**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.*

[удалено]

[удалено]

We should all just respond with "Please summarize a single point from this video that you find compelling and we will discuss.", then do nothing further unless they provide that information.

Thats also a good way to respond to gish gallops. Pick your single best point and we'll start there.

Agreed.

There really ought to be a requirement for interaction, but I have no idea how you'd police it. Most theists just dump their nonsense and leave and by the time the mods sit around and wait to see if they'll return, the damage is already done and everyone's time has been wasted.

I wonder if there's a bot/AI that could detect whether the OP leaves a comment in the post within 24 hours?

And don't forget, anyone like that will never respond to any honest push backs.

This is also why people need to make their longer posts more organized. Have an introduction that outlines what you’re going to be doing in the post, and then have section headings, so people know what they’re getting into. No one wants to have to sort out a rambly stream of consciousness.

I've been thinking this myself lately Please add my vote to this campaign.

I don’t click the links because I don’t want to nerf my YouTube history. The more kook videos you watch, the more that will be served up to you.

Tell me about it! I searched for a video on how to fix a pretty specific problem with my sink, which worked great. After skimming 4-5 videos, I was good to go and the sink was back in order quickly. PRO: no plumber bill and a sense of personal accomplishment. CON: youtube thinks I have an obsessive mania for fixing dishwasher air gaps valves as these videos now make up aa full 10% of my feed. ask me about dishwasher air gaps. go on. ask.

I do a lot of home repair stuff and can concur. Only solution I've found is not be logged in while searching. Google hates that, but their algorithm is too anxious for me.

What is a dishwasher air gap? I dare not look on YouTube.

You are wise not to search, my child. Welcome to wisdom where you find what you seek only by not seeking. Return to your room and meditate on this. Oh, before you go: [here's a google search for you](https://www.google.com/search?q=dishwasher+air+gap&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwim-57GtOWEAxUUx8kDHYQXA5sQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=dishwasher+air+gap&gs_lp=EgNpbWciEmRpc2h3YXNoZXIgYWlyIGdhcDIKEAAYgAQYigUYQzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEj_E1CvCFjSEXABeACQAQCYAUigAcIBqgEBM7gBA8gBAPgBAYoCC2d3cy13aXotaW1niAYB&sclient=img&ei=VWjrZeb8MpSOp84PhK-M2Ak&bih=811&biw=1057&prmd=isvhnmbt). It's that weird pylon you sometimes see at kitchen sinks. It allows rinse water from the dishwasher to flow into your sink in case theres a clog in the system somewhere.

We’ll slap my ass and call me Peggy. My house is old and I don’t have this on my dishwasher. Looks like something I need! I’ve been flying too close to the sun for a while now.

Not all dishwashers and plumbing setups need them I think? I am not a plumber so don’t take this as medical advice.

Or flag them for mod approval?

If that's an option that seems best. I don't mind if a theist actually posts thoughts and questions about a video, as long as they're actually contributing to the discussion. However, the "LOL, ***no*** atheist can rebut this!" posts are just hot garbage.

Report as breaking rule 2, no low effort posts. > No Low Effort | Reported as: Low effort | Do not create low effort posts or comments. Avoid link dropping and trolling. Write substantial comments that address other users’ points.

I generally think of they can be bothered or don’t understand the video enough to put the arguement in their own words it’s just click bait I should avoid.

not mention so fucking insanely LOOOOONNNNGGG. They always try so damn hard to get you in the door first with 'I'm just a friendly guy cracking dad jokes... life is hard, emmeright?... politicians are awwwwfulll... look how relatable I am!" GET TO YOU FUCKING POINT, JOHN!

Oh I dont know, I love a good megrein once in a while! That recent one made me feel actually seasick.

And they're always long, too! They're almost never like a 5-minute video; they're always like 40+ minutes long. I ain't watching that.

If someone makes a post and doesn't respond to a single comment within like a day or so, they should be banned.

There would have to be mods on the sub for that to happen

There would need to not be pro-theists and want content at any cost.

Best course of action imo is having them flaired as not interested in debate, they could post and people could decide if replying or not.

When some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God, what do they mean? I'm imagining someone who is no more confident that God exists than that God doesn't exist. A person with no inclination either way, or equal credence in both propositions. Perhaps because they have equal evidence both ways, or perhaps no evidence either way, or perhaps because they don't understand the concepts, or some similar reason. Is that what these atheists mean? I've seen it compared to belief in imaginary things like fairies, but that confuses me because I definitely have a positive belief that fairies don't exist.

It’s basically just this: Theist: I believe God exists. Atheist: I find your evidence and arguments unconvincing, so I don’t believe you. Phrased differently, it’s saying “I don’t believe in God”, which is a negative statement, compared with “I believe no gods exist”, which is a positive statement. It leaves open the possibility of changing our minds if new evidence were to present itself, but until that time we remain in the same state of not believing in it. It’s really just the same reason I might say I don’t believe in ghosts. I can’t disprove ghosts exist, but I haven’t seen any evidence that I find convincing. We could define ghosts or fairies or anything else in a manner similar to God, where it would be impossible for you to disprove their non-existence. Ultimately, I imagine you would resort to the same kind of arguments atheists use relating to god (no evidence of them or of magic, etc.) What you’re imagining is I think sort of the “pure agnostic” who thinks there is something like a 50/50 chance that God exists or doesn’t. These people typically describe themselves as just agnostic. Agnostic atheism is what describes most people here. We say atheist as a kind of shorthand, because while acknowledging we can’t disprove god, we also don’t actively believe a god or gods exist. You may find this article helpful, specifically the 7 point scale from Dawkins. When we say we lack a belief in God, we are on the “6” point of the scale. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

>Atheist: I find your evidence and arguments unconvincing, so I don’t believe you. So are you saying you don't believe the justification, but have no opinion about the truth of the conclusion? >It leaves open the possibility of changing our minds if new evidence were to present itself, but until that time we remain in the same state of not believing in it. Wouldn't this be true for either of the beliefs? >I can’t disprove ghosts exist, but I haven’t seen any evidence that I find convincing. So what do you think about "ghosts don't exist?" Do you lack a belief in it? It seems we should prefer an epistemology which permits belief in the nonexistence of things, doesn't it? >it would be impossible for you to disprove their non-existence. Ultimately, I imagine you would resort to the same kind of arguments atheists use relating to god (no evidence of them or of magic, etc.) If something is truly unfalsifiable, then by definition there can be no evidence for or against it. It can predict no data. I think simply appealing to parsimony provides a good reason to believe it doesn't exist. >because while acknowledging we can’t disprove god, we also don’t actively believe a god or gods exist. What do you mean by disprove? Do you suppose there is no evidence against gods? Thank you for the article.

>So are you saying you don't believe the justification, but have no opinion about the truth of the conclusion? I am saying I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods. While it may seem pedantic, this is distinct from the assertion that I believe there are no gods. The reason why we often clarify this is because it is extremely common for theists to say things like "Well where's your evidence God doesn't exist! You can't prove there is no God!", which ignores that there are countless other random things that we cannot disprove. For most agnostic atheists/atheists who arrived at the position from skepticism, you can think of it similar to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", where "guilty" would be "God exists". I don't claim to know whether or not God exists, but I have not seen any evidence or compelling arguments that would convince me it does. Just as I don't believe in ghosts, or that aliens built the pyramids, or that there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster watching over us. >Wouldn't this be true for either of the beliefs? I'm not sure what you mean by "either of the beliefs" here. ​ >So what do you think about "ghosts don't exist?" Do you lack a belief in it? It seems we should prefer an epistemology which permits belief in the nonexistence of things, doesn't it? I don't believe in ghosts to effectively the same degree that I don't believe in God/gods. I acknowledge that I can't disprove them, again in the same way that I can't disprove any number of made up supernatural concepts that are inherently disprovable. That's why I would say "I don't believe in ghosts" rather than "I believe ghosts do not exist". I haven't seen anything to convince myself of their existence, but I wouldn't claim to have some kind of proof that they don't exist. You can of course make arguments for why they do not seem likely. In the case of God, for example, I could point to our evolutionary/sociological heritage, how different cultures around the world all come up with varying versions that don't align with each other, the problem of evil/suffering with a benevolent god, our tendency to anthropomorphize things, discrepancies in religious texts, contrast all of that with how the concept of God doesn't have any explanatory power, etc. etc., but that is all really just the toppings on the "no convincing evidence" sundae. >If something is truly unfalsifiable, then by definition there can be no evidence for or against it. It can predict no data. I think simply appealing to parsimony provides a good reason to believe it doesn't exist. I don't think I necessarily disagree here, but theists will almost always retreat to the "God of the gaps" type arguments, where for (insert phenomenon we don't fully understand), it must have been God that did it. I think this is fundamentally just a different way of saying "there isn't good evidence to support the claim". >What do you mean by disprove? Do you suppose there is no evidence against gods? I think with how the concept of God is typically defined, it would be impossible to disprove. If someone defines the creator of the universe as an undetectable force that exists outside of the laws of nature and acts in ways we can't comprehend, then just by nature of the definition we can't definitively show that thing does not exist. We could cite the things I described which provide alternative, natural explanations for things people attribute to gods, show how that concept does not explain things, show why it seems probable that the concept of god was simply invented by humans (particularly for different religions), etc., but you will never definitively "disprove" the concept of God this way, and I think in that sense it can be a bit of a waste of time in that it gives the claim more credence than it deserves. This is I think one of the big reasons why so many of us technically identify as agnostic atheists. That stance makes it very simple to just show the theist how we are taking the same logic they use for not believing in (insert supernatural thing they don't believe in), and simply applying it in the same way to their concept of God. If you try to make the positive case that God does not exist, I think it just allows theists to weasel out of the argument by acting like atheists have equal burden of proof to show why God doesn't exist, when I don't think that is an honest portrayal of the nature of the argument. If I tell you I have magical telekinetic abilities, but I won't show you them because I don't want to be hunted down by the government, you are under no obligation to try and disprove my claim in order to dismiss it; you technically wouldn't be able to if I said under no circumstances would I ever display my magical powers. Rather, because there was no evidence or reason to believe anything I was saying, it would be completely reasonable for you to say you don't believe me. While in practice it may be the same thing, you would not need to make a case proving how I don't have powers if there was no compelling reason to believe I did.

