use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
965 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
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
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 ›
I've started referring to myself as an "agnostic atheist" rather than just an atheist both because it IS what I technically am, (see handy attached chart) and theists don't have as many preconceived prejudices against it for some reason. (26.media.tumblr.com)
submitted 10 months ago by Terrik27
[–]fuzzyk1tt3n 29 points30 points31 points 10 months ago
I present myself as an atheist because it comes the closest to expressing my position. I don't feel the need to hedge and say that I would be willing to reconsider and change my mind if there is new evidence because I think it misleads people into thinking my views are less confident than they are.
I also don't like identifying as an agnostic because although I am an agnostic under certain definitions, I generally reject the notion that absolute proof and certainty are required in order to support or reject a position. I don't require that level of evidence for any other area of my life so I refuse to require it in a religious context.
[–]dropcode 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
Interesting perspective, mind if I pick your brain? Specifically regarding this:
I generally reject the notion that absolute proof and certainty are required in order to support or reject a position.
For me, this seems to imply a dichotomy that I don't think really exists. In particular that you must either support or reject a position. Why, in your opinion, shouldn't there be a default position where you neither support nor reject a position until certainty can be attained?
[–]panem 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
Bayes theorem and Solomonoff induction let you derive probability distributions from a formalist deductive background. Not only does this align well with less-philosophical interpretations of the wavefunction; it matches day-to-day living, and science, better than classical deduction.
If your prior experiences say "lolmagic is unlikely" withholding judgment if a salesman is selling homeopathic water is silly - perhaps you're 99.99% sure it's BS, .01% it's not. If the situation is different, perhaps a political debate, you might be 20% sure something is true, 80% it isn't. But defaulting to neutral is a relic of 1700s-era philosophy, before modern statistics was formalized.
[–]dropcode 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
this is a really good point and I'm surprised I haven't already given it more consideration. Thinking about it now, I guess I don't go to a neutral position. I definitely have a natural lean toward or away from any given possibility but I think I do my best to allow evidence, rather than guesswork, to quantify those distributions.
[–]fuzzyk1tt3n 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
It's a matter of degree, not a dichotomy. We can support or reject things with varying degrees of confidence in proportion to the evidence available. If the evidence for and against are very close, it might make sense to withhold judgment or being agnostic. I'm not sure how widely applicable this condition would be. Everything has to be evaluated against all of the background knowledge that we have, and if it's a question on which we have no background knowledge at all because it proposes something novel, that in itself is inconsistent with our background knowledge. I think it makes sense to approach the problem from the perspective that the fact that a discovery hasn't been made until now is evidence against the proposition that has to be overcome with evidence. This could be a trivially easy threshold ("I discovered a new animal. Here is one that I caught") or nearly impossible ("There is an invisible sky wizard who controls the universe and here's why...")
[–]dropcode 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I think, without really realizing it, this is what I do. I tend to think that I withhold judgment but when I give it real thought I suppose I don't.
[–]jar_lobe_hellgel 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Absolute certainty is impossible. Probably.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Atheist comes natural to me for similar reasons.. agnostic feels like a cop-out to me, because the only other option is this "gnostic atheism", meaning you claim you KNOW there isn't a god.. That's just as ludicrous as claiming you KNOW there IS..
There needs to be a middle ground between "I don't know if there could be" and "I know there isn't".. I'm there, in the "It's not likely and the evidence doesn't favor it" side.. I don't think there's legitimately actual gnostic atheists as defined in the chart..
[–]RupeThereItIs 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
As an agnostic, I do require that level of proof for everything.
That being said, I'm also rather convinced that my understanding of reality is nearly infinite in it's limitation being based on my flawed/limited 5 senses & advanced monkey brain.
[–]squigs 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
I think the problem is that there are degrees of certainty.
I'm pretty certain I'll wake up tomorrow, that there are no unicorns, that the Earth goes around the sun, and that the Christian god doesn't exist. Do I know all this with absolute certainty? No. Do I doubt any of this for an instant? Of course not.
I believe that Barrack Obama will win the next presidential election, and that I will not need to refuel my car tomorrow, but I am by no means certain.
I have absolutely no idea that if I call a specific friend tomorrow, they'll be free. Nor do I know if the number 6 will come up as a lottery number.
One might say I'm agnostic regarding all of these, but my degree of certainty on the first set of these is such that I act very much as if I know this to be certain.
The agnostic/gnostic binary is a limitation. Personally I think this is a much better way of looking at things. http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
[–]RupeThereItIs 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
"I'm pretty certain I'll wake up tomorrow, that there are no unicorns, that the Earth goes around the sun, and that the Christian god doesn't exist. Do I know all this with absolute certainty? No. Do I doubt any of this for an instant? Of course not."
This is the part I can't understand, it sounds contradictory.
Doesn't a lack of certainty therefore require doubt? High confidence sure but still doubt must exist. I know this is beginning to sound pedantic, but as you say it's a level of degrees. I think both of your assertions are very likely based on the evidence, but I am not certain & therefore must have doubt. It sounds like we're arguing the same point almost, yet so far apart, quizzical really.
Your link does go into what we're talking about, but unfortunately language is pliable and the word Athiest is not as clean cut as the author would like to portray (wouldn't it be nice if language where precise & effective ;-) )
The reason I don't like to describe myself with the word Atheist, is it's unfortunately the word strongly associated with an annoying minority. People who honestly & truly believe that they know god(s) can't exist. Something I can not in good conscious associate myself with as I find it as patently false as claiming knowledge that god(s) do exist: both positions must stem from faith.
I think this was, kinda, OPs point. Rather then fighting to retain a definition, it might be better to claim a different word. (example: hacker vs cracker, most people would disagree with the original definitions)
[–]pornmonger 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
I wish I could find the video lecture I watched. It's called reasonable certainty/expectations not faith.
