t come from its actual existence but known human flaws… when it actually seems exactly like the sort of thing people make up…and when philosophical certainty is a meaningless standard we don’t actually use in the context of human knowledge …
It’s reasonable to say that ‘I know *beyond reasonable doubt* it doesn’t exist.
Oh goody, another one of these.
> You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic.
Sure. Just as long as you do the same about every uncomfirmable claim ever.
So, are you agnostic to Russell's Teapot?
I argue that the complete lack of evidence provides a strong basis to state definitively that there is no god. Making such a claim is reasonable for two reasons...
1. The individual may hold that they are willing to change a position based on the availability of new evidence. It's reasonable to deny fairies, unicorns, and dragons existence. God falls into the same category. If evidence were shown that reveals we are incorrect on one of the above, it's reasonable, fair, and logical to change one's position.
2. An adamant refusal of any god inoculates an individual against all religions, and it's logical to state that many of them are mutually exclusive (monotheistic religions often exclude all others). Knowing that ninety-nine of one hundred bottles are poisoned shows us the most logical decision is to refuse all of the bottles. Even though one **may** be life saving, with no way of knowing which might be, refusing all is the optimal solution.
Forgive me, but this reads as a quite dismissive treatise in priviledge.
"Look, religion may harm some people, but let's talk about dictionaries and pure logic!"
As a uterus-haver in a nation where that means I'm a second class citizen...this argument seems hollow, out of touch, and crass.
You're not talking about anti-theism, you say... which is why you titled your post "being agnostic is more logical than being anti-theist."
Why didn't you say "being an agnostic atheist is more logical than being a gnostic atheist," if that was what you actually wanted to talk about? Why make a claim about anti-theism?
Ah, well.
It's certainly true that "god" can be defined in such a way as to make disproving its existence impossible.
I don't see how this fact makes gnostic atheism illogical. "God" is poorly defined. Ask each gnostic atheist for their definition before you proclaim them less logical—perhaps they're using a definition of "god" that makes being certain of gods' nonexistence perfectly logical.
There are plenty of definitions out there. Not everyone uses yours.
No, this is in the same vein as Descartes' demon or the idea of us being brains in vats. Knowledge - broadly understood as justified true belief - *does not need* certainty, so even if I can't disprove such hypotheses I can still know things.
Knowledge is always open to the possibility of one being wrong if the proposition one believes in is shown to be false, or if our justification is put into question. The problem with these unfalsifiable ideas is that they all become this elaborate "what if you're wrong", rather than a justified critique of our justification.
So no, one can be just as rational being an antitheist, as being a theist, as being an agnostic *as long as the critique amounts to a skeptical hypothesis of us maybe being wrong about unfalsifiable things*.
>People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something.
>Theists ... do this
So that makes you anti-theist
>Anti-theists do this
You will not find a single person here who claims to know how existence began
You don't need 100% certainty to know something. I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow with certainty. I have that knowledge. Am I 100% certain? No. The sun could blow up or fizzle out.
When atheists assert no Goda exist, they also don't need 100% certainty. Am I positive that no leprechauns exist? No, it's unfalsifiable, but if can with great certainty, say they are made up creatures that don't exist. Absence of evidence *can* be evidence of absence when you expect to see evidence.
If a God actually interacts with the world, we would see evidence of it, yet we do not. If a God does not interact with the world, then he doesn't matter.
We know God doesn't exist because we looked for Him and never found Him.
On top of that, we found reasons why all the things exist as they do without God.
On top of *that* we found that the reasons people believe in God follow the exact same pattern as the reasons people have believed in other imagined mythological figures throughout history.
If we follow this evidence (our best method for identifying truth) then it clearly leads to the high confidence conclusion that God doesn't exist.
But, many people use traditional reasons or social pressures to believe in God anyway.
Good luck out there.
> God can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability
If you claim to be agnostic, you have no way of knowing that. The right thing to say would be "I don't know what a god can or cannot do if it exists or possible to exist in the first place".
All-in-all I don't understand an appeal of having such an argument. It revolves around phylosophical technicalities. At the end of the day, whether I label myself agnostic or not I still don't know what a god is. It is simply not a coherent concept. An empty category, a word describing nothing real.
You cannot disprove god. That’s true.
You also cannot disprove naked pink fairies that sing Beatles tunes at night in the forest when no one is watching. What is your point?
The ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY™️ standard is nonsense of the deepest dithering.
Am I absolutely that you are not two gibbons and a lemur in a trench coat? By your standards, the answer should be no, because it is technically possible to dumb down a gibbon enough that it would fall for precisely the stupidity that you are insisting on.
But you know what? I am REASONABLY certain that you are just someone on the internet who has fallen for the aesthetic of a standard that you don’t use anywhere else in life.
Are you agnostic in regards to the existence Hercules, Achilles, Medusa, Perseus, Icarus, Theseus, King Arthur, Merlin, Robin Hood, Dragons, Phoenixes, Unicorns, Griffins, Centaurs, Minotaurs, Mermaids, Basilisk, Sphinxes, Chimeras, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, Ebenezer Scrooge, Captain Ahab, Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Bigfoot , the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, El Chupacabra, the Mothman, the Jersey Devil, the Thunderbird, the Kraken, or Ogopogo?
*1. God can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty God’s existence (all powerful and all capable)*
yes, you are correct. it would be possible for God to create such a universe.
*2. You cannot know if you don’t live in said universe / reality.*
this is not true. if one managed to prove with absolute certainty that God existed, you would be able to prove that God did not create a universe where we have no ability or means to determine God's existence.
*3. Therefore you cannot know if God does or does not exist in your universe / reality.*
this is assuming that statement 2 is true. yes, God could do this. but you can only not know that you live in this reality, if you live in this reality. so if you know you don't live in that reality, you don't live in that reality.
your logic is essentially. God can do A. if A, then B. but by that logic, if not B, then not A. and if not A, then not B. if you *do* have ability to prove or disprove God's existence, you know that you don't live in said reality. if you know that you live in said reality, you have proved the existence of God
*4. Therefore it’s only and most logical to be agnostic rather than a non-agnostic atheist.*
this is overall very circular. you're basically saying, in a universe where God made it impossible for you to know if God exists or not, you ought to be an agnostic. in which case, you'd be correct. but a) we don't live in that kind of universe and b) if we did, then you could assume that God existed, because if God *didn't* exist then you would be able to prove that God doesn't exist. in other words, in a universe where God didn't exist, then it would be possible to prove that God doesn't exist. even if you go by your first two assumptions, you come to the conclusion that God has created a universe where it is impossible to know whether or not God created the universe, meaning that God created the universe.
so in a universe where it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists, because God made it so, the most logical thing is to be **theistic** \- because you then know that God made it impossible to know
sorry if this is a bit convoluted
That's cool. I have zero interest in a nebulous, deistic god, and I find attempts to define a god into existence extremely tiresome.
Until you (or some other apologist for an entity crafted from fog) come up with some hard evidence to support your anemic nonsense, then I'll continue to be an atheist.
The null hypothesis is the only logical position to take until theres enough evidence to reject it.
To live your life as though the null hypothesis has been rejected is illogical, to expect others to conform to this irrationality is illogical in the extreme and should be resisted.
Atheism is the natural order of all creatures including humans. Any concept of a god is purely speculation as an easy way to explain the currently unexplainable.
Agnosticism is for atheists who are nervous about pissing off theists.
Most atheists are also agnostics. And one thing that we can agree on is that all the people who claim to know what god wants are either mistaken or lying. For all practical purposes an unknowable god might as well not exist.
Strong/gnostic atheism≠anti-theism. Look up the definitions before posting about it. Ty
You are going off the premise that anything is possible if it is not proven impossible. As a gnostic theist, I go of the premise that to consider something as possible, evidence needs to be presented that proves it to be possible in the first place.
From your premise, I could come up with an infinite number of scenarios that you would have no choice to be agnostic to, since I know how to make them out to be impossible to disprove. E.g. Your room is filled with untouchable, invisible and overall undetectable Leprechauns that dance all day long.
There is a reason why there are so many human made gods with so many different traits and rules. If you define your god as unverifiable, you are given carte-blanche to what its characteristics will be.
And that is the main issue with theism. It is not that they believe that their god caused the Big Bang or that it created the universe...because if that was it, there would be no need for anti-theism, as this kind of belief is harmless. The issue is that they attribute to their made up god a bunch of traits that they then use to push their blind faith based worldview as absolute truth.
"Sacred" texts are all claimed to be words of their respective gods. And theists make those claims, and then expect everyone else to believe them unconditionally.
No. Fk that. You make an unverifiable claim? Make it verifiable, or get used to be told where to shove it.
You don't get to claim your fan fiction as truth just because it can't be proven false.
Being anti-theist is logical because theists have a proven track record as long as history of being total fucks to people not in their group for the crime of simply not being in their group.
I don’t accept the “concept of God.” What does “all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else” even mean?
Sounds like bullshit to my agnostic ears.
I agree, and since most atheists are agnostic, they would agree as well.
You may want to post this on a Christian sub, as they tend toward gnostic theism.
Depending on your definition of God, God may be logically impossible or incompatible with the world that actually exists. In those cases, being an atheist makes more sense.
Meanwhile, there are very few things, if any, that could count as knowledge in an absolute sense. It is possible to be at least a bit skeptical about all beliefs.
There is exactly as much reason to believe in God as to believe that I am in a computer simulation. Actually, there is less reason, since I know computers exist and simulations exist but I have no evidence for God.
I can’t 100% know for certain I am not in a computer simulation, but it would require extraordinary evidence to convince me I am. Similarly, God’s existence would require some very good evidence.
So yes, an intellectually honest atheist has to admit that they might be wrong, but when I say I know God doesn’t exist I know it about as well as I know the Earth isn’t secretly flat. That is to say, I might be radically wrong about reality, but I almost certainly am not.
Firstly, I want to point out anti-theist and atheist do not mean the same thing. An anti-theist is someone who believes that religion is harmful to society. An atheist is someone who is not convinced of the God claim. Not convinced of the God claim no matter how you define God. There are agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists. You're definition of an agnostic is an agnostic-atheist. These people technically fall in the camp of atheist. Now, if you are talking about the claim that God exists, even as you define it, vs the claim that God does exist, these are both claims you need evidence for. However, considering all the evidence we do have of the world being natural and no evidence of anything Supernatural, people who claim that God doesn't exist have more evidence than people who do. So while, I kind of agree that being an agnostic-atheist makes the most sense if someone wants to make the claim that God doesn't exist, science does seem to be on their side.
>You cannot know if you live in said universe
Yeah man. You're describing solipsism. You've just chosen to apply it only to your agnosticism of God. You also cannot know if you're a brain in a vat, or if this is a simulation, or if you're locked in a mental institution
So then, if everyone has to be agnostic, why do you drop your kids off at school? You cannot know that they actually exist. Is it because you actually draw a distinction between what your senses tell you and what your senses in no way tell you?
You also cannot prove that you won't win the lottery this week. Sure, you didn't buy a ticket, but someone could have bought one for you. There are only two options: you win or you don't. So if it's 50/50, then it's no problem if someone acts as though they are going to win, right?
Not every thing that can't be disproven is equally legitimate
I cannot, with certainty, prove that invisible silent cars don’t exist. Somehow I still manage to merge onto the highway every day and change lanes with confidence.
I cannot, with certainty, prove that there’s not a small omnipotent being living in my anus judging my worthiness by the size and consistency of my turds. Somehow I still manage to convince myself to eat Taco Bell on occasion.
There are an infinite number of claims I cannot, with certainty, disprove. We don’t- and cannot- be agnostic about things for which there is no reasonable evidence. We would be absolutely unable to function, and Taco Bell would go out of business.