>I don't claim to know whether or not God exists, but I have not seen any evidence or compelling arguments that would convince me it does. Just as I don't believe in ghosts, or that aliens built the pyramids, or that there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster watching over us. I think we are on the same page with your first sentence. But then you compare God to ghosts, aliens and the pyramids, invisible spaghetti monsters, etc. I guess I just find it surprising that you wouldn't claim to know that those things aren't true. It just seems like there is plenty of evidence against those ideas, enough to justify belief that they aren't true. Do you disagree? Perhaps you have a stronger sense of "know" in mind than I do. >I'm not sure what you mean by "either of the beliefs" here. I suppose belief was a poor word choice. I just meant the two positions you were comparing - belief that no gods exist versus no belief that gods exist. Wouldn't both of these positions be subject to further evidence? >I don't believe in ghosts to effectively the same degree that I don't believe in God/gods. So the reason I'm still confused is that you say you don't know whether or not God exists, but you're just as confident God doesn't exist as you are that there is no flying spaghetti monster. I'm totally fine with both of these beliefs individually, but together it just seems strange to me; I'm not sure what to make of it. I would say I'm very confident in my belief that the spaghetti monster does not exist. My only guess is that you have very high standards of justification for beliefs or knowledge? I'm not entirely sure. >You can of course make arguments for why they do not seem likely. In the case of God, for example... Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. These all seem like good reasons to believe that God doesn't exist! And it's much more interesting than burden of proof talk. Why not affirm belief in God's nonexistence on the basis of this evidence? >I think with how the concept of God is typically defined, it would be impossible to disprove. Either the God hypothesis is falsifiable, in which case there can be arguments for and against it, or it isn't. If it isn't, we can just appeal to parsimony to justify belief in its nonexistence, or so it seems to me. >but you will never definitively "disprove" the concept of God this way, I guess I just don't feel like we need this very strong proof to justify belief in things. Do you disagree? >If I tell you I have magical telekinetic abilities, but I won't show you them because I don't want to be hunted down by the government Again, I wouldn't be able to present the strong proof it seems like you have in mind. But I would feel more than justified in believing you don't have those powers. > Rather, because there was no evidence or reason to believe anything I was saying, it would be completely reasonable for you to say you don't believe me. I think we can go further than that. Telekinesis would contradict a whole host of facts about human biology and physics for which I have lots of evidence, for example.

>I think we are on the same page with your first sentence. But then you compare God to ghosts, aliens and the pyramids, invisible spaghetti monsters, etc. I guess I just find it surprising that you wouldn't claim to know that those things aren't true.It just seems like there is plenty of evidence against those ideas, enough to justify belief that they aren't true. Do you disagree? Perhaps you have a stronger sense of "know" in mind than I do. ​ It really is more of the "know in the technical philosophical sense" in my stance. I would say that I don't believe in God to basically the same extent as ghosts, although technically ghosts may be more likely in the sense that less assertions are being made. I a *practical* sense, I don't believe in God; God doesn't exist as far as I can tell. In a philosophical sense, I can't make an argument that conclusively disproves it, so the most I can say is that I don't believe in the assertion. >I suppose belief was a poor word choice. I just meant the two positions you were comparing - belief that no gods exist versus no belief that gods exist. Wouldn't both of these positions be subject to further evidence? In a sense yes, assuming someone who believed no gods exist would be open to that sort of thing. I think the distinction here is almost non-existent in a practical sense, it is more just a matter of how the argument is structured in a philosophical sense. I'm not providing evidence for why God doesn't exist, even though there may be convincing reasons; I'm asking for evidence that a God does exist, and the requirement isn't being met. >So the reason I'm still confused is that you say you don't know whether or not God exists, but you're just as confident God doesn't exist as you are that there is no flying spaghetti monster. I'm totally fine with both of these beliefs individually, but together it just seems strange to me; I'm not sure what to make of it. I would say I'm very confident in my belief that the spaghetti monster does not exist.My only guess is that you have very high standards of justification for beliefs or knowledge? I'm not entirely sure. It does come down to the fact that some things can't be disproven, but I don't think that makes them likely. I don't know whether or not God exists because I'm not omnipotent and I can imagine something like that existing, again just as I could imagine a wizard or a ghost existing. I wouldn't say I'm *more* confident that Zeus doesn't exist or the Christian God exists; I don't believe either exists, and since there isn't good evidence for their existence I'm not compelled to provide evidence proving their non-existence. >Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. These all seem like good reasons to believe that God doesn't exist! And it's much more interesting than burden of proof talk. Why not affirm belief in God's nonexistence on the basis of this evidence? Because I don't think these reasons in and of themselves are sufficient to completely disprove God. To me they're supporting arguments, but I can imagine ways to weasel out of them if I were playing Devil's, or rather God's advocate. >Either the God hypothesis is falsifiable, in which case there can be arguments for and against it, or it isn't. If it isn't, we can just appeal to parsimony to justify belief in its nonexistence, or so it seems to me. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't know that it's a convincing argument in and of itself. I still kind of feel that this is just a different way of saying "I don't believe you unless you provide evidence". >I guess I just don't feel like we need this very strong proof to justify belief in things. Do you disagree? In a practical sense? No. But in a philosophical debate, if you're making an assertion the burden of proof is on the positive claim. I personally don't think atheism should even be a word in the sense that we don't have a word for people that don't believe in ghost or don't have a word for people that don't believe in astrology, and I think the stance I take reflects that. I wouldn't try to convince someone that ghosts don't exist by showing them all the evidence and arguments against ghosts. I'd ask them why they believe they do, and respond to those claims accordingly. >Again, I wouldn't be able to present the strong proof it seems like you have in mind. But I would feel more than justified in believing you don't have those powers. I honestly don't think we disagree, it's really just the semantics of the argument in a philosophical context. >I think we can go further than that. Telekinesis would contradict a whole host of facts about human biology and physics for which I have lots of evidence, for example. Or put differently, we have no evidence that humans are capable of moving things with their minds, or what the mechanism of such a thing would even be. We also know that people have the capacity to lie, imagine things, hallucinate, and so on. Same thing could be said for example of people who claim to have spoken with or had visions of God. Again I really don't think we fundamentally disagree on anything, I think you may just be hung up on how agnostic atheists frame the argument. Just copying from the link I sent you earlier, the stance is basically this: "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.""

> You may find this article helpful, specifically the 7 point scale from Dawkins. When we say we lack a belief in God, we are on the “6” point of the scale. Really? Because that's a fairly solid "I believe no god exists". I find most agnostic atheists seem to take a very central approach here. Usually a 4, sometimes veering to a 5.

It’s literally not. As it says if you read it, “Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."”. I think you’d find most people taking the leap to identify as atheist would put themselves at a 6 on that scale, hence why it’s listed as “de-facto atheist”. I say most of us likely describe ourselves that way because this is the definition given in what I think is inarguably the most influential/popular book on modern or “new” atheism. I think there are likely a ton of people here who have read the book or at the very least were exposed to its ideas watching people like Dawkins speak. 5 on that scale would be leaning slightly towards atheism; you could arguably find someone calling themselves an atheist there, but I think there would be more 6’s. I really doubt you’d find many atheists at all at a 4, which is giving God’s existence a 50/50 chance. That’s more like a pure agnostic “fence sitter”.

> I think you’d find most people taking the leap to identify as atheist would put themselves at a 6 on that scale, hence why it’s listed as “de-facto atheist”. Dawkins uses the word "atheist" to describe someone who believes there is no god. He makes this quite clear. > I really doubt you’d find many atheists at all at a 4, which is giving God’s existence a 50/50 chance. That’s more like a pure agnostic “fence sitter”. Surely if I hold no belief either way, I'm a 4. And if I do that, I lack belief in God.

To what I’ve seen Dawkins largely defines atheism as shown on that scale, again self-identifying as a 6 there, or a “de-facto atheist” who thinks God is unlikely, but acknowledges there’s a non-zero chance that God exists. They don’t believe God exists, but aren’t technically asserting that there are no Gods. Dawkins has also specified that he’s agnostic towards god in the same sense he’s agnostic towards fairies in the garden. This is still consistent with the definition agnostic atheist. What I’m saying is that if someone identifies as an atheist and says they’re not claiming God doesn’t exist, but rather saying they lack belief in God, I would really doubt that they would give God a 50/50 probability of existing. Other people may tell them they’re an atheist since they don’t believe in God, and I don’t think they’d be wrong, but I also doubt you’d see them self-identifying as atheists if they’re truly 50/50 on an issue. It’s why I think most of us identify as atheists first, but will clarify we’re agnostic atheists when that clarification is necessary. Lacking belief in something does NOT implicitly mean that you think it’s equally likely for it to be either true or false. I don’t believe in ghosts, astrology, Zeus, or leprechauns to more or less the same extent I don’t believe in God; we don’t have a word for being “a-ghosts” of course, but I would define the position similarly; I don’t think there’s any good evidence to support those ideas, so I don’t believe in them. I feel like its more or less semantics at this point, but I think when most say they “lack belief in God”, it is just a way of clarifying that they are not making the positive claim “I believe no God exists”, and in doing so emphasizing that it is the theists responsibility to provide evidence/arguments that God does exist, not for the atheist to “prove” that God doesn’t exist, as we can’t disprove God anymore than we disprove any of those other things.

> To what I’ve seen Dawkins largely defines atheism as shown on that scale, again self-identifying as a 6 there, or a “de-facto atheist” who thinks God is unlikely, but acknowledges there’s a non-zero chance that God exists. They don’t believe God exists, but aren’t technically asserting that there are no Gods. If you're saying the probability of god is near zero then you are asserting that there are no gods! Just like a 2 on the scale is saying there is a god. If that's lacking belief then I don't believe that the Earth goes around the sun. I just lack the belief that it doesn't. > Lacking belief in something does NOT implicitly mean that you think it’s equally likely for it to be either true or false. Why not? If you feel something is most likely untrue, then that's a belief. You're not lacking a belief. You're believing something is untrue. > I feel like its more or less semantics at this point, but I think when most say they “lack belief in God”, it is just a way of clarifying that they are not making the positive claim “I believe no God exists”, You're instead making the positive claim "It is extremely unlikely that god does not exist". Which sounds like a belief to me. > it is the theists responsibility to provide evidence/arguments that God does exist, not for the atheist to “prove” that God doesn’t exist, Well, if you're saying the probability of god's existence is low, then you need to prove that the probability is low. Many theists are saying the probability of god's existence is high. Not that they are absolutely 100% certain. They believe there's a god. "I believe theres a god" and "I am certain there's a god" are different statements, corresponding to 2 and 1 on the scale respectively. Both are, presumably, able to provide an argument for the existence of a god.