We expect the sun will rise tomorrow because it's been doing so for all of recorded history and the personal memory we each have. There is no indication to suggest any problems with it. The sun isn't changing size or color. We don't know without doubt that it won't explode tonight. It very well could destroy the entire solar system while we're asleep. That's not a reasonable expectation though, because there is nothing to indicate like that will happen. Therefore, it's reasonable to expect the sun will rise tomorrow. It doesn't require faith or absolute certainty to believe that.
[–]squigs 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I feel there's a problem quite expressing this. Perhaps there is an element of doubt, but that element is so tiny that it seems wrong to call it doubt. Perhaps it's reasonable to call the lack of doubt certainty. I'm not sure. You're absolutely right when you say it's an issue with language.
It's really the difference between what you'd say "Of course it's true", "I suppose it's probably true", and "I have no idea". Examples would be Of course it's true that I am on the planet Earth. It's probably true that I'm under 100 years old. You can have no idea whether I'm left or right handed. Can't prove any of these, but we can infer from what we know (once again to a reasonable degree of proof) that everyone lives on the Earth, except a few astronauts. They probably have other things to do. Few people, especially on reddit, are over 100 years old so it's a reasonable assumption I'm not one of them. Statistically I'm more likely to be right handed but you wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't.
So perhaps (This is hypothetical. I'm pretty firmly agnostic) I consider the concept of a magical sky giant completely implausible. I can see no rational way such a being could exist. Of course it doesn't. I'd have to accept the possibility that I might be wrong. Does this make me uncertain? Am I then agnostic? The level of doubt here seems too small to consider genuine doubt. If god was then to turn up and announce his existence, I'd concede I was wrong but that's not going to happen.
So there are things that I know to be true. I also know it's possible that I'm wrong. Some people know there's no god. They also typically accept the possibility they might be wrong. Is accepting a possibility a doubt? Whatever the case, I have a hard time considering them to be agnostic.
I really don't consider a genuine, firm belief in the non-existence of god to be indefensible. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Ask any probability theorist. If I toss a coin 100 times, and it comes up heads 100 times, then the absence of tails is evidence that the coin has no tails side. This is exactly how a lot of scientific experiments work. Does this drug have an effect? 90% of patients showed an improvement compared with 10% in the control group. Could be coincidence. The drugs company would probably consider this proves the drugs work.
So we have experiments that test for the existence of a god. We go into space, and look. We look for evidence of the Garden of Eden. We see if praying has a statistically significant effect. How many negatives do we need before we concede that the evidence points to no god.
That's kinda the point I was making. No one requires that level of proof, but one strain of agnosticism is basically the idea that we can't know for sure whether there is or is not a god because clever religious people have made their claims unfalsifiable. I think it arbitrarily creates a special place for religious claims where they are given more favorable treatment than any other truth claims and that that framework doesn't make sense. As for your point that we are inherently limited, I think the same basic criticism applies. This is a point that is primarily used to create a special exception for religion but would apply to all fields of knowledge. Although true, it lacks credibility as a serious criticism since it is applied so unevenly. If we take it seriously as a criticism across the board, I'm not sure how much knowledge we'd really have left.
Now if you are the kind of agnostic who thinks that the evidence for and against god is roughly equal, then the criticism wouldn't particularly apply to you (others criticisms would though).
[–]accidental_editor 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Absolutely. A well-known quote is doubtless appropriate:
"I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much." *EDIT: Sorry, Douglas Adams, for those not familiar.
[–]Irish_Whiskey 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
I think that's a great point. Religious people often insist on agnosticism as if by doing so, you're conceding ground to them. Whether I'm gnostic or agnostic, I'm still an atheist, so it's an accurate term. If I wouldn't have to say I'm agnostic as to Bigfoot or Zeus, then there's no reason I should have to for their concept of God.
Realistically speaking since theists generally define the basis of their belief as faith rather than knowledge, they are all agnostic theists. But I'm pretty sure if we insisted they refer to themselves as 'agnostics', they'd be some negative reactions.
[–]accidental_editor 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Nicely put. While I appreciate the intellectual underpinnings of radical skepticism, I don't feel the need to undermine the rational basis for things that I believe to be true - based on available evidence, without being able to know them to an absolute certainty - by constantly pointing out that there are things that might possibly, theoretically be true because I cannot disprove them to an absolute certainty, though there is no rational evidence to support them.
Vampires for example. I do not believe that vampires exist. I have no rational evidence to demonstrate that vampires even possibly exist. Yet I am not agnostic on the subject of vampires. I state categorically that there are no vampires - not that there may or may not be vampires, and that I do not currently have enough information to make an informed decision. Should evidence appear, I would reconsider my position based on the strength of the evidence. Until then, I am comfortable with my avampiric position.
There's no special exception for religion, it just happens that this is an area where people on both sides seem to claim fervently that they know truth (both are equally silly to my eyes, due to how heated the debates get, neither is 'right').
I think your seeing your 'special exception', only because there are so many people who forcefully disagree with science on this and therefore the topic comes up so often. To you, I must seem as an apologist for the religious, when in fact I see near infinint ignorance making both points nearly moot in trying to lay out absolute truth. I don't see a religious person as having an equal claim to truth, I see them as having an equally flawed claim to truth (or so close to equal as to not be worth discussing any distinction).
Science and reason are exceptional tools for dealing with practical matters, but they also strongly indicate that there is much that we'll never be fully aware of. Thus claiming knowledge of any 'impossibility' is hubris.
[–]simianknight 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Agnatheist ?
[–]lemonpjb 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Spoken like a true theist haha.
No, far from it. Religion is all about "absolute truth" and certainty.
[–]Metroid_Dichigan 7 points8 points9 points 10 months ago
I refer myself as an agnostic atheist absurdist compatibilist anarchist humanist individualist machinist guitarist. Usually they leave before I get to the "guitarist" part so I never get any ladies.