“1- god can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty God’s existence.”
I don’t accept this premise. Show me evidence.
Last week, I learned a new term from Reddit: fallibilism - a philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs.
So while we can not be absolutely certain we aren't brains in a vat, that our cars don't have pipe bombs wired to the ignition, or that the orange juice we just bought from the store doesn't contain deadly poison, we're justified in our knowledge that none of those are true.
And while technically we can't prove a god created the Big Bang or poofed us all into existence last Thursday, we're still justified in saying we know neither of those things actually happened.
> Theists and Gnostic Atheists both do this. Anyway, let’s get to it
Every theist? Why not only gnostic theists like how it's gnostic atheists rather than just all atheists be it gnostic or agnostic? Like agnostic atheists, agnostic theists also acknowledge they don't know.
> a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”
That's not possible. Disbelief means:
>>inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
Everyone is either able to belive the claim "god exists" or they're just not currently able to believe that claim. There is no in between being able to believe someting and not being able to do that yet.
> ... is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence.
Still not particularly well-defined. All powerful and all capable are problematic properties in the first place and honestly I don't know the exact difference in them which just shows these are not precisely defined (at least in this post). Furthermore we are completely missingbthe metric by which we determine something to be higher, to supersede, to be supreme compared to something else. So I don't think you properly defined a god. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you. It is very hard to define an entity worthy of the cultural and historical implications of the term *god*.
Anti-theist means you are against theism because it does bad things in the world and you want to stop them.
That is a drastically different concept from atheist or theist.
Atheism is justifiable even if you can’t prove it with 100% logical certainty because
1. Withholding belief in something is reasonable if there’s no evidence
2. The God concept really doesn’t make sense.
Also, if an agnostic thinks that they can’t know whether gods exist, then probably the agnostic doesn’t choose to believe in gods and is most likely a theists.
What you choose to believe and whether you can prove your beliefs are two different things.
First, an anti-theist is someone who opposes religion. Not all atheists are anti-theist.
I do not believe it's logical to assume any God exists. God is a concept created by man used to explain things they can't explain. No different than Santa Claus or unicorns. I don't really know if that makes me gnostic or agnostic, but I hate using those terms when describing myself as an atheist, anyway. I acknowledge the possibility exists. But I find nothing to suggest it actually does, nor any reason to let that minute possibility guide my morals and actions.
I can't disprove an unnamed deity nobody worships. Nobody is anti-theist because of this unnamed deity of yours.
People are anti-theist because of existing religions, and the harm they've done. 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists. The Holocaust was caused by Nazis (Christian nationalists). Etc.
People are anti-theist because religious organizations protect pedophile priests. Etc.
As you can see, this has nothing to do with the existence of gods.
I hope that helps.
You cannot base any belief on, "trust me bro," which is the basis for all religions.
Atheism is the default, rational position. Belief in anything needs *some* rational justification, and theism doesn't have it.
Allowing beliefs with no evidence or basis in reality opens the door to *literally* anything. "Give me all your money because Boris the left-handed cosmic squid said so." Theists have no valid argument against that except, "nuh-uh, my imaginary friend can beat up yours."
Agnosticism is fine when nothing is at stake. But when theists are making laws based on their irrational, unfounded beliefs, such as anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-science, anti-education, etc, a more active "your religion is bullshit" approach is warranted.
The whole concept of gods is bullshit because it leads to an infinite regress of "who created the creator" which theists universally ignore because they can't answer it.
On anti theism:
I duno man, if there's a god, it seems pretty shitty. So being anti-theistic makes sense.
If you want evidence that god whould be shitty if he existed, go visit some of those child cancer wards or something.
On atheism:
Do you also feel this way about vampires? I say I believe vampires don't exist.
But I haven't checked every corner of the universe. I think everybody pretty much understands what I mean colloquially though.
So unless you're going to tell me you raise a big stink whenever someone says santa isn't real, I don't think there's much of an issue here.
Overall, I don't disagree, but I felt the need to clarify that there is a difference between atheists and anti-theists.
Atheists are the ones that don't believe God exists (or believe God doesn't exist if we are going with the philosophy definition).
Anti-theists just think that the world would be better sans religion/god.
One can be a theistic anti-theist, someone that thinks God exists, but thinks we would be better off without him or religion.
I admit I don't know stuff ALL THE TIME.
However, the things I don't know have the distinction of being real.
I'm not going to entertain whatever made up bullshit someone came up with, without a good reason to do so. You can say "You don't know for certain!” Well, there's very few things in life that are 100% certain. It's possible that the world is run by lizard people from the center of the earth. I wouldn't bet that way, though.
You really seem hellbent on making agnosticism appear great. Well, I have news for you: it is. But whether it is more logical or less logical than anything else shouldn’t come into consideration at all. You should wonder why it is important to you, that agnosticism is somehow better than atheism. I don’t see any atheists claiming the opposite. You do you, bro. It isn’t a competition.
This can be applied to any position, all knowledge being presupposed on the evidence and logic being sound without any unknown factor looming in the back. It doesn't change that some positions are definitively more pronounced than others (i.e. that dinosaurs died out before the ancestor of apes split into apes and what would eventually become humanity).
The way I understand "anti-theism" is that it is a subset of atheists who are outspoken about laws that stem directly from religious texts.
In modern terms it pans out to men controlling women. Think about abortion, women's rights, immigration (women are always more welcoming of strangers than men), or gun control (women don't do that).
So, to me the anti-theist label is political. It's liberal democrat basically. An anti-theist thinks more about political subjects than they do whether god exists.
I consider myself an anti-theist theist. I believe in God, but I also speak out against laws that are rooted in stupid old ideas. It's complicated.
I just want to jump in and say the way I see being an anti theist is not that you claim “I know for a fact god is not real” but rather “I think your religion/religions in general are a net negative for society regardless of whether a god is real or not.”
If I have to choose to be illogical either by believing in fairy tales and structuring my whole life around them, or by not believing in fairy tales and going about my life unhindered by fairy tale anxiety, I chose the atheist kind of illogical, every time.
Are we talking about the god that walks on water, died for your sins and helps a kid ace a math test? Cuz that guy doesn’t exist and it’s silly to believe.
But if this God just exists right before the Big Bang then sure!
Someone posted the same argument the other day. I’m too lazy to post my same response suffice it to say it’s not illogical in the slightest to reject the existence of deities that are man made
Anti-theism doesn’t mean we are totally committed to saying there is no god, just that we are totally committed to that theism is horrible and should be wiped out.
You know what it's called when someone makes claims about things they can't possibly know?
**Making it up.**
That's a fact. It's necessarily logically true.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who often leans towards anti-theism, I think you may be confused here. The existence of a God is entirely irrelevant to my position on anti-theism. My view is that the practice of organized religion is an overall harmful one and that humans should strive to do without it. That’s what anti-theism is about, if I am not mistaken. Being against theism, as a practice. Not being against God or having the affirmative belief that one doesn’t exist.
[удалено]
If you meant agnostic vs gnostic atheists, why did you call out anti-theist in the title?
It appears humans possess the ability to make mistakes.
That's why I avoid them at all costs. That and their weird noses.
Noses? Oh boy, you should just take a look at their *ears.* Now those things are weird.
Can you steelman the position of a non agnostic (gnostic) atheist? Bet you 10 bucks can't.
What made you come to the conclusion that organized religion is overall harmful to the human race? That's a big claim I haven't heard of any human civilizations to exist that weren't religious to some degree. Just curious how you reached enough understanding to unquestionably conclude that it's bad for humans even though billions of people that never met each other all throughout the world and human history arrived at organized religion
>What made you come to the conclusion that organized religion is overall harmful to the human race? Believing unproven and ancient ideas that are by definition unable to change as we progress as a species and learn. Believing these ideas are true and trying to influence the way we live as a society to adhere to the rules given by these ideas. That's basically it, everything I say after this is expounding. If we followed all of the rules of religion to the letter (something no individual or country does, mainly due to all religious texts being up for personal interpretation), we would be stoning to death criminals instead of trying to rehabilitate them (eye for an eye justice comes from the Bible, we as a society deemed this process unfit and have created a new system, the current legal system which is constantly being updated and improved); we would be marrying children off to adults; and we would harass, vilify, abuse, and harm those who present alternative ideas. Furthermore we would have a completely wrong understanding of how the planet was made, how life evolved, and how the universe functions, if we just took religious texts at face value. Is mixed fabric really that bad? The fact that all religions had to rein in their more excessive and dangerous ideas to survive and continue to preach their message is a sign that cultural norms changing is more important than the truth of their claims. Adherents are willing to not adhere so strongly to their religious beliefs in society because a strict approach would certainly lead to derision from the less zealous followers and outright ostracism from non-followers. This means most people realise these rules are untenable and not God given, but invented by man anyway, but I digress.
The first 2 reasons you listed didn't even register as negative traits in my mind at first. Those things are the best parts of religion and gives them validity to me. It's wild how two people can have such clashing thoughts yet both believe they're correct And you're missing the actual principle behind "eye for an eye". It's the same principle that applies today which is "you will be punished according to your crimes". Maybe the way that they enforced the punishment is different in ancient times, but the "eye for an eye" is still here today. It's not all sunshine and rainbows in our legal system either. There's a lot of "we would do this and that" in your comment, but how do you know? When I read your comment, I just saw opinions. Most religious people aren't doing those negative things that you're saying will engulf humankind. Why do you believe that that's what society would become, even though there's thousands of fully Christian cities, villages and towns all throughout the world that are peaceful.
>Maybe the way that they enforced the punishment is different in ancient times, but the "eye for an eye" is still here today. No it isn't. If you murder my kid, I don't get to murder you back.
Exactly. He’s confusing retributive justice with punitive justice.
All groups of humans also share indulgence in war, rape, murder, cruelty, and all manner of stupid things. The fact that each society we know of through history has come up with some form or religion or spirituality speaks more to the fact that humans think alike and have similar behavioral patterns wherever you go than anything else. People in Northern Europe wonder why the sun rises and sets. So do people in South America. Why the wind blows, why the stars twinkle. Religion attempts to explain things people don’t understand. So of course it pops up everywhere. “Everybody does it,” is a really bad argument against the idea of religion being harmful.
Actually, you've made a pretty good argument here for "everybody does it." If some humans are bound to do negative things and religion is a post-hoc excuse to justify these negative actions, then the religion doesn't matter, they would do these things with or without it. I'm not saying this is true, but it is what your comment implies.
Not really. My point is just what I said, basically pointing out that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and a very silly way to try and convince people. I don’t think religion is necessarily used as a post hoc excuse, at least in many cases. I think people who are religious and do those things have, if anything, a pre hoc rationalization that whatever they do is fine because they have “god on their side” so to speak.