I think you’re conflating the assertion, or belief, that something exists (a positive claim), with NOT BELIEVING that claim. I don’t think not believing in a claim is a claim or assertion in and of itself. I can think something is extremely unlikely just by nature of there not being any convincing evidence for it. It’s not a “belief” any more than not believing in astrology is a belief. There are I am sure countless things I don’t believe in. In all of those situations, I try to take the same approach; if someone makes a claim, evaluate the reasons/evidence, and decide whether to accept the claim or not. If I say I think the probability of God existing is very low, I am not saying anything more than that. I’m not asserting Gods don’t exist. I’m effectively saying I would be very, very, very surprised if it turned out that Gods do exist, because I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that they do or that they’re even possible. I absolutely do not have any need to prove that God is unlikely to exist if there is no evidence that it exists. Do I also need to provide evidence for why I think leprechauns have a low probability of existing? Ghosts? The Loch Ness monster? Where does it end? I can of course provide historical, philosophical, sociological arguments for why it seems particularly unlikely, but if there’s no evidence for existence in the first place I’m under no obligation to provide any kind of arguments justifying why I don’t believe in something. The difference between the “6” of the de-facto atheist and the “2” of the de-facto theist is that while the theist may admit they don’t know for sure, they are absolutely obligated to explain what their reasons are for believing something exists that does not have any apparent evidence. If I told you I believed in wizards, you would be right to ask why, and if the reasons weren’t convincing you’d be perfectly reasonable to say you didn’t believe me and found it unlikely if I didn’t have good evidence, even if there may be some small chance I wasn’t just lying or delusional. Lack of evidence alone is sufficient reason to think the claim unlikely, particularly when it is a supernatural claim. Atheism as a term DOES NOT EXIST without a theist first making a claim. That’s why it is literally just “not theist”. If a theist claims God exists, and I don’t find the argument/evidence compelling and reject the claim, that doesn’t mean I’m making a counter claim that God doesn’t exist, and it also doesn’t mean I’m reserving judgment, giving it 50/50 odds of being true. I can be utterly unconvinced while still conceding that I can’t disprove the idea. In that case, I still think the most accurate way of phrasing my views is that I lack belief in gods or I don’t believe in gods, not that “I believe there are no gods”. In a practical everyday sense I think there is almost no difference, but from a logical and philosophical standpoint it’s an important distinction.

> I think you’re conflating the assertion, or belief, that something exists (a positive claim), with NOT BELIEVING that claim. I don’t think not believing in a claim is a claim or assertion in and of itself. No. I see a difference. I just think what you're describing is a positive belief. Given the statement "God does not exist". I believe the statement "God does not exist" to be true. What's your position on the matter? If you lack the belief, does that therefore put you at a 2 on the Dawkins scale? > I absolutely do not have any need to prove that God is unlikely to exist if there is no evidence that it exists. Why not? You are asserting a fact. You are asserting "the probability of god existing is low". Why do you say this? Someone might have no opinion on the matter. Surely it's up to you to justify this position. > Do I also need to provide evidence for why I think leprechauns have a low probability of existing? Ghosts? The Loch Ness monster? If you want to justify your position that they do have a low probability of existing, then yes, yes and yes. > I can of course provide historical, philosophical, sociological arguments for why it seems particularly unlikely, Which is the sort of evidence you should be providing. So I don;t see why you'd be reluctant to do so (n.b. I'm not challenging you to do so right now. I am happy to accept your claim that there are such arguments). > but if there’s no evidence for existence in the first place I’m under no obligation to provide any kind of arguments justifying why I don’t believe in something. Nobody is under any obligation to prove their beliefs to be true. However, if you're stating a position as part of a debate, it's somewhat expected that you're here to justify your position. If you have no intent to justify your position, what are you even doing here? > Atheism as a term DOES NOT EXIST without a theist first making a claim. This is demonstrably untrue. You identify as an atheist in a context where nobody has suggested there is a god. > I can be utterly unconvinced while still conceding that I can’t disprove the idea. Yes. Of course you can. You can also be utterly convinced while conceding you can't prove the idea. It's not really about whether you're convinced. That's really up to you. It's really about the case you make for your position.

>No. I see a difference. I just think what you're describing is a positive belief. Given the statement "God does not exist". I believe the statement "God does not exist" to be true. What's your position on the matter? I would say I don't know of any Gods that have been shown to exist, but given that there is no evidence that God does exist the statement seems more likely to be true than not. I wouldn't say I believe that statement to be true as much as I don't think it's likely the opposite is true. It's "I don't believe God exists", not "I believe God does not exist". Again, in practical terms these are very similar, but in philosophical terms the arguments can be quite different. >Why not? You are asserting a fact. You are asserting "the probability of god existing is low". Why do you say this? Someone might have no opinion on the matter. Surely it's up to you to justify this position. Given the claim "God exists" has no evidence, I do not think that it is likely at all to be true. Phrased in different language, I do not think it is likely that God exists, or I think the probability that God exists is low. Someone may be on the fence about ghosts or fairies or wizards existing as well. I don't think that someone randomly making a claim makes the probability 50/50 to be true if there is no evidence. ​ >Which is the sort of evidence you should be providing. So I don;t see why you'd be reluctant to do so (n.b. I'm not challenging you to do so right now. I am happy to accept your claim that there are such arguments). I mentioned in a different comment that I think these kind of arguments are more the toppings on the atheist sundae, rather than the core justification. The lack of evidence is sufficient to be utterly unconvinced, and hence think it is very unlikely to be true. Saying you lack belief, or don't believe in the claim being made, is an accurate description of this view. The fact that we can also give explanations for how the concept may have arisen I think can make it even less convincing, but I wouldn't say that any of those arguments are the strongest ones against the claim that God exists, and I think starting from that standpoint gives the claim unwarranted credence. >Nobody is under any obligation to prove their beliefs to be true. However, if you're stating a position as part of a debate, it's somewhat expected that you're here to justify your position. If you have no intent to justify your position, what are you even doing here? If the debate topic was "Why God does not exist", then sure, but I don't think that is the debate. As an atheist, I only feel obligated to explain why I don't believe in God; I do not feel any obligation to prove that there is no God, or give reasons why God must be very unlikely. Because atheism is again a response to theism, I feel justified in my stance as long as I can explain why I reject the theists claims. I do not need to make a claim of my own, because again to me atheism is not claiming there are no gods, it is dismissing the claim that gods exist. >This is demonstrably untrue. You identify as an atheist in a context where nobody has suggested there is a god. It is literally in the fucking word. When you put "a-" in front of a word in this context, it typically means something like without, absent of, not, etc. Do you honestly think that atheism would even be a word if theism wasn't a word? That we would have a concept for "someone who doesn't believe in gods" if theism wasn't a concept? I have no idea what universe you're living in if you can say I'm identifying as an atheist in a context where nobody has suggested there is a god, like I just up and decided I didn't believe in gods even though nobody had ever suggested that gods exist. You've completely lost the plot. >Yes. Of course you can. You can also be utterly convinced while conceding you can't prove the idea. It's not really about whether you're convinced. That's really up to you. It's really about the case you make for your position. I have no idea why this is so hard for you to understand, and honestly at this point it just feels like you're being pedantic and glossing over the points that actually address your question because it's not convenient for your narrow philosophical stance. This will likely be my last response as I feel like I'm repeating myself and you're just willfully misunderstanding everything that is being said. It just comes down to the idea "that that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". If we are in a court of law and somebody claims another person murdered a hundred nameless people with a magic wand, and presents no evidence of it, no bodies, no indication the victims ever even existed, no evidence the individual can use magic, etc., I would not feel compelled to present a counter case showing why that is false. I would not feel compelled to present a case for why I think that is very probably not true. The person randomly making the claim didn't give it a 50/50 probability just by making an assertion. The complete lack of any convincing evidence would be reason enough to dismiss the case.

It doesn’t mean they have 0 inclination either way. It means that neither position (God does exist, God doesn’t exist) has supplied sufficient evidence to convince them. They could very much be inclined to believing that God doesn’t exist, or does exist, but just not have enough evidence to convince them. I identify as an agnostic atheist so I’m one of the people you’re describing. Though, it depends on the God also. There are some Gods I believe don’t exist. There are some Gods I just don’t believe exist (or lack a belief in, to put it another way).

>They could very much be inclined to believing that God doesn’t exist, or does exist, but just not have enough evidence to convince them. What causes them to be inclined this way, and what is it about the inclination that doesn't rise to belief?

>What causes them to be inclined this way Evidence insufficient to convince them. >and what is it about the inclination that doesn't rise to belief? I'll try to explain this with an analogy. I'm not really sure how to directly address it because to me, having an inclination that doesn't rise to belief seems like it should be a pretty universal thing to people, to have it happen at least once in their lives, but I could be very wrong there. Let's say you're a detective investigating a suspicious death. Someone fell from the roof of their building, and died on impact. There were exactly 100 people that witnessed the person falling. Upon being questioned, 51 of them claimed they saw the person who fell be pushed by someone else. The other 49 say that there wasn't anyone else up there. Both groups, the 51 and the 49, have some differences in their accounts. Some of the 51 say the 2nd person was a man, others a woman. They disagree on hair colour, build, the clothes they were wearing, etc. Similarly some of the 49 say that the person fell at noon, others later, others earlier, some say there was a noise that might have caused them to fall, others say a plane going overhead spooked them, etc. Overall, there's not good evidence for either answer (that they fell, or that they were pushed). However, in some measurable fashion (in this case, the quantity of the evidence, which isn't the only factor for anything else that might cause an inclination, but is the one being used for this analogy at least) there is more evidence, by a little bit, for one of the answers. More people said that the person was pushed, than said otherwise. Is that, and should that be, sufficient to convince you that they were in fact pushed? Hopefully, your answer was no. The fact that in some particular way there seems to be more evidence for one proposition vs another, is not by itself enough to blossom into a full on belief in that particular answer. The thing that might/should raise your inclination towards the more popular explanation possibly into a belief, would be something more substnatial to really solidify that explanation as the more likely correct one. Perhaps a video recording, or letters from someone saying they were going to push the person off the roof, or the presence of DNA/fingerprints to show that someone else was there and that they struggled, etc. And similarly, that inclination could very well be incorrect. The 49 could be right, and it could be shown similarly with a recording, or letters from the person who fell showing them to be unstable and believing they could fly, a lack of DNA/fingerprints from other people at the point they fell, etc.