[–]Stuewe 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
You should consider moving guitarist to right after absurdist. That should help.
[–]mystlynx_2k 7 points8 points9 points 10 months ago
I think anybody claiming Gnosticism for anything like that is just silly.
I highly doubt it will ever happen, but if god presented himself to somebody, and said "hey dude, I'm real, think of a number and an animal, poof here's your seventeen penguins." Only an idiot or an asshole would say "nuh uh!! There's no god!"
[–]antonivs 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
Some people claim to have experienced something very much like that. We typically call them delusional.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
That is why the term gnostic is not meaningless. It gives you insight, just like any other self ascribed label.
[–]omers 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Saying "I know there is no God" does not preclude you from accepting new evidence in the future if it were to ever appear.
I know I hate the taste of bourbon but that doesn't mean if someone gave me a bourbon that I actually enjoyed I would retain that position.
I highly doubt you remain agnostic to the idea of Xenu (Scientology) why is the theistic fairytale special?
Or his noodliness. Are you agnostic on that subject as well?
[–]Gr00ber 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I would say there is no god. This is based on a combination of what I know about science and the definition of a "god". There is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, therefore I find it highly unlikely that we were created by anyone/thing (especially an omniscient super-being).
I am sure that you have all seen the Epicurus quote on here, but just in case [BOOM]. It is from this I will say that there is no god. Even if we were created by a super-being (which I cannot claim is 100% impossible), I do find it impossible for them to be a "god". Nothing worthy of that title could rule over Earth, as many religions claim.
That is why I am a gnostic-atheist. Not because I can know that there is definitely no creator, but because I can know that if there was, he would not fit the definition that religions place upon their gods.
[–]Audiovore 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
The term god/deity is/was not limited to monotheistic omnipotent beings. If something like the Marvel Thor mythos for Norse/Greek/Egyptians were true, they'd still be 'gods', although now we would probably just call them aliens.
[–]boggart777 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
man, I've seen agnosticism (best) defined as the belief that is impossible to know whether or not god exists. meaning as an agnostic, technically you believe no one can know if a god exists, which sounds good. agnosticism is often linked to 'not being sure' or 'not having decided' when it's anything but, and i think the lower rungs theistic society totally miss this.
to me agnosticism (the belief men can never be sure if there is a god or not) is akin to radical skepticism (i.e., the belief that men can never be sure of ANYTHING, e.g. 'the brain in a vat', the matrix movies) and i KNOW the probability of there being a god is very low. way less than .1%. so low i can easily call it "nearly impossible"
so i do. i claim Gnostic atheism. which gets really tricky when you realize that Gnostic theists get their Gnosis from some celestial source! can i even call my poor human knowledge Gnosis by their magical definition?!
i don't know. but i do actually know (not merely believe) the probability of a magical deity running the universe from behind some sort of extra-dimensional curtain ranks as "nearly impossible", as impossible as anything else that has never occurred before.
i know there is not a tiger in my closet. there is an undeniable yet very slim possibility there could be a tiger in my closet. holding these two thoughts together simultaneously does not bother me.
"i KNOW the probability of there being a god is very low. way less than .1%. so low i can easily call it "nearly impossible""
Interesting claim, what do you base your statistics on (I'd be interested in the formula)? Or is this one of those "90% of statistics are made up on the spot" type of claims?
[–]boggart777 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago*
well in a labrotory setting, god shows himself 0% of the time. Then we have a copious amount of "gods" claiming to be the only god. obvoiusly it's only fair to put all gods on an equal footing. so let's say there are 2000 mutually exclusive claims of divinity. the chance would be 1/2000th for each deity.
[–]boggart777 -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
my equation works essentially the same way pascal's wager works. you'll remember pascal for, you know, inventing probability.
[–]MartiniD 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
I personally think agnostic is a useless term. Anytime anyone makes a claim regardless of what it is, it is made with the knowledge we currently hold.
When scientists make any claim about the universe they aren't saying "we know everything about the universe which is why we can say this." Their claims always come with the understanding that their claims are made with the best available knowledge not absolute knowledge and that with more knowledge that claim may be proven more true or false.
Telling me you are an agnostic doesn't give me any new information and a good portion of the population uses it incorrectly to begin with. So to me, the word agnostic is useless. I am an atheist plain and simple.
[–]HaroldOfTheRocks 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
For all intents and purposes I know there is no God as much as I know pretty much anything else I can claim to know. I know leprechauns, dragons, and wizards don't exist because the only reference to them existing is in stories made up by a man with no further evidence, same as every god story. Why does God need extra proof to be discounted when thus far it has the same amount of evidence?
Also, to accept the existence of a god would go against a bunch of stuff about the physical world that is provable and at this point we can say we do know - so in light of that knowledge, any completely contradictory ideas such as supernatural events like what exist in the bible can be thrown out as patently false. Like we know a man can't be dead for three days and come back to life because we know what happens to a dead body after 3 days. At that point the Jesus/God theory has no validity and I can say I know it is false.
[–]spaceghoti 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Well, I don't know about the preconceived prejudices bit, but adding "agnostic" to my self-description does tend to shortcut a lot of common arguments theists make against atheists.
[–]TheOnlyKarsh -2 points-1 points0 points 10 months ago
Until they start using agnostic theist what's the point?
Karsh
[–]spaceghoti 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Then they're making an active claim about the existence of something they know nothing about. That's easy to shred. The more vague the claim, the more meaningless it is.
[–]TheOnlyKarsh -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
How does adding agnostic to theist make a claim about the existence of something that stating theist didn't make already. The only difference is as a theist they state " I believe" and as an agnostic theist they state "I believe, but can't really know."
There is no practical difference in these stances. It's hair splitting for the sake of countering perceived possible arguments.
While I understand the belief vs knowledge difference between gnostic and theistic claims I find it really pointless to separate the two. No one believes or disbelieves because they don't know. We all believe or disbelieve because we think we know.