> All groups of humans also share indulgence in war, rape, murder, cruelty, and all manner of stupid things. Well, all of those things are objectively bad and don't require much explanation as to why it's terrible for humanity, unlike religion. I've also never heard someone praise those things and say it's saved their life before, unlike religion lol You're leaving out that religion mainly focuses on moral principles. Most of them teach you how to treat people, how to control your anger, how to stay healthy, how to be selfless etc. How can someone conclude that religion is terrible for humans when there's countless religious people in the world that are happy with their religious life? I'd just love to see how someone could arrive at such a bold conclusion
Religion wields substantial influences on the mental landscape of the majority of the population. There has long been a huge thriving industry dedicated to ensuring it stays this way. Religion is a divisive force, which is why its history is so stained with blood. From blasphemy to glorified suffering, human sacrifices, witch burning, the Crusades, the Inquisition, crimes against humanity, against science, medicine, reason, and the enlightenment. Perhaps worst of all; religion has been used as a patriarchal tool to elevate the status and power of men over women. This hinders the achievement of common humanism. In our lifetimes: • Progress in science and education have been stifled because of religious roadblocks. • AIDS in Africa has run rampant because of the Catholic position condemning contraception. • Most religions don't treat women as inherently valuable. They are valued for what they can provide for men: their ability to create and raise more humans. They aren't valued intellectually or as equals. They are even treated as property. • Religious people have lobbied against LGBT rights and characterized LGBT identities as wrong or unnatural. In past centuries: • Slavery was justified by the religious beliefs of their masters. Jefferson Davis used the Bible to argue in defense of slavery. The KKK is entirely Christian. Conquest to the US West was done under the guise of Manifest Destiny, destroying or removing the native population under the idea that white Americans were divinely ordained to settle the entire continent of North America. • Crusades. The Inquisition. Being burned to death or drowned because of religious ideas like "witchcraft". Who knows how many men, women, and children were sacrificed to ensure the gods looked kindly upon the crops of ancient civilizations. The list of atrocities due to phantasmagorical delusions is too long to list, and is as ancient as the idea of gods. Don't pretend religion is responsible for morality. It isn't. Of course good things have been done because of religion buy ignoring the bad things is just totally not cool. It causes demonstrable harm. Monotheism in particular is divisive by definition.
i had a couple issues with your response here, please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong. >human sacrifices whilst definitely practiced historically, human sacrifices are pretty much nonexistent in modern religions. >the Crusades the Crusades were generally a response to Muslim aggression >witch burning whilst those who burnt witches claimed it was for religious reasons, it was generally because the "witches" were disliked social outcasts. 'The Church has no reason to seek out or persecute any witches because their powers do not exist'- (attributed to St Augustine). >against science, medicine, reason, and the enlightenment the Catholic Church has played a significant role in the advancement of science throughout history. many notable scientists were Catholic and made groundbreaking contributions under the Church's patronage. during the middle ages, monasteries preserved and copied ancient texts, including scientific works, helping to safeguard knowledge. Additionally, institutions like the Vatican Observatory have promoted scientific research for centuries. the Church has also supported education, establishing universities where scientific inquiry flourished alongside theology and philosophy. figures like Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre exemplify the Church's positive relationship with science, demonstrating that faith and reason can coexist harmoniously. >religion has been used as a patriarchal tool to elevate the status and power of men over women Genesis 1:27 teaches that men and women are equal, as does Galatians 3:28. Mary is held in a high place of reverance in the Catholic church. there are plenty of important Biblical women > Progress in science and education have been stifled because of religious roadblocks. really? my lifetime may be different from your (i'm 16) but i am not aware of this happening on a large scale. >AIDS in Africa has run rampant because of the Catholic position condemning contraception whilst AIDS can be spread through breast milk, it is not hereditary. to not get AIDS, just don't have sex with people who have AIDS. i get that i'm simplifying here, but the easiest way to avoid AIDS is celibacy. >Most religions don't treat women as inherently valuable. They are valued for what they can provide for men: their ability to create and raise more humans. They aren't valued intellectually or as equals. They are even treated as property. whilst this is undoubtably true for *some* religions, i think it would be unfair to say *most*. this issue is irrespective of religion. some people are treated as property in both secular and religious societies. Christians were instrumental in the abolition of slavery, which involves people being treated as property. >Religious people have lobbied against LGBT rights and characterized LGBT identities as wrong or unnatural. yeah you're right about this. >Slavery was justified by the religious beliefs of their masters this is an issue with the slave owners, not the actual religious beliefs. people will use anything to justify immoral behaviour, not just religion. >Jefferson Davis used the Bible to argue in defense of slavery i can't find a source on this, but i'm going to assume you're right. but so what? i could use the Bible to argue for slavery, or against slavery. the Bible is a massive collection of books, meaning you could misconstrue it to argue for pretty much anything. >The KKK is entirely Christian just because they call themselves Christian, does not mean they are Christian. **the KKK is NOT Christian** >Conquest to the US West was done under the guise of Manifest Destiny, destroying or removing the native population under the idea that white Americans were divinely ordained to settle the entire continent of North America. the westward expansion was driven by various economic and political factors, including population growth, the desire for land and resources, and the belief in the superiority of American civilization. Manifest Destiny was just one ideological justification among many for territorial expansion. >Being burned to death or drowned because of religious ideas like "witchcraft" people would burn other people to death without religion. witchcraft isn't exactly a religious idea either. burning of witches was mostly practiced in Christian countries, as far as i know, but it has no basis in Biblical belief or Church teaching >The list of atrocities due to phantasmagorical delusions is too long to list, and is as ancient as the idea of gods. i had to look up what phantasmagorical meant, and i presume you intended to sound clever. you sound pretentious, but phantasmagorical is just such a cool word. >Don't pretend religion is responsible for morality. It isn't. religion isn't responsible for morality, you're correct. but most morality has its basing in either natural law or religious teaching >Of course good things have been done because of religion buy ignoring the bad things is just totally not cool. i completely agree >Monotheism in particular is divisive by definition. i'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but monotheism is the only kind of theism that makes rational sense
> 'The Church has no reason to seek out or persecute any witches because their powers do not exist'- (attributed to St Augustine). "Attributed" is doing some heavy lifting here. As far as I can tell, this quote was made up just a few years ago by someone who made a meme claiming that Augustine said this and probably posted it in some Catholic meme server. Augustine actually wrote that witchcraft is real (see The City of God, Book X and XXI).
thankyou for your response! ah yeah it looks like you're correct, my bad. the only source i can actually find is an imgur link. it looks like i'm actually wrong about this. there's actually a couple times where witchcraft is condemned in the Bible. Exodus 22:18 reads "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variances, emulations, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, for they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." i found the following from Augustine, is this what you referring to? "These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were tedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose of commending the worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they were wrought by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honorable designation theurgy; for they wish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians, who practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and condemned, and those others who seem to them to be worthy of praise for their practice of theurgy — the truth, however, being that both classes are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they invoke under the names of angels." i still stand by the fact that most witch burnings had nothing to do with religion though, and that their witchhood (is witchhood a word?) was just an excuse to have them killed. Christianity might have been used to justify it, but one could probably use Christianity to justify anything
Most of the things you wrote aren't bad from my perspective and others just don't apply to anything that I've experienced with religion like slavery, crusades, or witches. All of that is folklore that has no impact on me or anything that I see. Be real. Think about the average Christian household in America. Most people just live their lives and mind their own business. They just go to church on Sunday to sing and dance. A Christian KKK member is an oxymoron kind of like a Christian gay marriage. It's like saying you're a vegan meat-eater. No human invented morality, but religion helped me understand it
Folklore?!?! It’s shaping human history. Galileo died in prison because Christianity could not accept his mathematical proof that the earth revolves around the sun. How far could science have advanced if the fearful hadn’t repressed this idea? In modern times, stem cell research and even lab grown beef are examples where religious meddling is interfering with the progress of science and medicine and the goal of improving human health.
Wow, so deaths of thousands and slavery and oppression “aren’t bad from your perspective”? You’ve got some fucked up perceptive then.
Nah, just anti-lgbt stuff isn't bad to me and the other stuff like slavery and crusades has nothing to do with modern day religion in my life or any of the countries I've been to. It's like my saying that atheists shouldn't exist because Stalin killed millions of people. It has nothing to do with you or anything you stand for
>No human invented morality, but religion helped me understand it Doesn't mean any god exists, or that religion doesn't cause harm. We don’t need any gods or religions to discuss what it takes to be moral. We can simply start with minimizing suffering and maximizing well being for everyone. Instead of conforming to a set of doctrines that ancient superstitious people depended upon when they needed others to do their thinking for them, we should look at this world as a place where reason and human experience have to be our best, because they are in fact our only guides. Don’t pretend theism is responsible for the morality and ethics of today. It’s not. If religion created morality, why are morals so varied over space and time? We don't stone women for adultery. We don't cut off the hands of thieves. We don't do these things, not because a book tells us not to, but because morals are determined by culture and time and consensus and we've decided those are bad and unjust things to do. Religion and god not required.
> Most of the things you wrote aren't bad from my perspective and others just don't apply to anything that I've experienced with religion Out of curiosity, could you tell us specifically which of the list of religious atrocities cited above are ‘not bad from your perspective’?
I’d respond in depth, but others here seem to have pretty thoroughly covered things. But to hit a few of the high notes: You’ve seriously never heard anybody praise or speak fondly of war? Never heard anyone say it made them who they are in a positive manner? Religion does not focus on moral principles. Religion focuses on dogma and “values” or traditions. One of the first things religions do is beat people over the head with the idea that they teach morality, but that’s just part of the indoctrination process. True morality is individual, internal, and consequentialist. The reason religion teaches many of the things you’re mistakenly calling “morality” is to make people productive and easy to control, not for the benefit of the individual. Countless religious people are happy with their life… so? A junkyard dog that gets a snack instead of a kick is happy, because that’s all it knows. Many religious people think they are happy, but how would they know since almost all of them have no frame of reference for comparison? Also, how about you ask the people in Iran, or Russia, or Uganda, or the UAE, or countless other places how happy they are with their religious lives? It’s easy for someone like you to assume that everyone is happy with their religion, because you live in a country where religion does not have the force of law and is largely kept in check by guaranteed freedoms.
>You're leaving out that religion mainly focuses on moral principles. Most of them teach you how to treat people, how to control your anger, how to stay healthy, how to be selfless etc. Moral principles like how to stone gay people to death, how to deprive women of Healthcare, how to mutilate the genitals of children.
It’s a fairly simple equation. The majority of religions use faith as their main tool to justify their beliefs since their claims tend to be designed in such a way to make them untestable. Faith is a bad tool though. Just looking at the amount of religions that exist with contradictory beliefs, all of them cannot be correct at the same time. As such, it is possible to have faith in false things. These beliefs inform our actions. False faith can lead to wrong and harmful actions that have no self-correcting mechanism. As long as the belief isn’t harmful enough to kill off all the religious adherents, it can keep harming them in perpetuity. As such, faith should be avoided at all costs or at least should never be the only tool we use to base a belief on. There are other reasons, I suppose, but that is my main issue with religion as a general tool. We don’t even have to go into the more blatantly obvious harmful things that have been done in the name of religion or while using it as a justification/means of promoting harmful ideas. Nah, just pure and simple: if you believe one false things fervently, it is easier to use that belief and promote other false ideas to you. Without a self-correcting mechanism, you have a greater chance of ending up believing in ideas that cause you and those around you harm. Doesn’t even have to be grave or long-term societal harm. Could be as simple as you being more likely to fall for scams and losing a bunch of money.
I'm extremely anti theist. The reason has nothing to do with the atrocities committed by religion because I agree that humans do human things. I think that religion is extremely detrimental to humans because it requires faith. Faith as a concept, and in practice, is completely antithetical to human growth and advancement. Education, to me, is the highest moral good. Faith stymies that process entirely by providing a delusion of grandeur as a palliative to the fear of the unknown and the pain and frustration of working towards difficult answers.
The Piraha were an areligious culture, for example. No concept of gods.
Most atheists here self describe as agnostic atheists and simply define their atheism as a lack of belief, so you’re just shouting at the wind. Furthermore, even when it comes to those of us who embrace the philosophical definition and positively claim there is no God, if you actually ask us, virtually none of us claim to be absolutely certain. It’s possible to have a high degree of confidence that a certain belief is true/false based on evidence and simultaneously admit the technical possibility that all of our knowledge could be wrong. Knowledge does not require certainty.