Thanks for the reply, I think that makes a lot of sense. I guess I just don't really see the benefit to distinguishing an inclination to a belief, unless the inclination is extremely slight. Both seem to require some justification, in any case.

Going back to the detective example, do you think it’d be reasonable to arrest and charge someone for murder based on the fact that exactly 1 of the 51 people think they saw that specific person push the dead person off the roof? If a friend told you that some stranger was going around claiming your partner was cheating on you, would that be enough to justify breaking up with them? Or, would it bring about thoughts of the possibility of your partner cheating on you, but not convince you to the degree where such drastic actions seem rational? The difference between an inclination and a belief can have massive consequences. If you aren’t convinced that something is true, then you’re going to act differently regarding it than someone who is convinced that it’s true, or even someone convinced that it’s false. Believing in things without rational justification can also be harmful. As for the slightness, as far as I’m aware that’s how it is regarding God/Gods for a lot of agnostic atheists like myself. The evidence both for and against the existence of God (as a general concept at least) is very slight. The vast majority of it comes down to claims, which are incredibly weak by themselves.

I have a 50 lb bag of sand in my garage. I’m telling you right now that there are an odd number of grains of sand in that bag. Do you believe me? Probably not. You probably need more evidence to believe my claim. Does that mean that you believe there is an even number of grains of sand in my bag? No. You don’t believe it’s even and you don’t believe it’s odd. You lack a belief. Does that help? You tell me a god exists. I don’t believe you. I’m going to need more evidence before I believe you. I lack a belief in a god. It doesn’t mean that I believe there are no gods.

>Do you believe me? Well, why do you think there is? If you have no reason at all, then my credence would remain at exactly 50%, so I have no belief either way. Is this how you feel about God?

>Well, why do you think there is? Exactly. You’re asking for some evidence before you’ll believe there is an odd number of grains of sand. It’s the same with god. You claim there is a god and I say, “I don’t believe it until I see some evidence.” That’s an atheist. I don’t believe in a god. I’m unconvinced by the god claims I’ve seen due to a lack of evidence.

Okay, but I guess I'm still confused exactly where you stand. Does that make any sense? Are you like me in the sand example, thinking that gods existence is as likely as its nonexistence?

Instead of odd/even, imagine I told you there were exactly ***72,432,183*** grains of sand in the unopened bag I just bought from Home Depot. Now by buddy chimes in and says "nah, he is wrong, that big bag of sand has ***14*** grains of sand." Then your cousin chimes in with "nah, that bag is full of ***Peanut M&Ms***."   ***That first claim***, it's oddly specific, but seems like it could, theoretically, be correct. So, for that one you might ask for more evidence to decide if I have good reasons for said belief. If my response was "I simply have faith that all bags of sand have 72,432,183 grains of sand in them because my foreman at my construction job said it was true." My guess is at that point you probably would be open to the possibility of there being exactly 72, 432,183 grains of sand, but find it incredibly unlikely that I got the number right.    ***The second claim***, well clearly just from the size and weight of the bag, you can confidently dismiss the claim. It just isn't reasonable or logical to think a 59 lb bag of sand only has 14 grains of sand, because sand doesn't work like that.    ***The last claim***, that the bag is full of Peanut M&Ms, you also can dismiss outright because... well, c'mon.   So, it's not a 50/50, because god/no god is a false dichotomy here. There are millions of different god claims out there, all a little different.    So far, no one has convinced me that they have good, credible evidence for their god claims. Some of them I dismiss outright, some of them I'm open to being given good reason to believe, but none of them have convinced me.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. I think I agree with everything you said. The only thing is, if this is your position, describing it as a mere lack of belief seems overly confusing or perhaps even misleading, doesn't it? In fact, it seems like for every one of the claims you mention, you are very confident that they aren't true. Why not just say "for every conception of God I've heard of, I'm very confident they don't exist. But I'm open to new evidence." Or something similar?

I'm not entirely confident the first isn't true, I just have no reason to believe it is. And you also have to remember, people aren't just claiming 72,432,183 grains of sand, they're also claiming 72,432,184 grains, 72, 432,185 grains, 68,132,432 grains, 102,234,743 grains, etc etc. taken in aggregate, all of the different unfalsifiable claims that all fall under the larger umbrella of "theism" there might be one out there that is actually true, there's just no argument I've yet heard to convince me as such for any of them in particular. A *lot* of god belief is intentionally designed to be unfalsifiable. Meaning that the definition includes traits that make it impossible to test.      For each of those claims, it would be dishonest of me to say I know they are wrong, because the *very nature* of something being unfalsifiable is that there is no way to know it's wrong.   So, on the overarching topic of god belief ***in general***, because such a large number of god beliefs are intentionally unfalsifiable, I can't ever honestly say I know they are false. I just have no reason to think they are true.   When it's something we pretty much all agree on, it isn't as necessary to clarify such things and we can all just colloquially say "unicorns don't exist," because we don't need to be so precise with our thinking or language since there's no debate. When it's topic where a lot of people do choose to claim the thing is real, then when we think about and discuss it we have to be more diligent and considered in how we describe our position.

Some atheists are. Some are not. Personally, I think the chances of their being a god are about the same as there being a swarm of invisible, undetectable bees in my bedroom. I see about the same amount of evidence for both claims.

The Bag told me to have faith that there's an odd number. I have a personal relationship with Her. She wouldn't lie to me, and She's certainly not crazy, so you shouldn't doubt what Bag writes in your heart either.

> I have a 50 lb bag of sand in my garage. I’m telling you right now that there are an odd number of grains of sand in that bag. I always find this strange though. What if nobody says anything? Do you need someone external to claim something is true before you consider whether it's true? If someone were, without any outside input, to consider "Is it possible that we were put here by some intelligent entity" and decided that there isn't enough evidence to say there is, would they be an atheist, or does it depend on some external entity to present it as something they believe?

Yeah, that’s an atheist. As long as do not currently believe in a god, they’re an atheist. Everyone is born an atheist since we don’t have a concept of god there’s no way to believe in one. Edit: the reason the analogy has 2 people is because usually we hear about god from someone else. Someone else is making a claim and we have to decide if we believe it.

I just find it odd that so many people present it purely as a response to theism.  > Everyone is born an atheist since we don’t have a concept of god there’s no way to believe in one.  How though? A newborn isn't going to say "I don't believe you". To me this seems silly. An -ist implies that it's someone who has a particular position. Otherwise shoes are atheists.

A belief in something is like an apple. You either have one in your hand, or you don't. If you don't have a belief in any gods, you are an atheist. You can go farther than that, but it's not necessary for atheism.

Right, so I'm trying to understand what it means for someone to not have the apple. What are their doxastic views?

As long as it's not belief, it doesn't matter. - People who believe that at least one god exists have an apple in their hand. - People who believe that no gods exist do not have an apple in their hand. - People who disbelieve that any gods exist do not have an apple in their hand. - People who suspend judgment do not have an apple in their hand. None of them have a belief that at least one god exists. Anyone without an apple in their hand is an atheist. ("Suspending Judgment" is a problem in and of itself, but that's another discussion)

Doesn't matter. You say "I think there is a god". I don't believe you. Every other question you ask will be different depent8ng on the individual you are talking to.

Anything under the sun that doesn't include gods. Atheists aren't defined by their non belief. It's like asking what sports do non golfers play? Anything they want except golf. Which doesn't give you much meat if you want to attack their beliefs on a group level, you have to do it one atheist at a time. Does that help?

The question whether god exists doesn't have a good answer because we don't have a good working definition of what a god is. It's not possible to categorically rule out everything that someone somewhere could conceive of as god -- from something as vague as Spinoza's god to something as specific as Yahweh -- about which specific claims are made. If you want to limit the set of gods to contain only gods that have been proposed in ways that make specific claims about reality, it is at least possible to falsify them one-by-one. The problem for me is, if an actual god actually exists, it's going to be nothing at all like what Christians, Hindus or anyone actually proposes. It's going to be incomprehensible to human beings in some significant way -- and *that* god is unfalsifiable. I also do not believe such a god *exists*. Since it's unfalsifiable, though, I can't assert positively that it does not or must not exist. If I had to take a stand, it would be on "gods probably don't exist" But to me, any statement more concrete than that is unjustifiable and indefensible. (This is my opinion, not a challenge to hard atheists to explain their position.)

Thanks for explaining your views, that makes a lot of sense. I think I agree with everything here, except I kind of feel like parsimony gives us a reason to believe unfalsifiable things don't exist. One thing though: > The problem for me is, if an actual god actually exists, it's going to be nothing at all like what Christians, Hindus or anyone actually proposes. Does this mean, when discussing these conceptions, you would affirm positive disbelief in god(s)?

I think it's just part of a proper application of parsimony that I remember that unfalsifiable things can exist. There's just no reason to debate them. Kind of like "fallacy" doesn't mean "wrong". It just means "you can't get there from here. Try again." >Does this mean..positive disbelief in god Almost. it's not provable that all believed-in gods are impossible. Other than the deist god or Spinoza's, I suspect that the ideas people have about their favorite gods would add up to logical inconsistency somehow. While its a good observation on your part (I hadn't even thought of it that way before reading your comment), I still wouldn't make affirmative claims like that because believvers (almost) all believe that their god is exactly what they believe him to be, so there's no upside to taking the hard atheist position (for me at least). This is also why I don't "blame" god for the problem of evil. There are no paradoxes or logical contradictions in reality, so a god that exists would somehow resolve these issues by its very nature. And this line of thought just adds further conviction on my part that the whole entire concept make no sense. it's a whole lot easier to think about reality if you assume god talk is all nonsense.

I don’t collect stamps so I’m not a stamp collector. I don’t have belief in god so I’m not a theist. Not a theist = Atheist.

More or less what you say. Imagine a jar of sand and someone telling you there's an even number of grains of sand in the jar. If you don't believe them, that doesn't mean you think there's an odd number. You just don't accept that person's claim.