I find all this adjective adding to be a bit like role players arguing about whether their level 35 mage can kill someone else's level 35 ranger. Arguing the merits or perceived protections from their +5 sword of bullshit repellent.
[–]spaceghoti 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
On the contrary. I came to disbelief only after I acknowledged that I didn't know. I was raised to think that we did know, and that the anecdotal evidence was more than sufficient. I had to deprogram myself from that before I could accept that lack of knowledge leads to lack of belief.
[–]TheOnlyKarsh 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Greatly paraphrasing your response with numerous others I've heard along the way. Nothing personal intended.
You came to a belief that you couldn't know whether there was a god, therefore had to question his existence. Through study, reading and self education you came to a realization that such an idea could not be supported by any meaningful evidence and lost your belief in a deity because you think\know you're correct.
You had to have some semblance of "knowledge" or you would have remained at the "I don't know" stage, where you are neither theist or atheist. At he point that one trumps the other you must have at least (even if mistakenly so) that you knew the correct answer.
You seem to be implying that disbelief in gods involves some sort of knowledge about gods. I didn't come to any knowledge that gods don't exist. I'm still at the stage of "I don't know." The knowledge that I came to is that I don't have any knowledge, and that continued absence of knowledge eventually convinced me that I have no reason to believe.
If I'm misunderstanding your paraphrasing, then I apologize.
If you're at a true stage of "I don't know" and neither believe or disbelieve (which one must be if they truly have no knowledge) then you're not an atheist or a theist, you're an agnostic and still don't need two terms. Once you you've stated a belief one way or the other you've at the very least made a decision about what you think you know.
Again, what you know or can know directly affects what you believe. while we can discuss them separately they cannot be separated from each other. One leads to the other. One supports the other.
I know that I don't know. Because of that I don't believe. Whether or not you accept that is irrelevant to both my knowledge (and lack thereof) and belief (and lack thereof as well).
But again if one lacks belief in a deity because you cannot know, one must also lack disbelief in a deity, for the exact same reason. At least to maintain any logical integrity one must. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to. I'm saying that in order to argue for the need to use both terms, gnosticism and theism in conjunction than one should maintain intellectual integrity for the two terms.
Personally, I'm an atheist and I am so because there is no supporting evidence for the existence of a deity. There is no requirement that I maintain one degree of disbelief because "I can't know for certain." Most will argue that lack of support for something is not support against something. While I certainly believe this to be true I don't think it accounts for all possible scenarios. If I tell you that there is a glass of water in a specific location and you go there and there isn't a glass of water, than lack of support for my statement has indeed supported that the glass of water is not there. I see no reason that this same logic doesn't apply to a deity.
If one must have knowledge to decide in the negative than one cannot make a decision in the positive without knowledge either. If one can make a decision without knowledge than their decision means nothing. If one maintains that belief and knowledge are separate issues that can't or don't affect the other then you cannot at the same time maintain that they are linked.
[–]TwistedD85 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
I can't bring myself to totally discount the chance there is a figure at least similar to what some people call a "God" out there, the scientific method just won't allow me to come to that conclusion solidly since I can't disprove it.
So I'm an agnostic atheist.
[–]Helen_A_Handbasket 12 points13 points14 points 10 months ago
Good luck with that. Not only do most theists not know what 'agnostic' or 'atheist' mean, but now you're presenting them with yet another term that they won't bother to learn about, and they'll be even more confused about us.
Good on ya!
[–]jij 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
That's the point... "atheist" is a trigger word, if you use other words it confuses them enough to allow you to explain your actual beliefs (or lack thereof) to them to minimize prejudices.
[–]thunderblood 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
I embrace the term "atheist" precisely because it is a trigger word. Technically, every living person is agnostic. I choose to make it very obvious where I stand.
Actually, a really excellent point with respect to problems inherent in the OP's suggestion. Logic upvote for you sir.
[–]ravenouscraving 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Agnostic or deluded, one way or another.
I certainly don't claim I know without a doubt no god or gods exist.
[–]Terrik27[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
That's the point though! They have no idea! However, they think they know what an atheist is (something to do with babies and the eating thereof) so I'm done the moment the word comes out my mouth.
When I add 'agnostic' to the front, most of 'em pause for just a moment, or even ask what it means, so that I can set my own framework that doesn't involve infantile cannibalism.
[–]calladus 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I also toss in the word "Ignostic".
[–]0007000 -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
Good luck about what? Making believable fake facebook convos as agonstic atheist? Or having IRL arguments that lead only to frustration on both sides?
[–]VioletaRoni 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I don't care for the labels. I don't believe there is a god in the sense religion says there is, but I feel like there's more to our universe than we could ever know. I just keep learning and growing.
[–]iDontSayFunnyThings 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
IAmA Gnostic atheist. I am apparently really strong. flexes
[–]Fletch71011 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Are there really any gnostic atheists? I have met plenty of self-proclaimed gnostic theists, but I never hear this term thrown out in regard to atheists.
[–]muhmann 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I think that gnostic atheist is a straw man. I don't know anyone who sincerely "claims to know no gods exist", where 'gods' can mean basically mean anything from a personal god walking among us and creating the earth in six days to a vague notion of the universe itself.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BQVmvulmQ
[–]Timetogetstoned 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I feel like I, as a christian don't have any prejudice against atheists anyways. But I like that you consider yourself an agnostic atheist. It shows that you're still leaving possibility in there of a god. I believe in a god yes, but I don't claim to know for a fact that it exists. I consider the possibility every day that a god does not exist. It's just a belief system I have that it does, just as you believe that there isn't one. Kudos to you, good sir.
[–]dturner0413 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I usually just refer to myself as pantheist, which to me is the same as atheist only less social stigma attached. A rose by any other name.....
