this post was submitted on
297 points (86% like it)
353 up votes 56 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,200,967 readers

1,004 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

Voice your opinion: Should we have a "text only" day once a week? vote or discuss

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

296
297

I've been noticing some confusion lately, it's time this was posted again. (3.bp.blogspot.com)

submitted ago by catechizer

all 87 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]neonblue120 38 points39 points ago

I'm an agnostic atheist. Every other position is completely untenable.

[–]spambot5546 6 points7 points ago

Oh, blah, blah "you can't know there isn't a god" whatever. The only way to not know is if you abuse epistemology to the degree that you don't even know if a room exists after you leave it.

Almost every extant religion makes enough claims to be disproven. No believer will accept it, of course, but it's true. Formal logic allows for a claim to be disproven using contradictions, and if it's good enough for math it should be good enough for you.

The only way you can really argue you don't "know" a deity doesn't exist is the impersonal deist style of higher power. These can stand because they are so completely nebulous and undefined that there is nothing about them to contradict. Since there's also absolutely no reason to ever believe in them one can only say that they don't "know" they don't exist in the same sense I don't "know" that Santa Clause doesn't exist. Funny how no one is ever agnostic about Santa Clause.

[–]neonblue120 0 points1 point ago

See my reply to rdavis179

[–]spambot5546 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I covered that.

The only way you can really argue you don't "know" a deity doesn't exist is the impersonal deist style of higher power. These can stand because they are so completely nebulous and undefined that there is nothing about them to contradict. Since there's also absolutely no reason to ever believe in them one can only say that they don't "know" they don't exist in the same sense I don't "know" that Santa Clause doesn't exist. Funny how no one is ever agnostic about Santa Clause.

[–]ryanasaurousrex 14 points15 points ago

Agreed, the top left (Agnostic Atheist) is the only rational position to hold, regardless of how strongly or weakly that position is held. The gnostic atheist and gnostic theist find themselves in equally indefensible positions as they are both claiming knowledge of something this is ultimately unknowable. That said, I personally identify as a strong agnostic atheist - I'm pretty damn sure that no god(s) exist, but I don't claim to have knowledge of their nonexistence.

[–]jxfaith 10 points11 points ago

I would disagree inasmuch as you can make strong cases against the gods placed forward by structured religion. It is my position that one can be a gnostic atheist with respect to any god for whom specific attributes are posited (see omnipotence/omnipresence contradiction, etc). I feel that distinction is valid and useful because when one states "atheist" to a theist, gnosticism is implied automatically. By comparison, placing "agnostic" anywhere near your belief system seems to inspire a religious thinker to go on a tirade assaulting incomplete knowledge, which is an utterly useless direction for any meaningful debate to take.

I agree that the vast majority of atheists, if pressed, would admit agnosticism, because it is the only honest stance. That doesn't mean you can't claim to have solid evidence that the reasoning by which another person worships a god is unsound.

[–]Greyhaven7 0 points1 point ago

Very well stated. Impressive.

[–]pete21121 1 point2 points ago

Agreed. I cant claim to know a god/higher power does not exist, but i also cant claim that invisible flying unicorns definitely dont exist. Both seem about as likely, but it would be arrogant to think we know something like that for definite.

[–]canyouhearme 1 point2 points ago

Or alternatively you can state that your axiom is that anything that shows no evidence of its existence can be definitely said to NOT exist, until such time as evidence it produced.

Using that axiom you can quite happily say that you know that flying unicorns don't exist, because there is no evidence.

The agnostic position means you give (low) credence to every weird and incredible idea, no matter how daft - an infinite list of "well you don't really know".

[–]pete21121 0 points1 point ago

I see your point, but i still wouldnt want to categorically state that i know something doesnt exist purely because of a lack of evidence. The reason i mentioned flying unicorns was because i genuinely believe god is about as likely.

However, as far as i know, there is no real evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial life, yet id think it completely stupid to say we 'know' there isnt any.

[–]GriffTheYellowGuy -1 points0 points ago

I see your point, but i still wouldnt want to categorically state that i know something doesnt exist purely because of a lack of evidence.

That's kinda how science and logic works, though....

[–]BluesTruths 0 points1 point ago

I think that is almost the opposite of how science works. There are vast worlds unseen, and mind-boggling theories of other universes. We've seen and understand so little of what we perceive as reality--to deny the possibility of something from lack of evidence would be preemptive.