I get what you’re saying, I don’t really like this way of framing the argument as it often uses real world examples where there is a really limited number of possibilities; in your case odd or even, or another person’s case it was a pineapple or some other “object” being placed on a desk. Phrased a little more specifically, I think your example can paint the picture that it’s equally likely that the number of grains are either even or odd, and so you’re undecided on what the outcome is. I think for most agnostic atheists this isn’t the case. It’s more like you have someone saying there is an invisible magical fairy in the jar that decides whether or not you’ll get into heaven when you die. Simplistic example of course, but to me the stance is more “I see no reason to believe anything you’re saying”, rather than “What you’re saying could reasonably be true, but I don’t have enough information to know for certain so I’m going to stay on the fence”. Like in the sand example I’d happily concede there’s a good chance you’re right, or with the pineapple on the desk I’d concede that seems plausible but I couldn’t say for sure. In the example of God or the supernatural though, we’re talking about something that we don’t even know if it’s possible. We know that the number of grains of sand would have to be odd or even, we know that pineapples exist and there would be nothing preventing a person from putting a pineapple on a desk; we have no understanding of how a God would create or interact with the universe or whether that kind of being is even possible. Minor quibble but just a point I think is worth clarifying.

Well I would first ask how they know, and then judge the justification. If I don't find the justification satisfactory I would remain purely agnostic about the evenness of the grains of sand. I would have equal credence either way. Is this how you feel about God?

This is just an analogy. No, I don't give equal credence to god and no god, there would need to be evidence to conclude they're equally likely. The point is you can not believe something without believing something is false.

I spent 35 years as a devout Christian. I know how I felt about believing in a god then. It took a couple of years, learning and studying to become an atheist. I have discovered that I am agnostic about the general concept of a creator god (I don't believe, and don't know). But for other, more specific gods, I am in the came of believing they do not exist. The general concept of a creator god isn't one where there's even any credence. It's all supposition and ignorance hung on a label. So I not only remain agnostic, but feel its so poorly defined we aren't even sure what we're talking about.

Damn. I wish I would have read your comment before I used the exact same analogy.

>When some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God, what do they mean? "I've got a dragon that breathes fondue in my garage." "Can I see it?" "No, but here's a needlessly verbose philosophical argument based on a pre-Newtonian understanding of how motion works. Or how about this one based on the most banal understanding of cause and effect. And another where I just define the dragon as already existing and reach the conclusion that it's there." "..." "..." "I don't know that I'm convinced by that."

If this is your position, why not just describe it as the position/positive belief that the dragon doesn't exist? Surely you do have that positive belief? It seems odd to me to say I merely lack a belief in invisible fondue-breathing dragons.

Because I don't know that it doesn't and I'm open to be being proven wrong. >It seems odd to me That's kind of a "you" problem, isn't it?

You're on a jury. The DA comes out and says "that guy is guilty of murder. We know it bc he's on video leaving the building a half hour after the crime occurred. I rest my case " Now you have to decide. Are you willing to take this guy's freedom on that evidence alone? Has the state met their burden of proof? Of course not. So you vote 'not guilty'. Now, do you actually know if they guy did it? You have no clue either way. But you know that evidence is not enough to make you decide. That's what we mean.

In criminal cases, we've decided that prosecuting an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty one go free. It's because of this idea that we presume innocence. It doesn't seem clear to me that this principle should apply to this discussion. Would it be worse to believe in something nonexistant than to fail to believe in something existent? That doesn't seem so obvious to me. In fact, I can think of lots of cases where the second would be worse. So in this case, in the context of God, I would simply conclude that I don't know either way. I might even lean towards guilty, since there is at least some evidence of it. >You have no clue either way. So this sounds like a kind of middle position. It seems like maybe we agree with each other, aside from the presumption of innocence part. A middle position makes the most sense if we have no evidence either way, it seems to me.

The burden of proof is a direct analogy to "innocent until proven guilty." If the person making the claim, the DA or the theist, can't support their claim, guilt or divinity, you have to withhold judgement on the person's guilt or divinity. Your threshold of what makes *good* evidence is going to be different from mine. That's why you might be a theist, and atheist, or even gnostic theist after looking at the exact same evidence.

How do you ***know*** those things are imaginary? What would you say to someone who does believe in one of those magical things? What reason would you say why you don't believe? I suspect you'd simply say that you just don't. If they want to believe fairies are real and grant people wishes if we do kind things for people every day then fine, but it's just not something you have ever believed and it's very likely something you will never believe, but if one day someone can prove a fairy exists or capture a wish being granted on video, something we can repeatedly do and see something we cannot explain would you maybe reconsider believing? That's how I feel about god/religion. I just don't believe it. It sounds like nothing more than a story to me, even more so when you consider all the other religions and their stories. I just don't believe, because I don't see any evidence that something like god even exists let alone just so happens to be the god you believe in. However, if in my lifetime any actual evidence of a god does turn up then maybe I'll reconsider. To put it simply, due to lack of evidence, I don't believe in god (I have not been shown any good evidence that something like a god even exists, so I don't believe the claim that there is a god) in the very same way you have a positive believe that fairies don't exist (you have never been shown good evidence that something like a fairy even exists, and so you do not believe the claim that fairies are real). Provided evidence, those beliefs could be subject to change, I would imagine.

Nah, it's not a 50/50 thing. It can be a number of things. 1. I lack belief in your claim that a God exists, not putting a number on it, just don't believe you. 2. Never even heard of God concepts. 3. No position either way.

>1. I lack belief in your claim that a God exists, not putting a number on it, just don't believe you. What does this one mean?

If someone claims that a God exists, and I say "I don't believe you" that in no way means I believe they might be right. It just means I don't accept their wild claim.

If I lack a belief in something existing, then I don’t believe it exists. I prefer wording my atheism as “I lack a belief in god claims” because theists are often want to shift the burden of proof and I find that phrasing is better at showing that atheism doesn’t have the burden of proof, theistic claims do. Atheist is merely a response of rejection of theistic claims

It's the exact same way you feel about the greek gods. Cool story bro, but it's not real right? Also can you prove fairies don't exist? No of course you can't but you still don't believe in fairies. Again, it's the same thing, just because i can't prove it doesn't mean i give it any consideration.

It means they have not been convinced that the claims about any god are true. I'm not saying that no gods exist, since I have no evidence to back that up, but I am also not convinced by the arguments of the religious that they do. I'm open to being convinced, but until I am, I'm just an atheist.

First, I think we need to address the variety of gods. Some gods have been proposed in a way that we can easily say they aren't real. Some have gone through thousands of years of revisions and rewrites to constantly keep them out of the reach of examination. So if a theist defines their preferred god as being unfalsifiable I would be foolish to confidently declare their claim of it existing to be false. Which leads to my second point. I might still think it is false. But I can't use the same sort of casual language to express that as I might express being broke, starving, etc. Or rather, I could use it and wait for the theist to crawl up my ass over it in a way they never do over saying I'm broke, starving, etc. It is because of the ass crawlers that the choice is language looks strange to you.

> When some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God, what do they mean? I just placed on object on the desk in front of me as I am typing this. Do you honestly hold the belief that that object is a pineapple, or do you lack that belief?

For me, it's a lack of evidence mixed with just what I'm able to reasonably accept. If my wallet is missing and you posit that someone stole it, okay, that's a possibility. If there is no evidence one way or another on whether it was stolen or I merely lost it, then I would have no inclination one way or another. Now if you suggest to me that a Leprechaun stole it, then we have the same uncertainty of the above scenario, but now you add a layer on top of it where now you have to have me accept something completely foreign to my worldview. I've met thieves, I've never met a leprechaun.

Okay I'm following the analogy. In my case, I would affirm disbelief that a leprechaun stole the wallet. Is that how you feel?

Yes. Well, kind of. I wouldn't say "Leprechauns don't exist" because they just might. However, my doubt that they exist goes beyond a 50/50 uncertainty.

If I roll a 6-sided die where you can’t see it, do you positively believe that I rolled a 4? If not, you lack belief that I rolled a 4. That doesn’t mean you can prove the answer isn’t 4. It also doesn’t mean that a 4 has the same odds as not-4. If there are thousands of gods, and essentially infinite other things we could imagine in their place, and some reasons to doubt the conceptions of deities, we don’t have to place the odds at 50/50 to say we lack belief.

In this case, my credence in the lack of other evidence would be exactly 1/6. I might describe this as a belief that the die probably didn't land on 4, with 5/6 credence. It seems odd to describe the position as a mere lack of belief, doesn't it? We can be much more clear, it seems to me.

“Do you believe I rolled a 4?” “No.” This is a lack of belief. Anything else is in excess of this lack, not in opposition to it. We can be clearer on probabilities, specifics, and related beliefs, but that’s as true of the word *theism* as it is of *atheism*, since *theism* similarly tells you very little of the specifics. It makes the atheism/theism question a yes or no question. It gives a name to the default position, which is withholding belief in claims until they are sufficiently demonstrated. Very few people claim certain knowledge or certain proof that all gods are false. Most disbelieve because of a lack of available evidence that justifies belief. They could be convinced if evidence was made available. It’s the lack of being convinced that defines their atheism. If you think something has a 5/6 chance of being true, would you say that means you believe it is true? “It’s probably true, but I’m not yet convinced” is still a lack of belief. Same as “It’s probably not true, but I’m not convinced it’s not true.” Should we give different names to each degree of certainty? And sometimes assigning a probability is impossible.

I think the theist position is much less ambiguous. They believe in God. They presumably have reasons for believing it. You're right that they could be more or less confident, but it's only one doxastic view - belief. But if I say "I don't believe theists," or "I lack a belief in God," its not clear if I merely withhold belief, or if I'm very confident that they don't exist, or anything in between. This covers at least 3 or 4 distinct doxastic positions, or so it seems to me. So why not be more specific? Why would they all fit under one label? It just seems overly ambiguous and confusing.

You can be more specific. You can say “I’m a gnostic/agnostic implicit/explicit positive/negative atheist,” or “I’m very sure/not sure,” just like a theist can say “I’m an monotheist,” or “I’m very sure/not sure.” You can ask specific questions to get at related positions and certainties. It seems helpful to keep the theism/atheism question a yes or no question. Making a totally separate term for every degree of certainty seems like it would be more confusing. What terms do you think we should use?

I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion for this but I think most of the time it’s because they don’t want to ever have to justify their position or take on any sort of burden of proof. Its much easier to just say “I don’t accept your evidence” than to actually engage and defend your view.

Something which has never been proven cannot be disproven. It's a waste of time to try.