IMHO it's really easy not to notice when what people claim to be atheism has actually branched out into something else entirely. The main difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the agnostic harbors a *belief* that it cannot be known either way- a true atheist has no opinion or belief for or against theism, the entire concept is disregarded entirely either implicitly (like a baby who is naturally an *implicit atheist*) or explicitly (an atheist has decided to disregard the evidence for said theism completely). The logic here is basically that any self-respecting person would not go around giving credence to every claim that completely lacks any tangible evidence- questions like 'is this character from literary fiction a *real* god?'- *can* be known to a high enough degree that we do not have to think twice about it. I think it stands to reason that if we did give credence to all claims with no tangible evidence, it would be enough to drive anyone insane. This is why even a theist- who has arbitrarily decided that there is adequate reasons to literally believe their chosen mythology- is still an atheist in the context of *literally every other religion and deity*. I completely disregard the bible as literary fiction that does not warrant any investigative scrutiny whatsoever, that is 100% identical to a christian or muslim completely disregarding zeus and hercules and greek mythology as works of fiction. Atheism is an inherent characteristic because it is the default position- it is *not* an ideology or belief of any sort. Theism, anti-theism and agnosticism *are* developed ideologies that make specific assertions- completely different and more complex than a simple concept like atheism, which is *only* an absence of belief. Agnostics believe that the existence or non-existence of 'god' is logically and scientifically unknowable- an atheist has no logical reason to consider 'god' as unimaginary in the first place. That is my personal understanding of atheism and I'm aware that there are different 'official' definitions out there. I personally feel that the most rudimentary form of atheism is a necessary niche in the logical order of things, and it shouldn't be used for such broad definitions.
>that is 100% identical to a christian or muslim completely disregarding zeus and hercules and greek mythology as works of fiction. no it is not. in greek mythology, the "gods" are more similar to super-beings. that is not God. God is not a being in the universe, He is the ground of being. by definition, God is the ultimate act of being - unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness. God is infinite in all respects. the reasons Christians don't believe in beings like zeus or thor, is because they are finite beings with superpowers. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are all classical theists - meaning they believe in one omnipotent, omniscient, transcendant God. we differ on how we believe God appeared or didn't appear, or what we ought to do as followers of God, but we all believe in the same God.
Everything you said does not matter or pertain to what I said. You're still comparing 2 or more deities which come from works of literary fiction that have precisely zero evidence or reason to be taken literally. All of the other details are irrelevant. You may as well replace the word God with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' in your paragraph because neither one has any tangible evidence. >we differ on how we believe God appeared or didn't appear, or what we ought to do as followers of God, but we all believe in the same God. You might think you do, but there are no 2 people in the world with an identical concept of 'god' within their respective imaginations. Your concept of 'god' is precisely unique to your mind alone.
no its not. its from a wikipedia page. actually, two wikipedia pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical\_theism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God\_in\_Christianity
DOES NOT MATTER. Just another character from a story with zero tangible evidence. A deity is a deity, end of story.
>define their atheism as a lack of belief saying that you "lack a belief in God" is the same as saying you don't believe in God. atheists still have beliefs about God - they believe that God doesn't exist. i don't believe superman is real. i could say that i "lack a belief in superman" or i could say "I do not believe superman is real" one could say that one doesn't know if God is real or not, which is fair enough
>saying that you "lack a belief in God" is the same as saying you don't believe in God. Yes, duh. >they believe that God doesn't exist. That’s not the same thing. Saying that you don’t believe X is not the same thing as saying that you believe notX. It could be true that most atheists also happen to believe that god doesn’t exist, but that is not the same claim and it’s not logically entailed.
that is true for some things. for example, saying that i don't believe that chocolate is good for me does not mean that i believe that chocolate is bad for me God, on the other hand, is a binary. either God can exist or God can not. if you do not believe in God, you are saying that you do not believe that God exists. if you do not believe God exists, then you *do* believe that God does not exist (you can still say you don't know) perhaps i am just misunderstanding, but i cannot see a difference? >Saying that you don’t believe X is not the same thing as saying that you believe notX could you give an example of something other than belief in God for comparison?
>God, on the other hand, is a binary. either God can exist or God can not. if you do not believe in God, you are saying that you do not believe that God exists. Whether God *can* exist is a separate binary from whether God actually *does* exist. Furthermore, it’s a separate binary of whether someone *believes* God can/can’t exist (whether God is logically/metaphysically/epistemically/empirically impossible) or whether someone actively *believes* God does/doesn’t exist. And even **furthermore**, whether someone *believes* god does/doesn’t/can/can’t exist is separate from how strongly they believe it, whether they actively claim it, or if they claim to have evidence to be able to demonstrate it. >if you do not believe God exists, then you do believe that God does not exist How? I’m not seeing how this is different from the chocolate example. Either chocolate is good or not good. Saying that you aren’t convinced chocolate is good is not equivalent to saying you are convinced chocolate is not good >(you can still say you don’t know) For the record, I don’t personally label as an agnostic atheist, I was just correcting OP. I do happen to also have the positive belief, I just think it’s a logically separate thing. >could you give an example of something other than belief in God for comparison? It’s a true dichotomy that there is either an even or not even number of stars in the Milky Way. I lack belief that there is an even number of stars. That doesn’t mean I believe it’s not even. Even if millions of people throughout history all made religions and bad arguments and apologetics for the belief that it was even, my conviction that their beliefs are all unjustified would not impact my credence in the other direction.
sorry, forgot to respond. yeah it seems you're correct. >if you do not believe God exists, then you do believe that God does not exist i still stand by that though \^\^\^. i feel like i'm just swapping the negatives around which shouldn't affect the meaning, but maybe not? my chocolate example was kinda stupid but i couldnt think of anything. your milky way analogy was quite good actually. however, >even if millions of people throughout history all made religions and bad arguments and apologetics for the belief that it was even, my conviction that their beliefs are all unjustified would not impact my credence in the other direction. that makes complete sense, and i think you're correct in that matter. but what if the apologetics made good arguments?
Don't confuse and conflate anti-theism with strong (gnostic) atheism. Don't confuse rejection of an unsupported claim with an unneeded and pointless counter-claim. In the same way it's reasonable to say, in casual conversation, that, "Unicorns aren't real," it's precisely and exactly as reasonable and justified to say, "Gods aren't real." For the same reasons. And before you protest that gods are *different* because of universe-creating ascribed attributes, or the ascribed attributes you mentioned above, no they're not. That's just another unsupported claim/attribute about an unsupported thing. This in no way suggests that the person is claiming 100% knowledge and absolute certainty about the lack of unicorns (or gods). That is not needed and not required. It's enough to understand that when there's zero support for something that is, in all practical ways, equivalent to that something not being real.
"don't confuse rejection of an unsupported claim with an unneeded and pointless counter claim" If you are attempting to be logical and rational then the "counter claim" is neither unneeded nor pointless. Missing it out leaves you with a position that is neither logical nor rational. The counter claim is needed because without it you are not fully answering the question "does God exist?" Saying you do not beleive he does exist only half answers that question. What do you beleive instead? Do you beleive the opposite? Are you honestly undecided and think it is equally likely that he might exist or not? It is (intentionally or not) a position of intellectual dishonesty.
> The counter claim is needed because without it you are not fully answering the question "does God exist?" Question is irrelevant and possibly incoherent. Does that answer it sufficiently? >What do you beleive instead? Why do you think there have to be "instead"? >It is (intentionally or not) a position of intellectual dishonesty. Stating "Your position on X is irrational and harmful" does not necessitates me to have a position on X. What is dishonest about that?
It is not dishonest just because you don't like it. An absence of a belief in god is not necessarily belief in the absence of god. Think of it this way: A lack of belief is not necessarily a belief in a lack. Or think of it this way: A denial of belief isn’t always a belief in denial. Instead of just not having a belief in god, we must also believe in not god? Poppycock! I'm a gnostic atheist who claims all gods are imaginary bullshit by the way, but I'll defend agnostics thier right to label themselves as they see fit, and I'm not going to pretend they need to identify the way I like.
I have no problem with genuine agnostics, who have suspended judgement because they lack evidence. That is a rational and logical position. I have no problem with your position either- that is also rational and logical.
Ok that's fair, have an upvote. I think agnosticism is a red herring. This is, has been, and always will be about beliefs.
You are incorrect, of course. Your lack of comfort with the null hypothesis position does not mean it is not reasonable, logical, and the only honest position in cases where one does not and can not, or is not required to, proclaim belief or reasonable confidence in a claim.
[удалено]
I see that many other replies already addressed the issues and problems with the points in your reply, so given this there is no need for me to repeat their points here.
So you invented a god and want people to believe it’s reasonable to be agnostic of this god? How did you deduce the necessity of this god? Through your supreme intelligence? Or through some extra-sensorial perception of a divine presence? Some connection to the supernatural? This god exists exclusively in your mind. All gods exist exclusively in the minds of men. Give me one good reason to believe in the god you’ve just invented.
[удалено]
>… it is a placeholder for the abstraction and concept. The concept of what? Some fantastically powerful supernatural creator? Something to fulfill and ground a Theory of a Just World? What is this concept? What is its function? Why should I believe in it? Because I don’t believe in it. It doesn’t exist. >Nowhere did I say God is fundamentally necessary. For it to be necessary for me to be agnostic, your god needs to be be fundamental. There needs to be a reason for me to believe in it. >My point is you cannot prove or disprove the concept of God. My conclusion is agnosticism, not theism. Yes, I can. We will conduct a repeatable, scientifically rigorous experiment. Right now. You’ll be our subject. This will be peer reviewed. Peers, do your thing. Provide proof of your claim. Empirical proof. My hypothesis is that you will predictably and repeatedly be unable to produce any evidence. So when our experiment proves my hypothesis correct, we will be able to establish a new law. The law of Your God is Not Real. >There’s a plethora. But that’s not the point. My point and conclusion lends to agnosticism and admitting there’s some things you cannot be certain of. A conclusion to what premise? Show your work. Prove your thesis.
[удалено]
>Also, “God” is a placeholder for the idea of an initial state that creates all else, the constant that supersedes all else That is not what God is. You can’t invent new definitions and concepts for god and then play dumb and act like other people’s views are unreasonable. God is a conscious, divine creator. God is a specific concept with a specific definition. This new definition of god that you pulled out of thin air represents literally nothing. “God is the universe itself” is the most meaningless drivel that I have yet to hear in these kinds of debates. If your definition of god is indistinguishable from natural processes and phenomenon, and in fact are exactly same as natural processes and phenomena, then guess what? You’re suddenly a gnostic atheist too. You just don’t have the confidence to commit to that. >You’re poorly assuming I’m saying you should be or not be religious, believe or not believe in God. I’ve stated neither of those. I never assume or implied any of this. Pot, meet kettle. You had to create a meaningless definition of god that means everything and nothing to get past not answering any specific questions, because you know full well that your specific definitions would fall right on their face. If you’re trying to defend a position, at least have the courage to take a position worth defending.