[–]deusnefum 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Are there many gnostic atheists out there?
[–]gahvandure 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, since I don't believe that any god exists, but am willing to admit significant ignorance about the universe. However, having read up on the various gods and goddesses throughout human history, I can say that I am quite sure none of them exist. So while I wouldn't claim knowledge that no god exists, I would happily claim that, say, Yaweh doesn't exist. He's much too absurd.
[–]TeaBeforeWar 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I'm a gnostic atheist, in that I've come to the conclusion that there's no way you could convince me to call something god. I'll accept a creator of the universe/Earth/humanity/life in general, if evidence arises. I'll accept the existence of a more advance being or race. But I think that the idea of a 'god' is inherently flawed, and nothing - whether it created us or knows everything or what - should be considered inherently superior, or deserving of worship simply for exiting.
[–]deusnefum 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I suppose I "know" gods don't exist as much as I "know" unicorns and leprechauns don't exist. I agree with you that the definition used by most religions of God is plain impossible. Like saying one pound of this substance weighs 100 pounds--by very definition it is impossible
Though I am open to the idea that through some trickery of semantics a "god" could exist. He'd be nothing like described in the Bible, but some wishy-washy creator-type might not be entirely unreasonable (such as if this world were a computer simulation and our creator was some alien life form who programmed the simulation).
Yeah, I'd just call it an alien. If it doesn't want us to call it god, then we shouldn't. And if it does, then it doesn't deserve it. :P
[–]kickstand 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Where is anti-theist on your chart, because that's how I refer to myself.
[–]Ithinkverydeeply 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I'm an Anti-theist.
[–]meabandit 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
http://www.thehappyheretic.com/06-01.htm
[–]Terrik27[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Excellent post, (I've seen it before) thank you for adding. I actually agree with that, and would agree with the argument amongst atheists and agnostics, but amongst theists, if I don't wish to be pre-judged quite as badly, I chose a term to purposefully throw them off a bit.
[–][deleted] 10 months ago
[deleted]
[–]meabandit 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
It doesn't matter whether or not someone has proof.
Perhaps not to you. To me it does and I think to most people as well.1 For example I could say I know all about cancer, and that I have a "special" sauce that will cure it. If my sauce were anything like a self described gnostic's "special" knowledge, then I would rightly be told to fuck off by the thinking person.
The short story is sure you can claim whatever you like. However, it does matter quite a lot to people of integrity whether or not your claim is warranted.
1
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him. -- Abraham Lincoln
[–][deleted] 10 months ago*
[–]meabandit 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
They can be gnostic in their own minds all they like, it's completely irrelevant to if they are actually knowledgeable. Intellectually serious people simply don't allow that into the conversation.
If you'll allow me some more argument from authority, if you watch the video "The Four Horsemen" available on youtube, you'll see Hitchens, Dennet, Dawkins, and Harris sitting around a table all in agreement that any person claiming knowledge on the existence of a deity is the first off the island. There is another video of Hitchens(forgotten the exact one) where he is speaking about Thomas Huxley. Normally quite full of praise for the man, in this one he credits Huxley for the disservice of having invented the term agnostic.
You can believe you're Superman all you like. Unless you actually are Superman, I suggest avoiding the jumps from extreme heights.
I rarely vote on comments even gross ad hominem attacks on myself. I certainly didn't vote on yours.
[–]bperki8 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Do you refer to yourself as agnostic about leprechauns, unicorns, Santa, and invisible flying pink elephants with flame-thrower trunks?
Yes, thank you very much.
Also about the possibility that time, causality & therfore consciousness don't actually exist as we assume they do, but you know the list goes on & on.
[–]Borealismeme 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Personally I prefer the simpler atheist term in conversation. It often allows me to correct their misconceptions as to what the term actually means.
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago*
Theism/Atheism relates to a belief or otherwise in, specifically, deities. Which is a giant waste of time - why are 'deities' more subject worthy than all the other merit deficient superstitious garbage like angels, fairies, ghosts, and so on. Worrying about exactly where you land on some scale of belief or knowledge in gods strikes me as petty. You either think there is non-physical causality or you don't. And if you don't it just means you are rational. You could argue all day with somebody about exactly by what degree you don't believe in the Green Lantern as philosophers argue about weather or not there is an absolute truth, but a rational person knows (by way of solid logic) that it's really a silly argument and gets on with their day.
[–]klapaucius 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
If the frontrunning presidential candidates were talking about making a belief in ghosts the cornerstone of your government, or if "CHECK UNDER YOUR BED FOR MONSTERS" was on your money, could you see wasting time on those silly ideas?
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
That's important, keeping public debate about the merit of ideas and firmly grounded in the world of rational thought, nitpicking terminology however isn't getting that done.
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Oh, I see, you were talking about the terms. People generally like to have their thoughts on a particular issue bundled down into a word-sized packet that they can exchange.
Sure, that's fair. I think the label "atheist" these days pretty much covers the irreligious to a degree anybody cares about. Perhaps "rationalist" better conveys a rejection of all supernatural which is why I like it. But none of it matters to the religious really, to them you either do or don't, so it feels like a bit of a circle-jerk to drill down "atheist" into another four subgroups. Who does that benefit really?
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago*
Well, for one, it should help the "I'm agnostic, which makes me much less close-minded and hypocritical than you bunch of religious-zealot atheists!" types that show up sometimes figure out why they're completely misguided.
If you can rephrase so it's intelligible I'll try and comment.
Here, let me disassemble the sentence into its component pieces for you:
Many agnostics post here with a misguided view of atheism. They think that atheists believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that no gods exist. This produces the notion that atheism takes as much faith as religion, which makes them treat atheism the same way that they would treat religion: dismissal, pity, contempt, et cetera. By using a system that defines their belief as the same as that of most atheists, it eliminates that conflict.