[–]Kaiju_Hamster 0 points1 point ago

Hey if they were really tiny unicorns, I bet they could fly. And BAM that's still more likely than a virgin conception actually nvm... chickens do that all the time.

[–]canyouhearme 0 points1 point ago

I'd suggest extra-terrestrials and supernatural gods fall into two different categories of "don't know"s.

Extra-terrestrials we can make a logical deduction on the basis of stellar evolution, chemistry and biology should exist. We've no evidence, but its entirely in keeping with known laws of the universe and logic.

Supernatural gods however require that they are above and outside the natural laws we know. Not only is there no evidence, we need to break and remake the universe for them to exist.

So both of them "don't exist" but in different classes. Kind of like aleph numbers.

[–]boyofrito 2 points3 points ago

I would disagree to an extent. I do not know if there is a god, but if there is, it certainly isn't any of the ones worshipped by any religion.

[–]ONXwat 0 points1 point ago

Not just that, if there is a god, he sure is a goddamn dick with some explaining to do.

[–]thirdegree 7 points8 points ago

I am as well, but I don't mind saying that I think there almost certainly isn't a god.

[–]rdavis179 3 points4 points ago

In the world of scientific study it is impossible to prove a negative, one can only prove a contradictory positive. As there is no evidence to support the existence of some form of god I would have to state that I know god does not exist the same way I know the earth is not flat; there is no evidence supporting god's existence and I have seen convincing evidence that god does not exist.

[–]neonblue120 -1 points0 points ago

God doesn't necessarily imply the christian or any other conceived deity. God might exist in some form we've never even considered or may not even be able to consider rationally. I hate the argument christians use against ALL atheist that we have to know everything to KNOW god doesn't exist but in this case that does apply.

[–]smithjohnson112 -1 points0 points ago

We know the earth is not flat because we know it to be round. Not knowing that a god exists is not an analogy to this.

Gnosticism fails the reason test.

[–]tsdguy 2 points3 points ago

We know there is no god with the same confidence level we know that if we drop something, it will fall. Maybe someone will counter that there must be an example someplace (on Earth of course) that it won't but the preponderance of evidence is the contrary.

Considering that there has never been a single legitimate piece of evidence of the negation of physical law or divine intervention or appearance in the many thousands of years humans have had the intellectual capacity to understand "evidence", this is conclusive.

[–]lazyatheist 1 point2 points ago

Totally, nobody EVER argues when I say I know there are no leprechauns. And the only time people start pulling out this bs about having to know everything, or whether people can even know things is when they are arguing something without a shred of evidence (that they believe in anyway) like gods/ghosts/demons/souls etc. The rest of their lives they are perfectly fine with claiming to know things, or claiming things do/don't exist without having to scour the universe for them first.

[–]Pinkiepylon 1 point2 points ago

It could always be flat, and we're perceiving it to be a sphere, due to something wrong with our perceptions. Sure, yeah it sounds stupid, but we misinterpret the colour magenta to be something it isn't, as well as the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[–]rdavis179 0 points1 point ago

You beat me to it. Being someone who has never been into outer space the only evidence I have that the earth is round is given to me by other people. The evidence is convincing therefore I believe the earth is round. Similar to what you stated without the evidence of photographs I could also draw the conclusion that, because people were able to take ships around the world without falling off the edge, the earth is part of some spacial anomaly linking it together at either end while it is at the same time flat.

Thank you.

[–]Pinkiepylon 0 points1 point ago

Err... that wasn't really the point I was trying to make, but okay. I was trying to say that just because we perceive reality a certain way doesn't make it so. I used magenta as an example, because magenta is simply our brain trying to rationalize something it cannot comprehend, which is what the colour of electromagnetic wavelengths beyond red and purple. Anytime you observe optical allusions, this same affect takes place; brains substitute for things that would be too difficult, or dangerous to understand.

[–]GriffTheYellowGuy -1 points0 points ago

You don't need to go to space to prove Earth is round.

You can fly around the world in an airplane with a velocity directly east, west, north, or south. You will eventually have a displacement of 0 meters.

Therefore, the Earth is round.

You can do this yourself provided you have enough money to pay for it and experience piloting.

Also, math.

[–]AgletsHowDoTheyWork 0 points1 point ago

Technically, if the earth was flat but its edges were identified with each other (think the sides of the screen in Mario Bros.) you would have the same experience. Of course there is a lot of other compelling evidence for the roundness of the earth.

[–]unvorsum 0 points1 point ago

In the world of logic it is possible to prove a negative. The very sentence "it is impossible to prove a negative" is a negative statement and if it were true then you would've just proved a negative and rendered the statement false.