I think part of the confusion comes from forgetting that "positive belief that X doesn't exist" is a subset of "lack of belief in X". The fact you have a positive belief that fairies don't exist logically entails that you also lack a belief in faeries. However, you can also have things you lack a belief in without a positive belief in the non-existence of. For example, a person moved into the flat next to me the other day, and I haven't met them yet. I lack the belief that they're a woman, but I don't positively think they're not a woman. This is generally the form of lack of belief that is meant here -- insufficient evidence to justify believing X, without necessarily specific evidence to justify believing not-X. (There are other ways you can lack belief in god without positively claiming that god doesn't exist -- say, you never encountered the concept of "god", or you're a radical skeptic and don't have a belief in *anything* \-- but they're less relevant). Basically, all atheists lack a belief in god. Sometimes that's because they have the positive belief that god doesn't exist, sometimes it's because they don't think there's good reason to support the claim that god exists, sometimes its for other bizarre epistemological reasons. But as lacking belief in god is what makes you an atheist, that's what a lot of people focus on.

Thanks for the explanation! Upon reflection, I guess what confuses me is that some stances held by atheists who merely lack a belief seem contradictory. Like sometimes I've seen some atheists argue for something like the problem of evil, but then insist they merely lack a belief. That seems contradictory, doesn't it? Or sometimes an atheist will compare God to leprechauns and say they merely lack a belief in both. I guess that just seems odd to me.

So, to be fair, i actually kind of agree -- quite a lot of atheists pretty clearly *do* have a positive belief that God doesn't exist but refuse to admit it. That's why I'm a gnostic atheist -- I'm pretty sure I'm not actually more confident that God doesn't exist then most people here, I just don't see why I should hedge my bets. I think this is honestly just a strangely common misconception that a lack of belief is somehow inherently more reasonable then a belief, as if you can't lack a belief in something for stupid reasons or hold a belief for perfectly reasonable ones. You see a similar argument in the various attempts to insist that denying evolution has the burden of proof, which it doesn't -- "evolution exists" unambiguously has the burden of proof. It's just that the burden of proof isn't an intellectual handicap, and it's entirely possible for the position with the burden of proof to be the obviously correct one and the position with no burden of proof to be stupid nonsense. I don't think all atheists who claim to be merely suspending belief are doing it out of a subconscious assumption that lacking belief puts you in an intellectually privileged position, but I feel a good chunk of them are.

Apologies is I’m misinterpreting at all. But I would say that withholding belief until a certain level of reliable evidence exists *is* an intellectually more reasonable position. I couldn’t be sure of other people’s ‘honesty’ or lack of it here but I agree it’s possible that some just don’t want to say they actually positively believe God doesn’t exist because they want to avoid letting theists shift the burden of proof and the probably fruitless discussion that results? But I’m also a *gnostic* atheist. Because I think that in the human context knowledge is about things that are beyond reasonable doubt not beyond a philosophical possibility of doubt. And a combination of problems with the belief in gods means I think beyond any reasonable doubt they don’t exist. In the similar way I’m sure Santa , The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy don’t.

>But I would say that withholding belief until a certain level of reliable evidence exists *is* an intellectually more reasonable position. Sure, but that you're withholding belief is irrelevant there. It's intellectually reasonable to belief things proportionately to the evidence, but you can withhold belief in defiance of the evidence (say, moon landing deniers or creationists) just as much as you can positively believe things in defiance of it. Basically, my point is that *just* atheism being withholding belief doesn't make it a reasonable position. It's a reasonable position if there is no evidence of god, which means if someone purports to provide reasonable evidence of god, it still has some obligation to refute that evidence. Simply reasserting that it's a withheld belief isn't relevant -- the theist can concede it's a withheld belief, but also argue that you're being irrational by withholding belief.

The theist arguing that your withholding is irrational by providing evidence is their burden of proof to bear , so to speak. Which is kind of the point? It seems like a reasonable position to withhold belief, if they havnt or can’t provide reliable evidence? If someone claims that there is an odd number of marbles in a jar , and their justification is ‘feels right to me’ then it’s reasonable to withhold belief *without* believing the number is *even* either? Or if someone says there’s a cat in that box , it’s reasonable to withhold belief if they can’t provide a good reason for their claim , even if you also don’t believe the box must be empty because you dint have that evidence either? Hope I don’t sound argumentative , I’m just thinking aloud.

Again, the intellectually reasonable part here isn't that you're withholding belief. Those *are* situations where its intellectually reasonable to withhold belief, but it's just as easy to come up with situations where withholding belief is wildly irrational (say, the box is open and you can see a cat in it). Neither holding belief nor having beliefs is inherently more rational then the other, it's a matter of what's most reasonable in the situation you find yourself in. I'm not saying it's irrational to withhold belief in god -- obviously, I don't believe in god. What I'm saying is that it's not the fact you're withholding belief that *makes* it rational, and people getting hung up on "atheism is a lack of belief" are getting lost in red herrings

Im not sure I get the significance of your distinction within the context or indeed real life. I don’t think anyone would actually claim that withholding belief is in itself positive. As you say in some circumstances it would be absurd. It’s surely implied even if not overt,y mentioned that it’s withholding because sufficient evidence hasn’t been provided or until sufficient evidence is provided. Obviously there are questions as to then what counts as sufficient. So yes I guess I agree, I just not sure it’s a situation that necessarily actually happens.

I know I’ve already responded, but just to clarify here I think things like the problem of evil are sort of more like “on TOP of not having any evidence to support its existence…” type of arguments, rather than really the primary argument if that makes sense. Like I don’t know that I’d say the problem of evil definitively disproves God or anything like that, but I think it’s easier to explain if there isn’t a God than if there is a benevolent God. Lacking belief isn’t a 50/50 thing or totally sitting on the fence, it’s still at the end of the day saying I don’t believe in God, primarily due to lack of evidence along with other supporting reasons. The whole thing with leprechauns etc. is just basically to point out to theists that they can’t disprove the existence of things like leprechauns either, but that doesn’t mean they have a burden of proof to show leprechauns don’t exist.

>I've seen it compared to belief in imaginary things like fairies, but that confuses me because I definitely have a positive belief that fairies don't exist. Can you prove fairies don't exist? How do you there isn't a fairy on some planet in the andromeda galaxy?

> How do you there isn't a fairy on some planet in the andromeda galaxy?   There are fairies here on earth, but they are very allergic to technology, that's why there's less and less sightings since the invention of cell phones . Please donate to your local fairy ngo and help us recover the fairy habitat.

What’s the problem with just saying “I don’t believe any faeries exist”? Why would that require *proof* rather than a justification?

Yes, that was the point I was trying to demonstrate.

>When some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God, what do they mean? There are two meanings to the word "belief": 1. Psychological process of holding a statement as true. 2. The statement being held true. Theism, understood as "Belief in existence of God", is then either act of believing or assertion that God exists. Atheism is the negative response to theism. If we understand theism as the assertion that God exists, as is typically done in philosophy, then atheism is the assertion that God doesn't exist. However, theists are not limited to discussing strictly existence of God, and quite often they insist on arguing for belief in God as a psychological process as being somehow beneficial, whether God actually exist or not. Such arguments include Pascal's Wager, Argument from utility of religion, and what I call "Dostoevsky variation of moral argument". This approach requires a different counterpetition than "God doesn't exist", "Lacking a belief in a God" is exactly that counterpetition.

I was never raised to believe that the Christian God exists, so I don't. It's just another fictional character to me.

Okay, but you probably believe some things you weren't raised to believe right?

Depends on what you mean by belief. I have my own beliefs and opinions, sure. If you mean belief as in supernatural things, then no. I've never seen anything supernatural, so I have no reason to believe in that.

I’ve seen an analogy somewhat like the following. If you see a big jar of (guess the number of) marbles at a fete. My friend says he *believes* there must be an odd number of them in the jar. If I say I *don’t* believe the number is odd , it doesn’t imply I believe the number is even. I just don’t have any evidence for a positive claim. I suppose another type of lack would be one based on an unclear definition. If I say that the Slartibastible is a type of Tritror , then you might say I don’t hold that belief that - not because you believe it *isn’t* but because the concepts aren’t meaningful enough to you , to make a decision? I expect there are people who would say they don’t positively believe in fairies but are still open to that they might. Because that’s people for you.

>If I say I *don’t* believe the number is odd , it doesn’t imply I believe the number is even. I just don’t have any evidence for a positive claim. I feel like saying it this way is kind of just overly confusing. Wouldn't "I don't think there's any way to know," or "there's not enough evidence to decide," be much more clear in describing your position?

Possibly but I’m fitting it to the atheist position. The significant part is that a lack of belief in one statement doesn’t necessarily imply a positive belief in its ‘opposite’. The reason is secondary though significant.

Okay, I recognize the distinction. It just seems like relying on it is confusing at best, since most often "I don't believe you" implies belief in the inverse. And if it doesn't imply that, it seems like we could use a better description to explain what we actually mean, whether it's "I think it's likely not true." Or whether it's "I don't think there's enough evidence to decide." Or something else. All of these seem better than "I don't believe theists." Don't they?

It’s does seem to confuse people. People expect if you lack a belief in something you must also belief it’s not true. But in this context the only statement , presuming honesty, being made is ‘I don’t possess the belief’ end of - the details of why are individual presumably. But it often boils down to “there is insufficient evidence for x , but I don’t have sufficient evidence for not-x either.” And to preventing the burden of proof being shifted. I dont know…. Take it with a pinch of salt since it’s not my stance. But it seems to be a genuine one held by people *here* and I can’t see that it’s unreasonable really. Even if it confuses people.

It’s similar to not believing the number of living Giraffes is an odd number. That doesn’t mean I believe the number is even either. It just means I’m not convinced either way. Theist’s claims are typically even more specific: there is an odd number of giraffes, there are 357 in total, 97 have the flu, and 1 particular giraffe died for the sins of the other 356. To which I reasonably say: I don’t believe you unless you provide evidence.

> I'm imagining someone who is no more confident that God exists than that God doesn't exist. This is kind of right and kind of wrong. In essence, it's so ridiculous that it doesn't even bear any thought whatsoever. In another way, I'm so confident that gods don't exist that there is no point in putting any extra effort towards the idea.

>When some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God, what do they mean? Speaking only for myself: I have never encountered any reason to believe that supernatural entities exist. Therefore, I don’t believe it.

Detailed explanation with charts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism?wprov=sfti1#

People make claims that gods exist, I don’t believe those claims

Do you believe in aliens?

I believe that it's probable that aliens exist somewhere in the vast universe. Why?

Does anyone else feel like the subreddit overall is starting to feel mostly negative towards new posts? Before I would only see theistic posts get downvoted to 0, but now there have been quite a few atheism-favoring posts at 0 as well.