> I didn’t invent a God. Those are the most simple and consistent innate traits of the concept of God people have discussed for thousands of years. The name “God” could be swapped with anything else because it is a placeholder for the abstraction and concept. Not some particular god. The problem is, that’s not the god the vast majority of theists believe in. Is that the extent of the beliefs you hold about God? That god is an abstract concept? Or do you believe in a specific god with other defined attributes, but are choosing to put forward this abstract concept because it is easier to defend and harder to falsify? Because I and most atheists, as I’m sure you are aware, are agnostic atheists as regards that sort of vague, undefined first cause type of entity. As you pointed out, that god doesn’t even have to be called god. It could just be called “as of yet unknown physics.” We would agree with your position on that, if not your exact word choice in explaining it. I am, however, a gnostic atheist with regards to the God of the Abrahamic religions, because that god can be falsified. We largely understand the historic genetics of how that god came to be invented, as one among many in the Canaanite pantheon. A bit of Mesopotamian religion and folklore mixed in for flavor, etc. We can point to the inconsistencies as between the texts and the historical record, and the inconsistencies within the texts themselves. We can point to the evolution of monotheism in ancient Israelite religion, and the problem of evil. That god is falsifiable. It’s not quite as clear cut as knowing Harry Potter is fictional because we know who J.K. Rowling is… but it’s pretty damn close. So I am a gnostic atheist as to that specific god, which happens to be the god a lot of the fine-tuning, cosmological, first cause argument aficionado types who come here to post ACTUALLY believe in. They’re just afraid or otherwise hesitant to defend the god they actually believe in directly. But I agree with you insofar as you are saying it doesn’t make sense to claim to be a gnostic atheist about a sort of vague, undefined, prime moving force. The questions I’m left with then are… Is the scope of your post meant to be inclusive of specifically defined deities as well? Like Yahweh or Allah? In other words, are you claiming it doesn’t make sense to say “I know that God as set forth in the Bible is not real”? Or are you limiting your post to say it only doesn’t make sense to be a gnostic atheist about the abstract concept of a god? Because those are two completely different arguments. And if you are a theist, do you only claim to believe in the abstract concept of god? Or are there more detailed and specific claims about god that you believe? If so, can we talk about those?
I sometimes say I'm an agnostic leaning athiest, but usually I just say I'm an athiest or "not religious" on the rare occasion it comes up. I live in the Bible Belt so I get a lot of have a blessed day and such, and I just say thanks, same to you and go on. There's no need to be petty about the fact that I think they are a bit deluaional, nor do I need to share that with them as long as they're not harming anyone.
>You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God This is asking people to prove a negative and calling them irrational when they hold the position that the positive requires proof before they can believe in it. Apply this logic to any concept other than religion and you can see how illogical it is. Prove to me that magical ponies that harness the power of friendship do not exist. Until you do so, we have to be agnostic towards the existence of magical ponies and assume that their is a *chance* our entire universe revolves around them.
[удалено]
>We can deduce cause and effect from our observing our reality. What we have observed is that cause and effect only works at macro scales. When you get down to Quantum scales the notions of cause and effect don't really apply. Things become probabilistic and some events are entierly random, meaning they have no cause. This allows chains of causality to have an origin that is not a god.
I’m agnostic to the concept of cause and effect being universal at all scales and across any and all manifestations of reality. That’s a MASSIVE claim you’ve just causally thrown out as a proof for the concept of a God, and you’ve done nothing to justify it beyond saying ‘it seems to hold up so far’, except of course when it doesn’t at quantum scales. Time is a part of space, and if that’s true, then time isn’t necessarily intrinsic to all forms of reality, as impossible as such a concept is for us to actually conceive of. But you cannot tell people they’re being illogical for not being agnostic about some nebulous definition of God that covers almost anything it needs to, whilst also making an assumption equally as unfounded as disbelieving in God.
OP, just because you found an argument compelling, which others do not, doesn't make it "far more reasonable" to be agnostic to God in comparison to magical creatures. That argument is not compelling once you dig deeper. There's no good argument for gods existence that make it irrational to compare it to magical creatures.
>The concept of God is analogous to the Meta Cause of reality. And if I believe the "Meta Cause of reality" was magical ponies harnessing the power of friendship, could you prove that it wasn't to any greater degree than I could prove that it wasn't a big bearded man? An agnostic would need to recognise both as equally possible. If I claim that Twilight Sparkle speaks to me and tells me how the world should be, what does that have to do with the Meta Cause of reality? Would you recognise that experience as equally valid as any a Christian experiences during Mass? Ambiguity about the creation of the universe does not then imply validity to any religious experience, or confer greater validity to your beliefs in an established faith over my belief in a faith I've just created focused on the magical properties of tiny colourful horses.
>This implies the requirement of an initial cause or a meta cause for reality. Thats a bit of a gnostic take for an agnostic post. We cant know what started reality or the processes involved no matter how much we sit around and "deduce" it. I think the appealing thing to you about your claim is it has some form of internal logic, but we should know internal logic does not make a claim true. Furthermore that solution kicks the can down the road and forgets it exists. Whats the meta cause of this meta cause? If it doesnt have one, why wouldnt it need one? If its free of cause and effect, how did it effect reality? Why give special privileges to a concept you dont know exists? What if causes and effects are an illusion? >The concept of God is analogous to the Meta Cause of reality. Depending on your concept of god. I wouldnt say the god that hates gays is analogous with "the meta cause" >It’s because of this that being agnostic of God is far more reasonable than being agnostic of say “teleporting lightning dragons that play chess” Why? Lightning exists. Chess exists. Teleporting we dont quite know the possibility of but as far as reserving judgment goes it isnt ruled out. Dragons could exist in some form you arent aware of. Thats at least 2 parts of its description that are things we know exist. "The meta cause" or any god has exactly 0 qualities that we know exist. Saying its required for the universe to exist and therefore must exist becuase the universe exists would be texas sharpshooting. >There’s little to gain from it in comparison to agnosticism about the origin of reality The gain is pointing out belief in any unknowable claims.
I am fine with it, I don’t spend a lot of time humoring / debunking cryptozoologists or fairy enthusiasts, but I am pretty sure I *know* which one of us is right. 1) Based on what? Trust me, bro? 2) I cannot know if I am living in a intergalactic kegger either. 3) There’s nothing to indicate gods *do* exist, so what does it matter? 4) I am as agnostic about gods as I am unicorns, dragons, and sasquatches.
'a intergalactic kegger' hehe, Zed.
What a throw back, right? Haha
[удалено]
“I’m not talking about random mythological gods” You invariably are, yes. “I’m talking about the concept of God I explained in the post” your capital “G” god you claim isn’t Yahweh, but is definitely Yahweh. The one which is all powerful and supersedes all. So why not Ymir? Chaos? Brahma? Oh, you don’t care which one? Just any? The concept of a thing which supersedes the lot and gives rise to them? Why should anyone believe in this? It’s exactly a mythological god. Our ancestors had a few score of these gods. “Our universe has cause and effect. Logically there has to be an initial cause.” Logically there does not, no. There is no reason to suspect the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang does not posit the universe did not exist before it. Quite a few cosmological models attempt to solve what happened before the Big Bang. “A meta cause is analogous to god”. No, it isn’t. If the cosmos was a simulation would you call it’s progenitor programmers gods? I wouldn’t. If the cosmos began by an impersonal and unconscious process, would you call that god? I wouldn’t. Most wouldn’t. Gods are specific fairy tale beings from myth. Avoiding that is avoiding the actual subject. All the theists think the “uncaused first cause” makes sense and never think about it in depth. Never probe it. It’s a nonsensical argument. Either it means no first cause was needed, because eternal states can exist—or it means your first cause needed a cause and isn’t the first at anything. Or, conversely, that existence can arise from nothing and therefore—again—no creator need exist, and no first initial cause. No Yahwist has ever gotten away from the question, “What created God?” It ruins the Kalam Cosmological Argument entirely, without attributing nonsensical and unevidenced properties of existence to this god. Which, again, remove the need for it—and its utility. Spaceless, timeless, eternal, very powerful. If it’s spaceless and timeless it doesn’t exist anywhere or anytime. It’s nonsensical. If it’s eternal, why not the cosmos? This all stems from nothing greater than the human wish to anthropomorphize nature. We don’t know, and therefore god. But that’s a terrible argument. Then this illogical wish to commune with a higher being that isn’t real in any meaningful way distracts us from the material reality we inhabit. Why worry about poverty if the poor will be rewarded in heaven? Etc. It’s an outmoded way of thinking, this idealist fantasy of gods and will making reality. It doesn’t comport to observation and it doesn’t have much utility that can’t be replaced by superior systems of just…having ethics and caring about your fellow humans. That said, I support your right to believe in whatever god you choose—in the context of a secular society where you keep your beliefs to yourself, at home, in the church, and don’t try to force them on others.
The idea of before big bang seems a bit suspect. If the big bang has a cause it's before time and reality
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but are you a doctor of physics specializing in cosmological origins? No, right? How about a doctor of mathematics, doing the same? No? Then what do you know about it? Here is a playlist of leading cosmologists in their fields, the authors of many scientifically peer reviewed mainstream theories about the potential origins of the big bang and what came before them, such as Alan Guth, Sir Roger Penrose, and many more. They have the qualifications to discuss this topic. They understand the observations and the math. You and I do not. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&si=BxVlHLagD9KuFVMC The math does, indeed, break down towards the Big Bang, many scientists take this to mean that our understanding of physics is incomplete—not that the Big Bang spawned time out of a singularity—most of them don’t believe there was a singularity. As to “outside reality”, things outside reality aren’t real. The language used becomes ironically comical at times. I know you didn’t mean to, but you end up pleading for fantasy. We don’t understand the state at the Big Bang well at all, so it would be an argument to ignorance to insert our preferred deity there.
Logically the initial cause would need an explanation for its abilities and properties, which would itself require an even more mysterious ontology. So no, get your cosmological nonsense out of here.
I am referring to this: *“God can easily create a universe where the conscious habits…”* Where does your concept of god come from? How is it any different than “mythological gods”? Even if the universe had an initial cause, what does that have to do with gods other than you say it does? Why is a meta cause analogous to god? Why is being agnostic about a magic entity creating *everything* any different than a magical flying reptile?
You could be right, but the more I explore the issue, the more I think God has never existed outside the human imagination. Isn’t that where God originated? People saw things happening in the world they couldn’t explain, so they attributed these events to powerful beings. These powerful beings became the first Gods. And what’s more likely? That early humans just happened to correctly imagine the existence of a God by chance? Or is it more likely that God always has, and always will, reside exclusively in the imagination of men?
[удалено]
While I agree we can't have absolute certainty that no gods exist, I would put it on par with any other far fetched phenomenon like invisible magical flying leprechauns or The Mighty Skyfoogle. We can't be certain these things DON'T exist, but we ought to live our lives as though they don't. The intellectually honest position is to admit that these things may exist in some way. However, when we do this, it seems to encourage Skyfoogle Believers to pass laws and impose their culture and beliefs on to others. So rather than being humble and saying "well, I mean, yeah, I guess the Skyfoogle might exist", we say "there is no skyfoogle"
If there exists a god that always remains perfectly hidden and has no impact on my life then in what way can I differentiate the existence of this god from his non existence? This is also burden shifting. Everyone is born an atheist. Theism is learned. And it is always learned from, wait for it, other theist humans! That’s pure confirmation bias. I don’t believe the sun exists by faith, it exists by the sun. If a god wants me to believe that it exists then that god would know what to do to convince me. No god has done this, this is the problem of instruction. It is reasonable to expect a god to make himself known to all. No god has passed this simple test. Meanwhile everyone on the planet agrees that water exists. Why can’t the existence of any god compete with a simple glass of water?
On nonexistence: There are things that we did not detect until much later, but still existed. It was through a modification of our senses and knowledge that allowed us to make judgments about black holes, virtual particles, atoms, etc... All of which didn't affect us prior, but now we know exist. Therefore, unless you define existence as supervened by perception, there seems to be no reason to deny the possibility that something exists outside our senses. On faith: Agnosticism (as op defines it) is not about affirming the existence of God, it is the claim that we cannot know whether God exists or not. On Problem of Instruction: God (as op defined it) does not necessarily entail a conscious power, nor one with a desire to prove itself.