[–]rdavis179 1 point2 points ago

But as stated I was referring to the world of scientific study, not grammatical logic.

Also when has logic ever had it's day in religion?

[–]unvorsum 0 points1 point ago

I was just tossing a little factoid under your comment is all. Just trying to blow people's minds, man.

[–]rdavis179 0 points1 point ago

Respectable. I enjoyed the link you posted.

[–]buttlordZ 0 points1 point ago

Especially when you consider that this graph doesn't even define what "god" means. Does "god" mean the traditional mythological idea of god? The New Age "god is within all of us" perspective? Any being beyond the scope of our universe, or any force that caused our universe to come into being? There's too many possible identities for a "god" to definitively claim it doesn't exist.

I mean, it's pretty defensible to be like "this specific god concept doesn't exist", but to claim that nothing that could be considered a god exists is narrow-minded.

[–]GriffTheYellowGuy 0 points1 point ago

Are there leprechauns and unicorns? The answer is most certainly no. The same reasons why they aren't are applied to all supernatural beings, including gods. You don't have to see everything to see that one particular thing doesn't exist. If there is no evidence that it does, it is not logical to assume it does.

[–]Feuilly 1 point2 points ago

I don't agree. You can know that gods don't exist because the qualities of 'godness' are logically impossible, and thus you can use reason to deduce that they cannot exist. And yes, the definition of a god is very central to a person's conception of atheism, otherwise I could just call Michael Phelps a swimming god and transform you into a gnostic theist.

[–]davisty69 0 points1 point ago

Agreed all day. I always assumed I'd made up thus idea of an agnostic atheist...

It is the only view that makes sense to me.

[–]Jagjamin 0 points1 point ago

I'm an agnostic atheist. But in regards to the god-claims I've encountered? I would say that it is known, as much as anything can be known, that they are false.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

Agnostic explicit atheist or agnostic implicit atheist?

[–]geaw 0 points1 point ago

I've heard people reject specific gods on the basis of self-contradiction. "I know there is no god as I know there is no square circle."

[–]otac0n -2 points-1 points ago

I don't think so. I used to consider myself an Agnostic Theist, then an Agnostic Atheist. Now I just say that I have no "belief" one way or another in a God. I just claim utter ignorance.

I think that utter ignorance is the only position that is truly legitimate.

To believe in the absence of a God is fine, but I don't know that that is the only tenable position...

[–]rdavis179 0 points1 point ago

But it could be argued that the unwavering belief in religious dogma is utter ignorance.

I understand what you're saying I just wanted to say you're not ignorant for holding the stance you don't know whether or not god exists, people are ignorant who ignore evidence that contradicts their way of thinking. In the brief time I've been a part of this subreddit I have seen less ignorance than anywhere else on the internet.

[–]Physicalism 4 points5 points ago

I've noticed that a lot of people just don't like to label themselves as atheists in public, for whatever reason, so they just say they're agnostic. When they're really agnostic atheists. It used to annoy me, but I just had to accept that it probably is never going to change.

[–]spankymuffin 2 points3 points ago

It's probably because the word "atheism" has such a poor connotation. I think most people presume that all atheists are not only "gnostic atheists," but also "arrogant, obnoxious, in-your-face assholes who hate religion."

[–]Darktidemage 8 points9 points ago

I just came here to say no gods exist.

I don't think it's a bold or "strong" claim. No dragons or unicorns or leprechauns or fairies either.

Nothing metaphysical exists.

[–]spankymuffin -1 points0 points ago

Yes, but do you "believe" there is no god, or do you simply "not believe" but find it so unlikely that you can confidently say things like "no gods exist"?

[–]GriffTheYellowGuy -1 points0 points ago

This isn't a religion. I do not believe gods don't exist the same way I don't believe Santa doesn't exist. There is absolutely no evidence at all either does, and all instances claiming to be proof of either is actually either coincidence or planned. Following your logic, we all simply "believe" Santa doesn't exist.

Your logic is inherently flawed because you cannot assume something exists without evidence it does. The only logical assumption is that something with no evidence of existing at all does not exist.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

I believe there's no tooth fairy.

Oh, sorry. Misread. I believe there's no god.

I believe all sorts of things because they seem more reasonable than the opposite. Don't you? It must cause you difficulty in life not being able to have a definite opinion on anything you're not certain of.