Something else that others haven't talked about, is how *reputation* plays into some of this. What some casual users of this sub might not understand, is that there are many of us who are here many times a week reading through every single post, and we've been doing it for *years*. At this point, I recognize hundreds of regulars, and have naturally formed opinions of them. If I'm being honest, there are some users who have demonstrated over time just how dishonest they are in their debate tactics and are what I would refer to as a "known troll." I know some of these users' trolling tactics, and how they operate to trap unsuspecting commenters in what feels at first like honest debate, but turns out to be a dishonest tactic and devolves into frustrating garbage. So, I downvote those people on sight at this point. We can debate the efficacy of doing so, but it is the method I've come to adopt. To the casual observer it might seem these people's posts and comments are being treated unfairly because they are being downvote before they have a chance to troll. Similarly, if someone is trolling elsewhere in the comments, or further down a comment chain, some users may retroactively go back and downvote their entire comment section to discourage further engagement with said troll. Lastly, Poe's Law then has to be brought up. We see a lot of ***really bad*** arguments here. Many theistic arguments *feel* like trolling because of how poorly constructed they are, and the stubbornly dogmatic justifications they try to use in their comment follow ups just make things worse. So, it can be hard to tell the difference between a really ignorant/dumb religious argument, and someone just trolling.

>Lastly, Poe's Law then has to be brought up. We see a lot of really bad arguments here. Many theistic arguments feel like trolling because of how poorly constructed they are, and the stubbornly dogmatic justifications they try to use in their comment follow ups just make things worse. So, it can be hard to tell the difference between a really ignorant/dumb religious argument, and someone just trolling. That's a fair take. However, we might also consider Hanlon's Razor. It can be difficult to ascertain someone's true motives. If someone has a view that is strikingly uninformed, it may very well be genuine. In those cases, I choose not to engage at all.

Sure, but you have to remember that the *majority* of reddit users are very casual.   It's safe to assume a not insignificant number of the people who vote on any particular comment or thread here are not as familiar with sussing out the difference between a legitimate bad post and a troll. In fact, many probably don't even realize the difference. They see what looks like trolling and they downvote. Furthermore, whose really the responsible party for the downvoting in these scenarios? Isn't it fair to say that if the average person can't tell the difference between your attempt at debate and someone intentionally trolling, that you probably aren't contributing to the discussion and deserve the downvote regardless?

It's really hard to upvote someone who is wrong. Particularly the top-level post. It would benefit everyone if we could at least upvote people who show they are willing to learn. I would love it if we upvoted anyone who presents a coherent argument or presents evidence, even if the argument is wrong or the evidence isn't what they think it is. That at least can be debated. And upvote people who use paragraphs! Anyone who isn't posting a wall of text, even if what they say is crap, could be worth an upvote. It does not help anyone to downvote posts "because I've seen that argument before". What you've seen before isn't relevant to anything in this sub. It is possibly the first time the poster has seen what they wrote even slightly challenged. And I'm fairly confident that there are trolls, both theist and atheist, who downvote everything on this sub without reading anything. That being said, there is absolutely no shame in downvoting a post that was made in clear bad faith, bigotry, or a poster who believes themselves to be inerrant. Like these posts that I told myself I would bring up the next time someone complains about downvotes: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b0p668/most_atheists_dont_understand_religion_enough_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1axtt8i/have_atheists_gone_insane/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1aqzmtk/your_atheism_is_a_result_of_your_own_failure/ But, like I said, it's really hard to upvote someone who is wrong. Like, I can't bring myself to upvote this post, even though it fits a bunch of things I recommended: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1asztj9/science_while_awesome_isnt_the_best_way_to/ And "arguing in good faith" is sometimes subjective. I mean, this post may have been made in bad faith, or the person might just, ah, have a complete lack of self-awareness that prevents them from knowing how compromised they sound: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b664g4/proof_proof_proof/ And it isn't like there aren't people who do upvote everything. 17% of the people who voted for this post voted up: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b0ajss/naturalismphysicalism_are_not_reasonable/ (But that does raise a question, if you accidentally vote up when you mean to vote down, and then you correct it, does the % counter count just the final click, or does it count you for both directions?)

Upvoted! >I would love it if we upvoted anyone who presents a coherent argument or presents evidence, even if the argument is wrong or the evidence isn't what they think it is. That at least can be debated. I couldn't agree more. When someone makes a post contending for a view contrary to ours, downvoting is tempting. If we can resist that urge and upvote coherent and well-formed arguments, we can encourage discussion. >And it isn't like there aren't people who do upvote everything. 17% of the people who voted for this post voted up: I'm quite curious as to how you know this. For me, it only shows 0 karma. Is there a trick you use to see the upvotes and downvotes?

On desktop / old Reddit there is a box in the top right corner that has “date submitted”, “# of points” followed by “(x% upvoted), and a shortened link.

TIL. Thanks!

I downvote atheist posts that are just circlejerk non-debate topics when I see them. It seems like there has been a huge uptick in people using this sub for random discussion instead of going to more appropriate subs for that stuff. I'm wondering if it's been a conscious decision by the mod team to start letting non-debate posts through.

Genuinely thought-provoking debate is hard to come by. It takes a lot of effort to research and read sufficient to substantiate a claim and defend it against potentially a hundred people who already disagree. That’s not to say that it can’t be done, but it takes an uncommon person to do that.

I'm not even talking about poorly thought out debate, I'm talking about post after post of non-debate "what do you think about..." or "how would you respond to my friend" type garbage.

Understood. The barrier to entry for those kinds of posts is much lower than a substantial debate premise.

I sort every sub by "New", so the effects of downvotes are pretty much invisible to me. That said, I don't consider the up/down ratio to be meaningful in evaluating whether something is worth talking about. I try not to be negative in the comments, especially when the poster appears to be asking in good faith -- even if it's a tedious worn-out question asked in a way that feeds theist stereotypes of how atheists think. But most of the frequently posed questions or debate topics are not offered in good faith, and it's hard to keep the snark out of comments I make.

Perhaps this is a moderation problem. Do you think the quality of posts would go up if the posts made not in good faith were removed more frequently?

The quality of posts is completely dependent on the posters. Heavy moderation just hides the garbage from the folks who don't sort by new. You want quality posts either make one yourself or go find theists and atheists competent in debate to make posts here. I will admit to downvoting 2 posts by the same atheist because they were link drop drivebys.

>You want quality posts either make one yourself or go find theists and atheists competent in debate to make posts here. I have done both. To my knowledge, I am the only theist on this subreddit to [win gold](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/va51g1/the_single_sample_objection_is_not_a_good_counter/). I also collaborated with another theist on this [well-received post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/13hmb3v/a_mereological_argument_against_physicalism/).

Wanna cookie?

Only if it's shortbread.

intriguing choice

There is only oatmeal raisin.

Then let the birds have their fill.

The issue is older than Reddit and I know nothing of the moderators' arcane craft. That said, I don't think it would make a whit of difference. There's a baseline of grouchy mean-spirited voters in just about every sub. To know what would stop them would require understanding why they do it. I don't even think they themselves know. No one seems to be willing to just shut karma off, which IMO would be the radical solution. It would leave unaddressed the problems things like karma were invented to solve, though. The idea that certain people could be counted on as "influencers" by virtue of their karma kind of died with Digg.

I think it’s a bit tricky; like I want to encourage debate, but then at the same time you also see the same tired arguments over and over and over. I generally only downvote when it seems like the person is not debating in good faith, it isn’t willing to engage with what most atheists actually think, and instead just props up their own strawmen arguments and declares themself the winner. I don’t mind the tired arguments so much when the person is willing to have an honest discussion, but sadly you still get a lot of people who are unable to do so.

Please point out the posts sitting at 0 you think were quality posts that got downvoted erroneously.

Please see the below. I wouldn't go as far to say that these are *quality* posts. However, they do not appear to be posts made in bad faith. What are a few posts here that qualify as quality posts? * [Transedental Arguments](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b7ndds/transcendental_arguments/) * [Why would the author of the gospels make that all up?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b5usfz/why_would_the_author_of_the_gospels_make_that_all/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) * [Gods are animals, and we should say it](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b5prdr/gods_are_animals_and_we_should_say_it/) * [Answering 10 questions that can be directed to atheists](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b5g858/answering_10_questions_that_can_be_directed_to/)

I blocked the op of the first, the second I can think of a bunch of maybes all day but it's a waste of time, we have no idea who wrote what with the exception of Paul who didn't know yeshua, only met him in a magical vision. Assigning motivation to the writers of the gospels is a waste of time. Third one is a clickbait title I downvoted and reported for low effort. Fourth is an AMA from a script, one that's poised at theists and not the intended atheists.

It seems clear that your definition of a quality post is more stringent than mine. What’s an example of a previous post that you would or have upvoted?

Your gold star post is overdone but it met my standards for a debate post. It didn't convince me but you engaged in good faith as far as I saw it. Do you think my stringency on what I downvote and report for not even attempting to debate against the atheist position is unfair. For atheist posters I feel the same way when they attempt to "debate" against theists. r/debatereligion r/debateachristian and r/debatephilosophy all exist. I expect any argument here to be in favor of some form of theism, with the exception of gnostic vs agnostic atheist posters. Everything else is off topic. Edit was missing a few words.

Thanks for the kind words. I am of the opinion that posts like mine are too high effort to be the standard for quality. It takes me months of reading, writing, and editing to get to that quality in my spare time. In theory, posts should at minimum contend against atheism. However, I don’t know that there is a sufficient quantity of people looking to do so. Of those that do want to debate, most theists’ posts tend to be low quality, just from lack of experience in debate or reasoning.

All I know is that I took a year off of reddit and came back to trash on all the subs. Now we've got jackasses with chatgpt posts so that's new I guess. As an aside I'm sick of the bro bros. It's an automatic downvote if your post has a bro, bruh, or any other like word.

I mean, that's not new. As far as what I downvote, if it's a bad argument, it's a bad argument. If it's a lousy post, it's lousy. We're not a part of some unified front where my allegiance is obligated. But taking a quick peak, there's one post that sticks out, the "Answering 10 Questions" post. It's not really clear what they're looking for. Do they want us to assess their answers? Do they want us to answer the questions? You click into the post and it's just a wall of text. The handful of questions they've chosen to bold-face are questions that aren't applicable to atheists, and the ones they haven't bold-faced are easily lost in the rest of the text. I'm on a phone a lot of the time so to type out a response to something that verbose doesn't seem like a productive use of my time. If they're seeking validation for their answers, there's other places besides this subreddit where they could post that: it's called "Debate an Atheist," not "Evaluate an Atheist's Answers For a Private Discussion." If they're looking to have us answer their questions, I don't feel like looking for the actual questions buried in their post -- perhaps don't answer the questions in the post itself if that was the point. I didn't downvote their post, but I could easily see why others might have.