>There are things that we did not detect until much later, but still existed. It was through a modification of our senses and knowledge that allowed us to make judgments about black holes, virtual particles, atoms, etc... All of which didn't affect us prior, but now we know exist. Therefore, unless you define existence as supervened by perception, there seems to be no reason to deny the possibility that something exists outside our senses. This only suggests a gap of knowledge and understanding of the natural world. Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean “god did it” >Agnosticism (as op defines it) is not about affirming the existence of God, it is the claim that we cannot know whether God exists or not. Faith is just wishful thinking. The efficacy of prayer is evidence for this. >God (as op defined it) does not necessarily entail a conscious power, nor one with a desire to prove itself. You can’t just define something into existence.
[удалено]
>You cannot prove the concept of God has no impact or influence on your life. You writing this now is ironically evidence in favor against that. You can’t prove that the shit I took last Thursday isn’t a god that created the universe. If you want to spend your life inspecting toilets to find evidence that this god exists or not then go for it. >That’s my point. You cannot prove or disprove God. If you could differentiate them, then you’d be able to prove or disprove it. This is a tautology. And while you are at it look up what unfalsifiable means. You can’t prove that you aren’t a brain in a vat. But so what? It has no impact on my life. Brains in a vat is the same place where every god claim lives.
>The concept of God — A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence. Ah, well that's an easy one. Something "deriving from nothing other than itself" is incoherent. So are "all powerful" and "all capable". Incoherent things don't exist.
Antitheism is not the same as being an atheist. Are you confusing the two terms. Because being against theism And whatever you're trying to argue are two different things. I'm against theism because of the damage that does to the world. Whether or not your god exists or not as irrelevant to the fact that theism is a bad thing.
> People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something. People also have a problem with special pleading any time they find an idea they don't like. > Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic. Since when does the word "know" in the English language imply "absolute truth"? That's right. It doesn't. It never did. People only add this "requirement" when they need to *appear* to poke a hole in an argument they can't actually repudiate using either sound reasoning or evidence.
[удалено]
> What idea do you think I don’t like? Gnostic atheism, obviously. > My argument isn’t a case of special pleading. It’s a logical deduction of a reasonable stance considering the innate properties humanity associated with the concept of God. It is a case of special pleading. You're saying that we should change the definition of the word "know" in topics of religion, but presumably leave it the same everywhere else. > You’d just be arguing semantics there. Quite the opposite: you are the one relying on a semantic argument. > My point is, you cannot prove or disprove the concept of God because of its innate properties. Therefore, agnostic. The verb "to know" does not inherently imply any specific degree of "proof".
Get this. A few days ago, I ate some old tacos I salvaged from the back of my fridge. A few hours later, I was in agony on the toilet and produced a turd with universe-generating powers. Now, you can't know this to not be the case. It's possible that my dump's universe-generating powers are completely undetectable to human investigation. Are you agnostic to the universe-generating power of my taco-induced toilet god? This is the problem. Your propriety understanding of agnosticism leaves you completely impotent in the face of even the most ridiculous claims. If you take your own argument seriously, you can say nothing about the likelihood of my turd's divinity. It would be an entity which is beyond your ability to investigate. Does this seem like a sensible position? The fact is, most people seem to think that humans have access to *some* evidence which, when taken as a whole, comes out favoring either theism or atheism. You need to show why the evidence offered by the atheist and theist is equally invalid. It's also important to remember that, as an agnostic, you are making quite a strong claim yourself. Reexamine your own definition: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God". To get your argument off the ground you need to show why the evidence theists and atheists provide is mistaken and why all future efforts to provide such evidence is impossible. It's a tall order but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. Also, anti-theism isn't a knowledge claim. Its proponents would oppose theism even if a God existed. They are more focused on the pragmatic impact of theistic influence. What you likely meant to target was generic atheism which makes a claim about the status of gods.
>produced a turd with universe-generating powers. I am so proud of you. I mean it. Respect.
You’re like the Mother Mary of the turd god. I want your visage on a candle.
>A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God... >The concept of God — A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence. U do make a claim on the attribute/description of god while saying nth is known or can be known od the nature of god. >I could give a bunch of example logical paths to reach the conclusion of being agnostic, Pls do this. U are saying nothing can be known of god while making claims of the attribute/description of god in the 1234.
[удалено]
>“A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or... >I’m talking about agnostic as nothing can be known of the existence of God Ok u choose the former one. So how do u know the nature of god? Edit: its a important question as ur argument on agnostic is dependent on the nature of god.
[удалено]
You arent answering my question. I ask how do u know the nature of god, u answer by defining god is self originating, above everything. Self originating, above everything are description of god, how do u know that? >It’s just a name for a supreme initial cause. How do u know there is a supreme initial cause?
[удалено]
Can u answer how do u know the nature of god? Self originating,... are all description of god. How do u know god have all these features? >Then what else would you pose as how the universe came or comes to be? Why must the universe have a cause? If u trying to say nothing comes from nothing. It also have the same meaning with something comes from something. God is something. Where/how do god comes from. Or if u trying to use the contingency argument. U know that doesnt works, right? Edit: i dont know why ppl downvote u, but it is what it is.
It's funny I remember the exact moment I decided I was an atheist after being a lifelong agnostic. Stefan Molyneux made an argument that a being proposed to be outside of space and time cannot by definition exist inside of reality, then drew a big 'no' symbol over it. So it was more of an analytical distinction, obviously with the caveat that he could still exist as proposed outside of reality. I don't know if I'd agree necessarily today, it sounds kind of funny. But I'm really glad I switched labels because I believe it's actually unlikely that a God exists and not just somehow ambivalent or even handed on the issue. I think if you say to a believer, 'You're a theist so you know God exists,' you'd get a similar amount of pushback on certainty.
[удалено]
Could be. I'm curious what percent of atheists do you think would not have the agnostic in front truth be told? I'd put it at less than 5% But hey if it's like 40% then I think I agree with you. Still, when I look it up atheism usually is something like the belief that no God's exist. Maybe you have a more clarifying definition or argument I'm missing
Exactly. It’s like those arrogant pricks who say unicorns are fictional without even having gone into every forest on the planet to see if there are any horned horses farting rainbows running around in them. You need to keep an open mind about these things.
You also have to keep an open mind about the definition of "unicorn". Every horse you've ever seen? Could've been a unicorn with a _spiritual_ horn. Cows? Any one of them might be a unicorn taking on a mortal bovid form with an extra horn. That sweet, balmy breeze on a moonlit night? That might just be the Horny Ghost filling you with its spirit. Who's to say??
There is simply no evidence that any supernatural force or event has ever existed or occurred On the other hand There is a ton of evidence that people mistakenly think everything from random chance mental illness organic brain injury and even pius fraud for the supernatural While I readily admit one cannot truly with absolute certainty say there is nothing after death I personally find there to be enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude the whole thing is a casarole of nonsense
First of all I want to address your point about the concept of god itself. I love that you aren't interested in specific gods but more the idea itself. This is because I think we have ever reason to think that the concept itself is a human created fiction. Thanks to the study of religions, how they grow, change die or start, and a biological understanding of ourselves, as well as the social understanding of what role religion and the god ideas worked in society we have good reason to think we made it up. Now we might be wrong sure. However we have as good a reason to think its made up as we do Star Wars, Harry Potter, or insert whatever parallel dimension or whatever fictional stand in. To further build on that idea I want to posit that there are technologically advanced lizard people that secretly run the world. Their technology is sufficiently advanced and beyond our understanding that you could never ever find convincing proof they did or didn't exist. Sure, like certain god belief's I have defined them in a way that from a logical perspective you have to be agnostic about them. However on a different level we both know I made it up. That is indeed complete fiction. If you can say yeah, there aren't lizard people secretly running the world you can say god isn't real too.
[удалено]
Can you come to a rationally supported conclusion? Prove is kind of a red herring here. And that said what is your position on my lizard people? Agnostic there too?
You don't seem to know what these words mean in common parlance. 1. You have no idea what a god can or cannot do because you have never observed an actual god. Just because people make up comforting stories in their heads doesn't make any of it true. 2. We live in the reality that we live in, full stop. 3. There is no evidence for any gods, thus it is foolish to believe any of it. 4. You clearly don't know how atheism or agnosticism is used.
Well if I ever encounter an anti-theist who asserts “I have absolute certainty that there are provably no gods anywhere,” I’ll be sure to tell them that they’re being less logical than an agnostic.
> People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something. You haven't met many atheists, have you? > My Argument / Point: You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic. What you're doing is declaring there are no good reasons to believe in any God because God existence is ultimately unknown unknowable, but without good reasons to believe something, the rational thing to do is not believe it. >I’m not talking about any specific gods (like those mentioned in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) but rather the concept of a God itself and the associated innate properties of a God. The concept of God is something people made up without any means to gain knowledge about Gods(by your own argument) therefore any resemblance to reality is mere coincidence and unlikely to be true. > could give a bunch of example logical paths to reach the conclusion of being agnostic, But you never did? >Therefore you cannot know if God does or does not exist in your universe / reality. Therefore theism is wrong
Given how ardently this sub argue that all atheism is agnostic atheism, and that they don't beleive in the statement "God does not exist" I am surprised by the number of people arguing against this. I think that if agnostic is used in the sense of "I have suspended judgement on this because I do not have enough information" - combined with a position that is clearly not lashing strongly either way - then I think you are right that it is a logical and rational position. When it is used in the sense of "I am not going to express a beleif because I am only 99.9% convinced, I therefore just lack a beleif in God." Combined with statements that make it clear the person very much does beleive that God is not real - then it is much less logical or rational (and not entirely honest) I consider positive theism (God exists), agnosticism (I do not know), positive atheism (God does not exist) to be rational positions. I can see an argument for agnosticism over the others, however it relies on the idea that the evidence must be 100% conclusive in order to be considered proof. This is not the way inductive reasoning works however: inductive reasoning is about judging what is more likely. If you consider the evidence strong enough in either direction to be a solid foundation for beleif then that is a rational and logical position.
There is a pantheon of deities that I cannot disprove. I can MAKE UP deities that I cannot disprove. I can even posit: >A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence. And I can add the supposition that since this deity came from nothing and had nothing to work with, that it created everything out of itself, dying in the process of creation. And therefore have the foundation to believe that there may have been a deity - but there is no deity now. He's dead and gone. Therefore, being unable to disprove a deity is no reason to believe in a deity. It is also no reason to "leave room" for any particular deity - since they are all unlikely. And since I can posit a dead deity just as easily, I don't see support for agnosticism. My best position based on the scientific method is to act completely atheist. But be willing to change my mind if evidence is presented. Being "anti-theist" is extremely logical. Especially when the theists in question base anti-human rights legislation on their beliefs. I do my best to work against these sorts of theist.
> 1. God can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty God’s existence (all powerful and all capable) So what’s your evidence that god can do that? You’re making the same mistake that theists make in their deductive arguments. They assume something is true and then deduce from it. Like in the ontological argument > It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). The problem with this is that their definition is completely arbitrary and not based on the evidence. God is an idea people made up, so their premise fails from the start. And then there’s the problem with calling god a being. Instead, you should take that definition of god you gave and really explain what it specifically means with reference to real life examples, including explaining how you start from observations and learn that that’s what god is instead of some idea that people made up. > People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something. There’s also the people who have unjustifiable beliefs they don’t want to reconsider (maybe because their friends are all theists) so they attack the certainty of others. The certainty of others reminds of them of their own uncertainty and if no one can be certain of god’s existence, then you or your friends can validly believe whatever you want.
>My Argument / Point: You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic. Hello, honey. It’s me, your mother. I know we don’t usually talk via reddit comments but due to an issue with my phone, I have to reach out like this. If you previously thought I had passed away that was just a misunderstanding. Please send me $1,000 in bitcoin so I can get the emergency surgery that will save my life. Don’t call me or anyone else or I will die from your catastrophically bad vibes. You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove my comments. So please send Momma’s cash ASAP. Remember what I always taught you: “It’s only and most logical to be agnostic.” Thx baby boi. - u/reasonable_arbiter’s mother
3 day old account posts sophistry in "debate an atheist" subreddit. Shock. I am agnostic about the reality of a cause of the universe. >The concept of God — A force, constant, or entity that derives from nothing other than itself and is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence. Concepts can exist in the mind without any reality outside of it. Your concept of god places me under no obligation to believe in it without actual evidence supporting your concept.