[–]camnui -2 points-1 points ago

what about the alternate universe theory. which states that there is a universe somewhere where they have proven a god exists and another where they have proven there are no gods?

[–]tsdguy 3 points4 points ago

Proven? Not likely. Postulated? Not even that. Thought about on the john? Maybe.

[–]buttlordZ -2 points-1 points ago

Define "gods".

[–]Countryb0y22 2 points3 points ago

Is the g in gnostic silent?

[–]ra4king 2 points3 points ago

Yup.

[–]thenaterator 3 points4 points ago

That bit about "stronger than strong" is confusing.

A strong (or positive, or gnostic) atheist claims that no gods exist.

A weak (or negative, or agnostic) atheist doesn't believe any gods exist.

[–]BFG_9000 -2 points-1 points ago

That bit about "stronger than strong" is confusing.

What bit about "stronger than strong"?

[–]thenaterator 2 points3 points ago

At the bottom. "stronger than strong atheism"

[–]BFG_9000 1 point2 points ago

Thanks!

You know what - I checked the image about 6 times & completely failed to see that.

Now I just feel foolish.

[–]WeaponsGradeHumanity 0 points1 point ago

What confusion?

[–]Captainnemo55555 0 points1 point ago

I'm a centrist.

[–]Kamunami 0 points1 point ago

Every dictionary I have relates agnosticism with the unknowability of the existence of a god. Does that mean I'm a gnostic atheist, because I don't believe in god but I think if one existed it would be knowable?

[–]gaoshan 0 points1 point ago

I'm lawful good on this chart.

[–]ed_eddit -1 points0 points ago

That "B" word should be removed. From everything. Ever.

[–]TheSacramentum 0 points1 point ago

I'd say I'm a little between Agnostic atheist and Gnostic atheist. There is no way an all powerful god can exist, but that doesn't rule out other forms of a god. We just don't know enough to rightfully claim there are no superior beings in our universe, but, what defines a god?

[–]Jeuxfaxex 0 points1 point ago

Okay, so I'm going to make an apparently controversial point here. I'm a gnostic atheist. This doesn't mean that I claim to know with absolute certainty that a deity doesn't exist.

Okay, so I have a question for you guys. Are you "agnostic" about the possibility of a Santa Claus existing? After all, you don't have proof that he doesn't exist... Are you "agnostic" about the tooth fairy? If I said that I had a magic ring that grants me my every wish, would you be "agnostic" about me having it?

All I'm doing is putting my nonbelief in a deity up to the same scrutiny I would other things that I "know" don't exist. I hope there's not one person here that would say they aren't quite sure whether the tooth fairy exists. If you KNOW the tooth fairy doesn't exist, why can't you say that you know that God doesn't?

Lack of proof one way or the other does not preclude knowledge. My two cents.

[–]Major_woody4591 0 points1 point ago

In my opinion Gnostic Atheism in no better than gnostic theism. No matter how much you want to, it is impossible to prove that a deity dose or dose not exist. presenting your beliefs, or lack there of, as the one truth only causes divide and animosity. Every person is allowed to have their own beliefs, and as long as they keep them to themselves and not shove them down my throat, I don't can what you think as long as your not a dick.

[–]ExxL 0 points1 point ago

Coming from a 12 year old here, I feel that religion itself is a silly thing in general. I'm saying EVERY religion. I myself am an atheist, not only because I don't think there is a god, but because I feel we should just push that aside and enjoy life as it is. Religion is pushing the community apart here. Ever realize some of the major things that happened in this world because of religion? Take 9/11 for example. Why did they hit the twin towers? Because they thought Allah would bring them better lives in the afterlife. Look where we are now.

On the atheist side, we have science to try and prove there is no god, and it looks pretty good. Everything seems to come together, like a puzzle. It all makes sense how everything began.

On the theist side, there is no true proof that there is no God, and that this vast universe was created by someone more powerful.

Have you ever noticed that debates on religion never really go anywhere? It's just "Hey, god isn't real", "Yes he is!", "Proof" "Proof" etc. This pattern keeps going on forever, until the conversation dies off. We shouldn't be debating about this at all, and spending most of our time looking at adorable cat photos, and videos of people doing stupid things.

Peace off

[–]Organs 0 points1 point ago

Do Agnostic Theists really just call themselves Agnostic?

[–]yeathl 0 points1 point ago

So is there a classification for an Agnostic Atheist that doesn't give a shit if God exists or not?

[–]larg3-p3nis 0 points1 point ago

Yes, what we need is more precise pigeon-holing.