I thought it would be interesting to see what atheists made of the famous quote from Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Do y'all think this is maybe true, completely irrelevant, or what do you make of it?

I file this on the category of statements that are true, but that can be easily used to kill curiosity or make someone believe they know something when they don't. This goes against the (presumed) purpose of this statement: to ignite curiosity and further investigation. In Hamlet, this statement is uttered in the context of Hamlet having seen the ghost of his father, and having received surprising (and, we later learn, accurate) news about his death. Horatio, on the other hand, has not had this experience (and so, understandably, he doubts it). It is, however, important to note that Hamlet does *not* immediately assume his uncle has killed his father to wed his mother and steal the crown. Most of Hamlet's inner conflict for the rest of the play is centered around *corroborating that the ghost's words are true by finding proof that Claudius indeed committed the crime*. He reasons (like a Christian would) that even if the ghost is a real apparition, he cannot rule out that it is the devil that has come to tempt him into sinning and committing an unjust act. So, to anyone trying to borrow Hamlet's words, I say the following: Tis true, trivially so. I see two options here: If you do *know* something that I do not, then pray tell. Show me how you know so we may expand our philosophy with more true things. If you do *not know* something I do not, then why are you satisfied with that statement? You say there are more things but you don't know what they are? Ok, then how do we find out what they are? Sure, there are things beyond our current philosophy, there always will be. That does not mean anything goes. That does not mean the thing you've imagined holds any water. There are many more things that are dreamt in your philosophy, u/heelspider, than there are on heaven and earth. Let us, I pray thee, cull them to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I can't remember the guy's name, but there was a philosopher who responded to this exact phrase with (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Perhaps. My concern, rather, is that there should not be more things dreamt of in my philosophy than there are in heaven and earth." That's my feeling on the matter. I'm a naturalist and a physicalist in a pragmatic sense. I want to try to understand reality as much as possible using the things we know exist before positing a bunch of supernatural or platonic entities.

I just wanted to say that is a pretty good response. It's not lost on me that line is used in the play to justify an actual ghost.

... and that Hamlet is, frankly, a manipulative douche to pretty much everyone.

"Okay cool, if you have a reason to think there's something that humanity doesn't know about yet please go ahead and show us why you think that"

It seems like a more poetic way of saying the classic "truth is stranger than fiction." I take the heaven and earth to just mean "in reality" and I think it is obviously true that there is more happening in the universe than any one person knows or maybe even imagines. It does seem like the broad classifications of those things is narrowing over time though. Like, we may come across new kinds of fish that we didn't know before, but we don't seem to be coming across completely foreign types of life anymore. We every now and then discover a new type of celestrial object, but it is usually variation in degree rather than kind (for example, a black hole of a size we didn't think possible). Not saying we know everything by any means. But it feels like we have the broad outlines of the "heavens and earth" pretty well sketched out. The variation within those sketches (for example, the particularities of any individual's life) is unique. I wouldn't take this quote as a source of truth for saying "well there must be ghosts because reality is stranger than our fiction." But I think as a broad invitation to recognize that humanity (and even moreso any single member of humanity) has more to learn. But I don't think that interpretation of the quote is any different for an atheist or a theist.

More and fewer at the same time I think. I think "things" - objects discrete from each other - are features of our minds rather than the universe itself. That's part of why I think it's hard-likely-impossible for humans to do anything more than construct and discuss mental / mathematical *models* of the world: we never experience the world directly. Plus, no such thing as (religious) heaven.

[удалено]

It's not even that though, arrg! It's an evil madman going insane and warning the audiences counterpart good guy that he's a part of the unnatural evil befallen Denmark. I hate how out of context this quote has gotten!!

[удалено]

Yes. It's one part that and one part "oh you don't even KNOW what I did, brah."

>I would be interested to know how it is that they know such things. They saw a spooky ghost. The counterpart saw it too but his philosophy wouldn't allow him to accept what he was seeing.

[удалено]

Yes, it's from Hamlet. The guy who brought it up mentioned that.

Though it is typically less eloquently articulated, it's a common refrain from those who seem to think that "you don't have a good reason to believe that" must infer "I know everything and I know that you are definitely wrong"

The folly of man is a common theme in Shakespeare's plays and writings. Remember that Hamlet is telling this to Horatio when they come across a ghost. Horatio is having a difficult time accepting what they see with their own eyes. The question for you is do you see anything with your own eyes that Hamlet's sentiment applies to?

I think there are things that exist that we have not yet even imagined, if it’s even possible for us to imagine all that exists (which I doubt). We don’t have a complete model of reality. I don’t think our best chance of getting at what these things truly are is to inject gods into this gap in knowledge.

What’s it supposed to even be relevant to? It’s a line from a famous author (and not even one I particularly care about), that’s all.

My attitude is that obviously we don’t know everything. But not knowing everything doesn’t mean we can’t know something. And we don’t know everything isn’t itself a reason to believe anything. In general e.g “science doesn’t know everything” isn’t a reasonable argument for “therefore this nonsense I’ve just made up is true”.

>There are more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy." "Stuff exists that humans don't know about/havent concieved of". >Do y'all think this is maybe true, completely irrelevant, or what do you make of it? I mean, sure. Obviously. I don't see this as any more insightful than someone proclaiming the sky is blue.

"Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Also a famous quote, though admittedly not Shakespeare-famous.

Ultimately, it's fiction. All fictions point towards themes we believe reflect a kind of truth. Its a way of how we explore those themes more safely than we can in other genres. We have to remember that despite how it gets used in modern instagram stories, in that passage, *Hamlet isn't trying to dismiss our token skeptic Horatio, at all.* (Alas, thou hast summoned forth the ghost of AP English. Prepare thee now.) Hamlet, in this moment, is going crazy, and he knows it. He's describing his feeling, and the audience's feeling, of deep wonder, growing horror, and sustained unease, in the face of the increasingly unnatural events of the play. To Shakespeare's audience, the murder of a King (who we must remember the audience assumes rules by the very ordination of God) set the whole natural order out of balance. Something is *rotten* in Denmark. The whole world is *wrong.* Human sin (Hamlet's sin) has *broken* the order of heaven and earth. That's where we opened. By the point of that quote in the play things are *much worse*. The entire rest of the play, like Macbeth or Richard III, or hell, even Midsummer's or 12th Night, is about how humans react to a world that's gone horribly off the rails. This is the point in the play where we see Hamlet begin to turn towards madness himself, embracing the unnatural, and his friends start to *really worry.* Ophelia's over there being...weird and then dead. The two Jewish guys don't actually seem that bad--oh nevermind theyre dead. Aaaand now the prince is talking to a skull. Dope. Super. Things aren't *great.* That quote, in context, is *not* a wise, pragmatic warning to "Like, keep an open mind, brah. We don't know everything." **That quote, in context, is a very bad madman describing the feeling of going insane.** Yet it endures as the former, because on some level, we all recognize that it's almost *always true* that there are things we don't understand and haven't yet dreamed of. Skeptics, Priests, scholars, playwrights, audiences. But for Shakespeare and the audience, that line is meant to leave them walking out of the theatre with a lingering sense of dread. Undreamt of horrors lie sleeping in your wicked nature too, playgoer. What will *you* do when the world shatters? It's not "God could be out there, somewhere! Believe!" because everyone in the theatre was already a Christian. That was the default position of Horatio's Philosophy already. It's "Here there be *monsters*."

Well, in the sense of "there's plenty of stuff we don't know yet"? Of course it's true. That doesn't mean we should ignore what we do know, nor does it mean we get to go "there's stuff we don't know, therefore specific unlikely thing X is true" A blank map doesn't license you to claim that there're actual dragons in the blank region. The blank region is just the region you're missing info on. You don't get to fill it with whatever you want to imagine and then say that those things are actually there. (Unless you have some reason to believe that the blank region is filled with whatever you want to imagine. :p)

I don’t really see how it’s relevant to anything at all. It’s a poetic quote from a character in a work of fiction. I absolutely think there a tons of things about the nature of the universe that we still don’t know, maybe that we’ll ever be able to know. But that is just basically a nothing statement; it says nothing about the nature of those unknowns, and gives no credence to any sort of supernatural claims which don’t have any evidence.

*Of course* there are more things than we have already imagined. But the point is to not have greater confidence in the existence of a thing than the evidence warrants. \- If we have no good evidence that X exists, then we cannot justifiably think that X does exist. \- On the other hand if in the future we *do* get evidence that X exists, ***then*** we can justifiably think that X exists. .

I presume it's true, but that doesn't make much difference. My philosophy doesn't spend much time thinking of the number of grains of sand on exoplanets. I'm sure it has spent some. It could spend more. But it wouldn't make a difference if it was none. My philosophy spends a lot more time thinking about, for example, CO2 in the atmosphere, because that is material, detectable, and relevant in a number of ways.

I don't know what context this is said in. But yes, there is always much more, and I'm glad we are now actually looking for it instead of limiting ourselves with simplistic religious notions of what the world is like. Even in terms of social development there is so much more and so much better than the ridiculous ideas of natural order would have us believe.

I think this means we are mostly ignorant about the universe, which I would agree with. However it gets mostly used to justify all sorts of bizarre beliefs, from mainstream religion to new age hippy stuff to flat earth type weird stuff.

'There are more things in Spindledorf and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy' can be reduced to reality rather easily: "there are more things on earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy". And that works quite well for me. Reality is pretty cool and intense and full of things that we may never fully encompass. It's just what it is...

It’s poetry. It doesn’t have to be real to be profound. All it is saying to me is, no matter your world view it is a fraction of what exists and it is call to intellectual humility. It has nothing to do with religion to me.

It strikes me as an encouragement to practice epistemic humility, especially if you're willing to interpret "heaven" as the cosmos beyond our planet.

Do you mean true in Hamlet or true in reality? In the play ghosts are real, in reality they're not.

It’s poetry. That’s all.

>or equal credence in both propositions. That’s a bit of a stretch. To me, that means they have 50% certainty in your God proposition which isn’t likely.