Well put thank you. This isn't a new argument of course, in fact it's a bit tired. There are many great rebukes to that argument already. Do we need additional labels that will only be ignored by the religious regardless?
[–]boggart777 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
does this make you a gnostic? that's almost the same example i use to call myself a gnostic atheist.
[–]Shurebis 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I'm a gnostic atheist.
It's beyond my will of deciding.
[–]Twad_feu[] 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Maybe they don't bother you because you use big words they don't understand.
[–]nedstupidflanders 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I just call myself an Otherist.
[–]elcheecho 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
copout. you don't know there's no God in the same way you don't know there's not a ninja assassin under your desk at this very moment. technically, no one can legitimately be a gnostic atheist.
[–]DavidRhye 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Obvious reply is obvious. Atheist already means 'I don't believe in explanations which cannot be tested'. nuff said
[–]Humey 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Does this not go without saying? I don't feel the need to mention my agnosticism towards the existence of leprechauns, doing so when reffering to a deity just gives it that extra bit of credibility that it by no means deserves.
[–]themcp 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Awesome. Now you're implicitly confirming their prejudice against those of us who simply call ourselves atheists. Way to go.
[–]antonivs 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Theists like it because when you say "agnostic", they hear you admitting they might be right and that there may be a god after all. If you want to pander to theists, call yourself agnostic, but otherwise it's a silly qualifier for an atheist to use. I wrote more about why here.
[–]Uuugggg 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
theists don't have as many preconceived prejudices against it for some reason.
This is a terrible reason not to say you are what you are.
[–]Atheris 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I don't think he was implying that he is uses a different external label from his internal one. hmm If that made sense. I think he's pointing out that likes a more descriptive label.
[–]Shampyon 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I think Terrik27 is saying what he is. He's just being more precise to take advantage of public perception.
A lot of people place negative connotations on the label atheist, while seeing the label agnostic as neutral or agreeable. There's also a misconception that they're mutually exclusive.
By using both labels, he's borrowing some of the positive attitude toward the agnostic label and loaning it to the atheist label. It makes people more likely to tolerate, understand or even come over to his way of thinking.
It's not something that everyone needs to do, nor something that anyone should have to do. It's just a useful tool for some people in some situations.
[–]DingDongSeven 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
1) A "gnostic" atheist is an oxymoron. Atheists do not claim knowledge of the non-existence of God — that is an impossibility, since you cannot prove a negative. A gnostic theist on the other hand can claim knowledge of God's existence since you can prove a positive (they never have, of course).
2) Penn Jillette said atheism and agnosticism deals with two different things: the actual, genuine existence or non-existence of God, and also with the issue of faith itself — do you follow God? As such, an agnostic theist is an even worse oxymoron, because you can't believe in something you don't know exists. I mean, rationally. Being an agnostic theist is no more meaningful than carrying a lucky rabbit's foot.
[–]millstone 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Atheists do not claim knowledge of the non-existence of God
So if I claim to know that God does not exist, I'm not an atheist? What am I?
[–]DingDongSeven 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
That makes you an atheist who is poorly versed in logical fallacies.
[–]Buffalox -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago*
Atheism just means you don't believe in a God. It doesn't define the level of certainty at all.
It's quite easy to disprove some Gods. For instance the one from the Bible. And since that's the one people usually mean, it's quite sensible to describe oneself a gnostic Atheist.
I'm actually quite tired of the claims that Gods existence can't be disproved, since we can prove all relevant claims about this to be God false. So it is already proven that God as described in the Bible cannot exist.
Since the term Atheism doesn't define anything about certainty, we call this strong Atheism.
[–]DingDongSeven -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
I'm actually quite tired of the claims that Gods existence can't be disproved ...
Trust me, those of us who actually understand basic concepts of logic are a hell of a lot more than just "quite" tired of having to explain it time and time again, only to be met with blinkered ignorance.
I'm well aware and understand perfectly the impossibility of proving non existence. But if the existence of something is claimed to have certain properties and influences, which can then be disproven, we have in fact disproved the existence as it was defined. We cannot disprove the existence of that which is not specified to have any properties. But existence is not a property, so if you just claim God without properties, you actually claim nothing, and that cannot be disproven.
Edit:
I'm not sure if you agreed with my post or not, my frustration comes mostly from very popular proponents of Atheism making the blanket statement that non existense can't be proven. Which is basically correct, because existence is not a property, but an existence without properties has no meaning, and would be entirely irrelevant to disprove. We can only disprove the properties, and so disprove the definition. If all properties are disproven, the existence is no longer relevant.
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Atheists do not claim knowledge of the non-existence of God — that is an impossibility, since you cannot prove a negative.
You can easily prove a negative. I can prove that I am not on fire. I can prove that there are no living fish on Mount Everest.
As for proof of the non-existence of gods, it depends on the definition of proof, and god. If a being has to be absolutely omnipotent to be a god, that is powerful enough to transcend logic, then it is inherently a logical impossibility. Similarly, if your requirement for "proof" is simply proof beyond reasonable doubt, then it may well be possible to prove the non existence of gods. It's certainly possible to prove the non existence of the Greek pantheon.
It's certainly possible to prove the non existence of the Greek pantheon.
I'd like to see that. If it's true, then it would certainly also be possible to prove the non existence of the Christian pantheon, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.
Go to Mount Olympus. Climb it. Look around. See any gods? Greek gods don't exist otherwise they'd be there.
I dare say you could prove the non-existence of the Christian god but that depends on what you consider to be the requirements for it to be the same god. Unicorns - the fact that we're explored the whole of the world and never seen one. For the species to survive, there would need to be a reasonable population, and it would have to leave some evidence.
The flying spaghetti monster is actually a lot harder to disprove which is ironic because it's also the most improbable of any of these.
Greek gods moved around. When you look in one spot, they may have moved to another. They are supernatural, so why can't they simply disappear into another dimension, go invisible, or simply transform into another shape, which they were known to do.