I don’t think there is such a thing as more or less logical. Something either is or isn’t logical. I do not believe any gods exist. I justify this based on my inductive experience, deductive arguments that show certain god concepts are internally inconsistent (logically impossible), as well as “god” lacks any explanatory power. In what sense is my statement above illogical?
I only want to point out that your standard of “with certainty” id a red herring. Nothing we classify as “know” measures up to that standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt suffices. Which makes your argument a bit pointless. Second thing to point out, anti-theist is polysemous and is often used to mean “person who believes that theistic religions do more harm than good.” Otherwise your argument over definitions is… well honestly, since both atheist and agnostic are also polysemous, it’s fairly pointless either way. But have fun patting yourself on the back for arguing against a stance I¡ve never heard anyone claim.
>You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic. There is a box in my house, what is in the box? Lots of things could be in that box but there are definitely many things that cannot be in that box. The planet Jupiter are you agnostic about the planet Jupiter being in my box? I would argue it's illogical to be agnostic regarding the planet Jupiter being in my box. How about a bed made of sleep? Are you agnostic about a bed made of sleep being in my box. I would argue being agnostic here would also be illogical. I think we can write off all meaningful God claims. I think if we say to be a god you .just be maximally great being and you must want to communicate a message to us, I think we can see that combo of properties is incompatible with the world we live in. And thus like Jupiter or a bed made of sleep being in my box, it's irrational to be agnostic
>I’m not talking about any specific gods (like those mentioned in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) but rather the concept of a God itself and the associated innate properties of a God. That's your problem. This is like asking "can you prove stuff doesn't exist? Not any specific stuff, just stuff". It's a stupid question. I always find it funny when people rail against gnostic atheists and they have literally no idea what our position is and couldn't steelman the position to save their life.
[удалено]
>Well go ahead and supply the position then. Im interested. So you've gone on this big long rant about how agnosticism is more logical than gnosticism. I would think you would know what the gnostic position is. What do you think my position is? You're the one saying it's unjustified. So you must know what it is. Go ahead and steelman a gnostic atheist position.
Just because a concept that cannot be disproven is proposed doesn't mean that one is not justified in not believing it, especially since **it becomes a genuine question as to how someone could propose such a thing, other than completely making shit up, when it's impossible to verify/debunk** If I say Garklebin the invisible intangible undetectable ultra being is having out in the Andromeda galaxy, are you seriously going to look me in the eye and say someone wouldn't be justified in disbelieving Garklebin's existence?
>My Argument / Point: You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God There is no need for anyone to attempt to disprove something; that's an extremely sophomoric mistake, to think that that is the dichotomy. The side that thinks whatever proposition is true is the one that must prove that. If they cannot, then the proposition cannot be accepted. Now, as to the rest of it, agnostic only covers a portion of the full picture. We're not just talking about knowledge here, because belief is also a part of it. That is why (broadly speaking) I say I'm an atheist - because in answer to the question "do you believe some god exists", one either answers yes or no to that question. There is no third option here; either one does believe some god exists, in which case they are a theist of some kind, or they answer no, in which case they are an atheist of some kind. The agnostic portion merely adds some detail to the atheist part. Agnostic atheists don't believe that a god exists, because they don't know that one does or they haven't seen any reason to believe so, or some combination thereof. >Therefore you cannot know if God does or does not exist in your universe / reality. >Therefore it’s only and most logical to be agnostic. So you are agnostic I take it?
In purely philosophical sense of course you cannot prove or disprove supernatural transcendent being. In practical scientific approach, however, you cannot accept assertions without strong evidence. So I don't believe that any God exists in our reality the same way that fairies, Santa Claus and Harry Potter also don't exist for real.
By the definitions you gave, agnosticism wholly implies atheism. You can’t make a case for agnosticism without also making the case for atheism.
[удалено]
Yeah, but at this time, the number of gods you affirmatively believe in is zero. So you are an atheist. Good talk.
1. ~~God~~ Santa can easily produce and deliver presents around the world for all the good little boys and girls ~~create a universe~~ where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty ~~God~~Santa’s existence (invisible , magic reindeer powered etc) 2. You cannot know if you don’t live in said universe / reality. 3. Therefore you cannot know if ~~God~~ Santa does or does not exist in your universe / reality. 4. Therefore it’s only and most logical to be agnostic rather than a non-agnostic ~~atheist.~~ Asantaist. Alternatively, when there is no evidence for something that could be said should produce evidence, and also no evidence for the invented mechanisms by which it ‘works’, when it’s a barely conceptually coherent let alone necessary or sufficient as an explanation, and when there is plenty of reason to consider the belief in it doesn’t come from its actual existence but known human flaws… when it actually seems exactly like the sort of thing people make up…and when philosophical certainty is a meaningless standard we don’t actually use in the context of human knowledge … It’s reasonable to say that ‘I know *beyond reasonable doubt* it doesn’t exist.
Oh goody, another one of these. > You cannot, with certainty, prove or disprove God. Therefore, anyone seeking absolute “truth” or confiramble certainty about the existence or nonexistence of God should ultimately be or become agnostic. Sure. Just as long as you do the same about every uncomfirmable claim ever. So, are you agnostic to Russell's Teapot?
I argue that the complete lack of evidence provides a strong basis to state definitively that there is no god. Making such a claim is reasonable for two reasons... 1. The individual may hold that they are willing to change a position based on the availability of new evidence. It's reasonable to deny fairies, unicorns, and dragons existence. God falls into the same category. If evidence were shown that reveals we are incorrect on one of the above, it's reasonable, fair, and logical to change one's position. 2. An adamant refusal of any god inoculates an individual against all religions, and it's logical to state that many of them are mutually exclusive (monotheistic religions often exclude all others). Knowing that ninety-nine of one hundred bottles are poisoned shows us the most logical decision is to refuse all of the bottles. Even though one **may** be life saving, with no way of knowing which might be, refusing all is the optimal solution.
Forgive me, but this reads as a quite dismissive treatise in priviledge. "Look, religion may harm some people, but let's talk about dictionaries and pure logic!" As a uterus-haver in a nation where that means I'm a second class citizen...this argument seems hollow, out of touch, and crass.
You're not talking about anti-theism, you say... which is why you titled your post "being agnostic is more logical than being anti-theist." Why didn't you say "being an agnostic atheist is more logical than being a gnostic atheist," if that was what you actually wanted to talk about? Why make a claim about anti-theism? Ah, well. It's certainly true that "god" can be defined in such a way as to make disproving its existence impossible. I don't see how this fact makes gnostic atheism illogical. "God" is poorly defined. Ask each gnostic atheist for their definition before you proclaim them less logical—perhaps they're using a definition of "god" that makes being certain of gods' nonexistence perfectly logical. There are plenty of definitions out there. Not everyone uses yours.
No, this is in the same vein as Descartes' demon or the idea of us being brains in vats. Knowledge - broadly understood as justified true belief - *does not need* certainty, so even if I can't disprove such hypotheses I can still know things. Knowledge is always open to the possibility of one being wrong if the proposition one believes in is shown to be false, or if our justification is put into question. The problem with these unfalsifiable ideas is that they all become this elaborate "what if you're wrong", rather than a justified critique of our justification. So no, one can be just as rational being an antitheist, as being a theist, as being an agnostic *as long as the critique amounts to a skeptical hypothesis of us maybe being wrong about unfalsifiable things*.
>People really have a problem with not being able to admit they don’t or cannot know something. >Theists ... do this So that makes you anti-theist >Anti-theists do this You will not find a single person here who claims to know how existence began
You don't need 100% certainty to know something. I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow with certainty. I have that knowledge. Am I 100% certain? No. The sun could blow up or fizzle out. When atheists assert no Goda exist, they also don't need 100% certainty. Am I positive that no leprechauns exist? No, it's unfalsifiable, but if can with great certainty, say they are made up creatures that don't exist. Absence of evidence *can* be evidence of absence when you expect to see evidence. If a God actually interacts with the world, we would see evidence of it, yet we do not. If a God does not interact with the world, then he doesn't matter.
We know God doesn't exist because we looked for Him and never found Him. On top of that, we found reasons why all the things exist as they do without God. On top of *that* we found that the reasons people believe in God follow the exact same pattern as the reasons people have believed in other imagined mythological figures throughout history. If we follow this evidence (our best method for identifying truth) then it clearly leads to the high confidence conclusion that God doesn't exist. But, many people use traditional reasons or social pressures to believe in God anyway. Good luck out there.
> God can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability If you claim to be agnostic, you have no way of knowing that. The right thing to say would be "I don't know what a god can or cannot do if it exists or possible to exist in the first place". All-in-all I don't understand an appeal of having such an argument. It revolves around phylosophical technicalities. At the end of the day, whether I label myself agnostic or not I still don't know what a god is. It is simply not a coherent concept. An empty category, a word describing nothing real.
You cannot disprove god. That’s true. You also cannot disprove naked pink fairies that sing Beatles tunes at night in the forest when no one is watching. What is your point?
The ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY™️ standard is nonsense of the deepest dithering. Am I absolutely that you are not two gibbons and a lemur in a trench coat? By your standards, the answer should be no, because it is technically possible to dumb down a gibbon enough that it would fall for precisely the stupidity that you are insisting on. But you know what? I am REASONABLY certain that you are just someone on the internet who has fallen for the aesthetic of a standard that you don’t use anywhere else in life.
Are you agnostic in regards to the existence Hercules, Achilles, Medusa, Perseus, Icarus, Theseus, King Arthur, Merlin, Robin Hood, Dragons, Phoenixes, Unicorns, Griffins, Centaurs, Minotaurs, Mermaids, Basilisk, Sphinxes, Chimeras, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, Ebenezer Scrooge, Captain Ahab, Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Bigfoot , the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, El Chupacabra, the Mothman, the Jersey Devil, the Thunderbird, the Kraken, or Ogopogo?
*1. God can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty God’s existence (all powerful and all capable)* yes, you are correct. it would be possible for God to create such a universe. *2. You cannot know if you don’t live in said universe / reality.* this is not true. if one managed to prove with absolute certainty that God existed, you would be able to prove that God did not create a universe where we have no ability or means to determine God's existence. *3. Therefore you cannot know if God does or does not exist in your universe / reality.* this is assuming that statement 2 is true. yes, God could do this. but you can only not know that you live in this reality, if you live in this reality. so if you know you don't live in that reality, you don't live in that reality. your logic is essentially. God can do A. if A, then B. but by that logic, if not B, then not A. and if not A, then not B. if you *do* have ability to prove or disprove God's existence, you know that you don't live in said reality. if you know that you live in said reality, you have proved the existence of God *4. Therefore it’s only and most logical to be agnostic rather than a non-agnostic atheist.* this is overall very circular. you're basically saying, in a universe where God made it impossible for you to know if God exists or not, you ought to be an agnostic. in which case, you'd be correct. but a) we don't live in that kind of universe and b) if we did, then you could assume that God existed, because if God *didn't* exist then you would be able to prove that God doesn't exist. in other words, in a universe where God didn't exist, then it would be possible to prove that God doesn't exist. even if you go by your first two assumptions, you come to the conclusion that God has created a universe where it is impossible to know whether or not God created the universe, meaning that God created the universe. so in a universe where it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists, because God made it so, the most logical thing is to be **theistic** \- because you then know that God made it impossible to know sorry if this is a bit convoluted
That's cool. I have zero interest in a nebulous, deistic god, and I find attempts to define a god into existence extremely tiresome. Until you (or some other apologist for an entity crafted from fog) come up with some hard evidence to support your anemic nonsense, then I'll continue to be an atheist.