[–]squigs 1 point2 points ago

Not everyone agrees with this. It's somewhat arrogant to insist that this interpretation of things it the only interpretation.

To me it seems pretty illogical. Partly because an agnostic theist apparently has a belief, whereas an agnostic atheist does not. So, if you have no knowledge of something can you have belief? Every theist at least has knowledge that there is a concept of a god.

Can you have knowledge of something but not belief?

Why is it considered so unimportant to distinguish between those of us who believe (but don't know) there's no god, and those of us who don't believe there's no god?

It wouldn't be so bad, but it's also confusing. The majority of people use these terms differently - i.e. atheist is one who believes there's no god and agnostic is one who doesn't have a position. This is a usage understood by Dawkins, Huxley, Russel, seem to understand things this way. Even the FAQ doesn't go so far as to state this is wrong. It sates "atheism can represent several different viewpoints". It then goes on to state, without any evidence that it's "most commonly conceived of as a lack of belief in gods."

[–]AerateMark 1 point2 points ago

LOL I see what you did there, you truly amazing person! Omg, I'm throwing money at the screen but it isn't working!

[–]VicariousWolf 0 points1 point ago

I'm torn between agnostic and gnostic atheist. The attributes that are given to God do not correlate with what reality entails, so I think it is safe to say there is no god(s), at least ones that we have given attributes to, such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.

It's logically impossible for an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being to exist.

[–]BluesTruths 0 points1 point ago

Really, guys?

One might believe in the potential of a god without directly believing in said god. After all, the limitless possibilities of what could be are, I think, what drive people to say they are "agnostic".

Please do not try to label agnostic's beliefs into(as another redditor put it) "over-simplified garbage".

[–]satanist -1 points0 points ago

This artificial splitting of atheism into 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' is just wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It makes no claims one way or another concerning what is knowable or unknowable; that's a wholly separate issue.

Also, it's never a matter of 'claiming to know there is no god'; any debate on the issue assumes that rules of logic and reason are in force. Otherwise, there's no point debating anything. If logic and reason are respected, there is simply no possible case for theistic belief, and hence no possible argument.

[–]spankymuffin 2 points3 points ago

It's not splitting atheism into anything. As you said, atheism is simply a lack of belief. But "gnosticism" and "agnosticism" refers to claims of knowledge, not belief. So a "gnostic atheist" is a person who lacks belief in God (atheism) AND claims knowledge that there is no God (gnostic).

It is artificial, like anything involving language, but it serves a real purpose. I understand more about a person who identifies himself as a "gnostic atheist" than a person who merely says he's an "atheist."

[–]Aza-Sothoth 1 point2 points ago

This model is oversimplified garbage.

[–]SimilarImage -1 points0 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
4 months UnbelievableRose Some of you are forgetting this. Again: The difference between knowledge and belief. here 65 103
5 months PlatinumToasterRape You need to know what these are! You can't use the words if you don't know what they mean! here 1101 1031
8 months dionysusrising Maybe this will clear some things up. here 22 16

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]Bouddhanot 0 points1 point ago

Funny how you can replace "Gnostic" with "Obnoxious" and it still makes sense.

[–]rg57 -2 points-1 points ago

This diagram is incorrect.

Gnostic/agnostic is about whether the existence of gods is something that can be known, rather than merely believed. That is, gnostic/agnostic is about whether there's some logical or empirical proof that could permit us to know that gods do or do not exist.

It's NOT a claim that gods actually do or do not exist, but rather a claim about whether such claims can reasonably be made.

So it's not that agnostic atheists merely don't "... claim to know that no god exists" but that we affirmatively state that we cannot know (with our current abilities) whether certain gods exist, even while we can certainly rule out others.

Gnostic atheists make a claim about knowledge, but again it's not "... know no god exists" -- that is strong atheism. They simply believe that it can be proven that no god exists. It's not necessarily true that they claim to have such proof.

[–]spankymuffin 0 points1 point ago

If /atheism/ used this image as the new background for the subreddit, people would still not understand. Some just cannot comprehend the difference between "not believing" and "believing in not."

[–]Nincro -2 points-1 points ago

Easy really.

Atheism and every religion is a stance on belief.

Agnostic/Gnostic is a Stance on Knowledge

[–]ellipsisca -5 points-4 points ago

Blah Blah Blah.... Atheist = Does not believe in god(s) This agnostic/gnostic argument is splitting hairs. Go have a beer and watch some football and settle the fuck down.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 4827 on app-20 running 4424f18.