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of these things. This is a classical logical fallacy. Isn't a matter that is up for discussion; it's a fact. I mean Russel's goddamn teapot has been up there a while now... The very fucking logo that represents r/atheism demonstrates this principle. Are you trolling me? If you can't grasp this, then you are no better informed on the subject matter than the average Christian, and I have no interest in discussing this any further with you.
I'm seriously disappointed.
[–]squigs -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
If they were there and turned invisible or slipped off to another dimension, then they'd leave evidence behind. We've explored the entire world, but haven't seen the rock that Prometheus was chained to. I've yelled "Zeus - you're a worthless pussy and you couldn't hit me with a lightning bolt if your immortality depended on it". Repeated attempts to demonstrate the existence of Greek gods have failed. After a while the only logical conclusion is that they don't exist.
Inductive reasoning is valid as long as the sample size is large enough. It doesn't prove beyond any possible doubt but you can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.
The legal system works this way. A lot of science works this way. Do you believe that smoking causes cancer? This is something we consider to be proven. The ineffectiveness of homeopathy is also something we consider proven. Both of these are based on research that could be coincidence. Nevertheless, both are considered proven. That's both a positive and a negative proven.
Inductive reasoning is perfectly valid and when you have sufficient evidence that it becomes completely unreasonable to doubt something you can consider it proven.
So here's the reasoning against Russell's teapot:
The odds against a teapot forming spontaneously are astronomical. For there to be a teapot up there it would have to have been put there. This would be an expensive proposition. We know from experience that people don't pay billions on a project without some possible benefit. If there was, then it's completely implausible that nobody would have mentioned this epic project.
If you want absolute proof you seem to be demanding then things become ridiculous. I can't prove you exist, and I refuse to argue with a figment of my imagination.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. QED, dummy. I refuse to engage in a duel of the minds, with the unarmed. There, I win. And I didn't even have to come up with a single original thought to do so. Bye.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.
That's exactly my point! So if you're going to agree with me then don't call me a dummy.
[–]drew3000 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I still prefer "defacto atheist" because it basically means the same but has a different connotation. There is no reasonable explanation that includes a god.
[–]Choodafoo 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I would consider myself to be an Agnostic Atheist as well, but more so on the Atheist side. I would say 99% Atheist and 1% Agnostic, because there is still the tiniest of chances that a deity could exist, but obviously not in any of the forms any earthly religions are proponents of.
[–]Fronesis 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Exactly correct.
What about the belief, without rigid proof, that god doesn't exist? It technically fits the agnostic atheist square but it's clearly a different belief from not believing either that there is or isn't a god. Seems your distinctions are pretty arbitrary.
[–]whiteraven4 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
When my friend said I had no proof god doesn't exist and I said I don't say for sure god doesn't exist and I'm an agnostic atheist she said that's a contradiction and you can't believe in something and not know it's 100% true. I spend 10 minutes trying to get her to see logic before giving up.
Ooh yeah! I've used that one, especially since I now know I used to be a strong gnostic theist. Nice pic!
[–]Arinen 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
My parents are ok with me identifying as an Agnostic but don't like that my brother calls himself Atheist, even though we both have pretty similar views. I guess they think that Agnostic means the person is still willing to accept God or just going through a doubtful phase.
[–]kbilly 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Yep agnostic atheist describes me.
[–]IrrationalTsunami 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I like to refer to myself as an "agnostic apatheist." I do not have evidence in a god, but in most aspects of my life I do not think about the existence of one. It has no bearing on my life. Theists and atheists represent the decision that I must choose some sort of position, and frankly I don't want someone telling me I have to choose anything. Especially because frankly, a denial of a specific religion, or the denial of all religions, in the infancy of our species seems silly. We could spend the next million years trying to find proof one way or the other. I'm going to find out in about 60-80 years, why rush it?
[–]Anfrax 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
How do you pronounce gnostic? Is the G silent or is it pronounced guh-nos-tic?
[–]Grant638 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Right on. I'm in the same boat with you.
[–]logophage 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Ugh. I hate these definitions. If you don't believe something, you cannot know it either as knowledge requires belief.
[–]tumescentpie 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
What about doesn't believe in any gods, doesn't care if any exist?
[–]Rizuken 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
There are people right between the 2 on the left, they count as atheists.
[–]frodevil 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Does anybody here actually give a shit about how superior you can feel to people who just call themselves atheist?
[–]atheistdebateme 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Good for you. It is the only reasonable position. Also, many theists will not hate on you so hard if you tell them this, that you cannot prove they are wrong.
[–]GnocciWithMe 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Pro Tip: There are no gnostic atheists
[–]notmike11 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
This system doesn't work for one major reason. You don't call yourself an "agnostic disbeliever" in the tooth fairy or in Santa Claus. Russel's Teapot argument summarizes it nicely: the burden of proof lies is on believers to prove God's existence rather than on atheists to disprove it.
I can't disprove an invisible flying teapot orbiting the Sun, but that doesn't mean I'm an "agnostic ateapotter."
[–]bhdz 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago*
I have yet to see an agnostic theist. I.e. ones that only has his/her own beliefs and doesn't claim definitive knowledge.
edit: a typo
[–]konakonaNZ 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
What? There are heaps of agnostic theists, and then there are also those, such as my dad, who alternate between believe in god for sure (gnostic) to days where they're not even convinced that he's real.
Where are you from bro?
[–]bhdz 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Eastern Europe... may be ppl here are dogmatic fundamentalists... or atheists like me
[–]NeedsMoreCrazy 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
You don't need to claim to KNOW it, but the fact is, the burden of proof is on THEM and the evidence is appallingly lacking. There's no need to be agnostic about the question of whether there's a particularly stealthy imp sitting on your head. You don't know, but you can say that about everything.