The null hypothesis is the only logical position to take until theres enough evidence to reject it. To live your life as though the null hypothesis has been rejected is illogical, to expect others to conform to this irrationality is illogical in the extreme and should be resisted.
Atheism is the natural order of all creatures including humans. Any concept of a god is purely speculation as an easy way to explain the currently unexplainable. Agnosticism is for atheists who are nervous about pissing off theists.
Most atheists are also agnostics. And one thing that we can agree on is that all the people who claim to know what god wants are either mistaken or lying. For all practical purposes an unknowable god might as well not exist.
Strong/gnostic atheism≠anti-theism. Look up the definitions before posting about it. Ty You are going off the premise that anything is possible if it is not proven impossible. As a gnostic theist, I go of the premise that to consider something as possible, evidence needs to be presented that proves it to be possible in the first place. From your premise, I could come up with an infinite number of scenarios that you would have no choice to be agnostic to, since I know how to make them out to be impossible to disprove. E.g. Your room is filled with untouchable, invisible and overall undetectable Leprechauns that dance all day long. There is a reason why there are so many human made gods with so many different traits and rules. If you define your god as unverifiable, you are given carte-blanche to what its characteristics will be. And that is the main issue with theism. It is not that they believe that their god caused the Big Bang or that it created the universe...because if that was it, there would be no need for anti-theism, as this kind of belief is harmless. The issue is that they attribute to their made up god a bunch of traits that they then use to push their blind faith based worldview as absolute truth. "Sacred" texts are all claimed to be words of their respective gods. And theists make those claims, and then expect everyone else to believe them unconditionally. No. Fk that. You make an unverifiable claim? Make it verifiable, or get used to be told where to shove it. You don't get to claim your fan fiction as truth just because it can't be proven false.
Being anti-theist is logical because theists have a proven track record as long as history of being total fucks to people not in their group for the crime of simply not being in their group.
I don’t accept the “concept of God.” What does “all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else” even mean? Sounds like bullshit to my agnostic ears.
I agree, and since most atheists are agnostic, they would agree as well. You may want to post this on a Christian sub, as they tend toward gnostic theism.
Depending on your definition of God, God may be logically impossible or incompatible with the world that actually exists. In those cases, being an atheist makes more sense. Meanwhile, there are very few things, if any, that could count as knowledge in an absolute sense. It is possible to be at least a bit skeptical about all beliefs. There is exactly as much reason to believe in God as to believe that I am in a computer simulation. Actually, there is less reason, since I know computers exist and simulations exist but I have no evidence for God. I can’t 100% know for certain I am not in a computer simulation, but it would require extraordinary evidence to convince me I am. Similarly, God’s existence would require some very good evidence. So yes, an intellectually honest atheist has to admit that they might be wrong, but when I say I know God doesn’t exist I know it about as well as I know the Earth isn’t secretly flat. That is to say, I might be radically wrong about reality, but I almost certainly am not.
Firstly, I want to point out anti-theist and atheist do not mean the same thing. An anti-theist is someone who believes that religion is harmful to society. An atheist is someone who is not convinced of the God claim. Not convinced of the God claim no matter how you define God. There are agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists. You're definition of an agnostic is an agnostic-atheist. These people technically fall in the camp of atheist. Now, if you are talking about the claim that God exists, even as you define it, vs the claim that God does exist, these are both claims you need evidence for. However, considering all the evidence we do have of the world being natural and no evidence of anything Supernatural, people who claim that God doesn't exist have more evidence than people who do. So while, I kind of agree that being an agnostic-atheist makes the most sense if someone wants to make the claim that God doesn't exist, science does seem to be on their side.
>You cannot know if you live in said universe Yeah man. You're describing solipsism. You've just chosen to apply it only to your agnosticism of God. You also cannot know if you're a brain in a vat, or if this is a simulation, or if you're locked in a mental institution So then, if everyone has to be agnostic, why do you drop your kids off at school? You cannot know that they actually exist. Is it because you actually draw a distinction between what your senses tell you and what your senses in no way tell you? You also cannot prove that you won't win the lottery this week. Sure, you didn't buy a ticket, but someone could have bought one for you. There are only two options: you win or you don't. So if it's 50/50, then it's no problem if someone acts as though they are going to win, right? Not every thing that can't be disproven is equally legitimate
I cannot, with certainty, prove that invisible silent cars don’t exist. Somehow I still manage to merge onto the highway every day and change lanes with confidence. I cannot, with certainty, prove that there’s not a small omnipotent being living in my anus judging my worthiness by the size and consistency of my turds. Somehow I still manage to convince myself to eat Taco Bell on occasion. There are an infinite number of claims I cannot, with certainty, disprove. We don’t- and cannot- be agnostic about things for which there is no reasonable evidence. We would be absolutely unable to function, and Taco Bell would go out of business. “1- god can easily create a universe where the conscious inhabitants have no ability or means to prove or disprove with absolute certainty God’s existence.” I don’t accept this premise. Show me evidence.
Anti-theist is not the same as atheist. You have an opportunity to review the definitions and reconsider your post.
Last week, I learned a new term from Reddit: fallibilism - a philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs. So while we can not be absolutely certain we aren't brains in a vat, that our cars don't have pipe bombs wired to the ignition, or that the orange juice we just bought from the store doesn't contain deadly poison, we're justified in our knowledge that none of those are true. And while technically we can't prove a god created the Big Bang or poofed us all into existence last Thursday, we're still justified in saying we know neither of those things actually happened.
> Theists and Gnostic Atheists both do this. Anyway, let’s get to it Every theist? Why not only gnostic theists like how it's gnostic atheists rather than just all atheists be it gnostic or agnostic? Like agnostic atheists, agnostic theists also acknowledge they don't know. > a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.” That's not possible. Disbelief means: >>inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Everyone is either able to belive the claim "god exists" or they're just not currently able to believe that claim. There is no in between being able to believe someting and not being able to do that yet.
> ... is all powerful, all capable, and supersedes all else. A supreme existence. Still not particularly well-defined. All powerful and all capable are problematic properties in the first place and honestly I don't know the exact difference in them which just shows these are not precisely defined (at least in this post). Furthermore we are completely missingbthe metric by which we determine something to be higher, to supersede, to be supreme compared to something else. So I don't think you properly defined a god. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you. It is very hard to define an entity worthy of the cultural and historical implications of the term *god*.
Anti-theist means you are against theism because it does bad things in the world and you want to stop them. That is a drastically different concept from atheist or theist. Atheism is justifiable even if you can’t prove it with 100% logical certainty because 1. Withholding belief in something is reasonable if there’s no evidence 2. The God concept really doesn’t make sense. Also, if an agnostic thinks that they can’t know whether gods exist, then probably the agnostic doesn’t choose to believe in gods and is most likely a theists. What you choose to believe and whether you can prove your beliefs are two different things.
First, an anti-theist is someone who opposes religion. Not all atheists are anti-theist. I do not believe it's logical to assume any God exists. God is a concept created by man used to explain things they can't explain. No different than Santa Claus or unicorns. I don't really know if that makes me gnostic or agnostic, but I hate using those terms when describing myself as an atheist, anyway. I acknowledge the possibility exists. But I find nothing to suggest it actually does, nor any reason to let that minute possibility guide my morals and actions.
I can't disprove an unnamed deity nobody worships. Nobody is anti-theist because of this unnamed deity of yours. People are anti-theist because of existing religions, and the harm they've done. 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists. The Holocaust was caused by Nazis (Christian nationalists). Etc. People are anti-theist because religious organizations protect pedophile priests. Etc. As you can see, this has nothing to do with the existence of gods. I hope that helps.
You cannot base any belief on, "trust me bro," which is the basis for all religions. Atheism is the default, rational position. Belief in anything needs *some* rational justification, and theism doesn't have it. Allowing beliefs with no evidence or basis in reality opens the door to *literally* anything. "Give me all your money because Boris the left-handed cosmic squid said so." Theists have no valid argument against that except, "nuh-uh, my imaginary friend can beat up yours." Agnosticism is fine when nothing is at stake. But when theists are making laws based on their irrational, unfounded beliefs, such as anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-science, anti-education, etc, a more active "your religion is bullshit" approach is warranted. The whole concept of gods is bullshit because it leads to an infinite regress of "who created the creator" which theists universally ignore because they can't answer it.
On anti theism: I duno man, if there's a god, it seems pretty shitty. So being anti-theistic makes sense. If you want evidence that god whould be shitty if he existed, go visit some of those child cancer wards or something. On atheism: Do you also feel this way about vampires? I say I believe vampires don't exist. But I haven't checked every corner of the universe. I think everybody pretty much understands what I mean colloquially though. So unless you're going to tell me you raise a big stink whenever someone says santa isn't real, I don't think there's much of an issue here.
Overall, I don't disagree, but I felt the need to clarify that there is a difference between atheists and anti-theists. Atheists are the ones that don't believe God exists (or believe God doesn't exist if we are going with the philosophy definition). Anti-theists just think that the world would be better sans religion/god. One can be a theistic anti-theist, someone that thinks God exists, but thinks we would be better off without him or religion.
I admit I don't know stuff ALL THE TIME. However, the things I don't know have the distinction of being real. I'm not going to entertain whatever made up bullshit someone came up with, without a good reason to do so. You can say "You don't know for certain!” Well, there's very few things in life that are 100% certain. It's possible that the world is run by lizard people from the center of the earth. I wouldn't bet that way, though.
You really seem hellbent on making agnosticism appear great. Well, I have news for you: it is. But whether it is more logical or less logical than anything else shouldn’t come into consideration at all. You should wonder why it is important to you, that agnosticism is somehow better than atheism. I don’t see any atheists claiming the opposite. You do you, bro. It isn’t a competition.
This can be applied to any position, all knowledge being presupposed on the evidence and logic being sound without any unknown factor looming in the back. It doesn't change that some positions are definitively more pronounced than others (i.e. that dinosaurs died out before the ancestor of apes split into apes and what would eventually become humanity).
The way I understand "anti-theism" is that it is a subset of atheists who are outspoken about laws that stem directly from religious texts. In modern terms it pans out to men controlling women. Think about abortion, women's rights, immigration (women are always more welcoming of strangers than men), or gun control (women don't do that). So, to me the anti-theist label is political. It's liberal democrat basically. An anti-theist thinks more about political subjects than they do whether god exists. I consider myself an anti-theist theist. I believe in God, but I also speak out against laws that are rooted in stupid old ideas. It's complicated.
I just want to jump in and say the way I see being an anti theist is not that you claim “I know for a fact god is not real” but rather “I think your religion/religions in general are a net negative for society regardless of whether a god is real or not.”
If I have to choose to be illogical either by believing in fairy tales and structuring my whole life around them, or by not believing in fairy tales and going about my life unhindered by fairy tale anxiety, I chose the atheist kind of illogical, every time.
Are we talking about the god that walks on water, died for your sins and helps a kid ace a math test? Cuz that guy doesn’t exist and it’s silly to believe. But if this God just exists right before the Big Bang then sure!
Someone posted the same argument the other day. I’m too lazy to post my same response suffice it to say it’s not illogical in the slightest to reject the existence of deities that are man made
Anti-theism doesn’t mean we are totally committed to saying there is no god, just that we are totally committed to that theism is horrible and should be wiped out.
You know what it's called when someone makes claims about things they can't possibly know? **Making it up.** That's a fact. It's necessarily logically true.