The fact is, everyone could be in the matrix. So until people start calling themselves "agnostic christian", you're only giving false credibility to their BS.
[–]Keldrath 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
i am an fairly militant agnostic atheist and a secular humanist. and probably a bunch of other things
[–]lfeuerbach 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
So you need a chart to tell you what you are?
Semantics largely, as in practice our lives wouldn't be different regardless of our place on the card.
As for me, I'm firmly in the so called strong anti-theist camp - believe there is no god (which god am I supposed to be agnostic about?), want religion to vanish, and wouldn't even want it to be true.
[–]bromar 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
agnostic and atheist are two different questions. one is weekday you know and the other is what you believe. so by saying that you are an agnostic atheist is fine.
I take issue when someone says that they are just agnostic. when they say this, they are really just being intellectually dishonest about their use of terms.
[–]JackRawlinson 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Why do you care what theists think about how you define yourself? Have some courage in your convictions. If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist, by definition. Qualifying it with "yeah but of course I don't absolutely know" is gutless. Do you call yourself an agnostic about fairies, too? Of course you don't. You just say you don't believe in them, right? So have the guts to do the same for god.
Seriously, this "agnostic atheist" bullshit is juvenile, tiresome nitpicking. You're a fucking atheist. Have some pride in the fact.
Fuck man, I'm an Atheist, but I kind of like how introducing yourself as an Agnostic Atheist can generate a discussion and show how much of a fallacy it is to claim to know 100% that god exists/doesn't exist. Yeah I'm 99.9999999999999 (recursive) sure that there isn't a deity, but you have to leave that trillionth of a trillionth of a percent chance your wrong because of logical and legalistic issues, and just maybe you can get the other side to do the same. It's not a weakness, in fact it shows you're stronger in your convictions IMHO.
Please read the FAQ.
[–]whattothewhonow -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
I argue that both gnostic positions are impossible, and consequently the term agnostic is meaningless. Everyone is agnostic regardless of whether they believe or not, and if they do claim to know that there is or isn't a god, they are either lying or delusional.
[–]klapaucius 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Well, the gnostic atheist could have determined that the idea of a god is logically impossible, making them meaningless ideas.
[–]whattothewhonow 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I see that determination as influencing belief rather than determining whether you know it or not. Its not possible to know, so saying you are agnostic, meaning you don't know, is not saying anything. On the other hand, saying that you are gnostic is saying that you know something that is not possible to know, meaning you are either lying or delusional.
Can anybody know anything by that standard? Deep reality is inaccessible to us--we have to use sense data filtered through our sense organs and our brains, like a stream of words in an unknown language that gets translated into French and then English.
[–]whattothewhonow 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I think so. I can look at the sky, and see that it is blue, then turn to a hundred other people and have them tell me what color they see. We know the sky is blue. The scientific method can tell us what we know. You can't apply the same process to knowing whether god does or does not exist. An atheist can point at the complete lack of evidence for a god or a logical impossibility and say that there is no reason to believe it exists, but you can't use that same lack and claim to know that there is no God. The same line of thought can be applied to the theist's personal experience with god. They might believe, but they still don't know.
Being scientifically meaningless--"not even wrong"--doesn't help the case for God. To someone who tries to keep their beliefs within the bounds of scientific thought, "God saves you from his wrath" has as much meaning as "Our auras say so much about our past lives" and "The frums fazzog the groggled Thursdays".
Now your making sense, this is what my agnosticism is based in.
There are levels of knowledge. The practical level of knowledge that we all deal in day to day, where god(s) really don't seem exist but we seem to exist & where Gnostic atheists seem to draw their claims from. And the reality level of knowledge that we can only really attempt to imagine due to our own inherent flaws & limitations. A level of knowledge/reality where honestly anything really is possible & we likely won't ever know for sure what is/isn't.
Yet making claims about that reality is impossible. There could be gods everywhere. We could be mortal shadows of gods. We could be four-dimensional shadows of five-dimensional beings, manifesting in ways unknown to them as they move. But there's no point in making any claims about it, so I stick to making beliefs about the observable universe, which from everything I've seen doesn't need or seem to contain any gods, within reasonable definitions of "god".
[–]dxnxax -2 points-1 points0 points 10 months ago
Thank you for this. I could be wrong, but I feel like most of the 'militant' atheists are of the Gnostic type and are just as idiotic as the Gnostic Theists. Similar to Gnostic Scientists (maybe you can add that into your chart).
[–]ClemIsNegativer -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
OK. I like to add a little cream cheese to the salsa. I also like honey in my coffee rather than sugar.
Who cares?
[–]Honztastic -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
Because you're not telling them the worldview is wrong.
There's a difference between "Hey man, I don't know what's going on. But I don't think I really believe in God. Do whatever you want" and assholes saying, "You're wrong, and I'm right. You're such a fucking idiot because I know everything about the nature of the universe."
One has a different worldview, and one is an egotistical douche that thinks they are better than other people for not thinking like themself.
That's because you've now allowed for the possibility that they are right. While before you were an enemy, now you're just a possible future convert.
I have no reason to allow for batshit crazy to be true. Until they can produce one shred of support I see no reason to substantiate their belief in an imaginary friend.
I hate this need to have secondary qualifiers added to everything. I can't be an atheist I have to be a kinda warm agnostic atheist with positive atheistic leanings.
[–]makeumad -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 months ago
Everybody look at me. I'm not just an atheist, I'm an agnostic atheist. What is that? Well I'm glad you asked. Let me tell you all about how clever and unique I am.
Who gives a shit. STFU.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]fuzzyk1tt3n 29 points30 points31 points ago
[–]dropcode 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]panem 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]dropcode 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]fuzzyk1tt3n 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]dropcode 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jar_lobe_hellgel 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RupeThereItIs 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]squigs 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]RupeThereItIs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]pornmonger 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]squigs 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fuzzyk1tt3n 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]accidental_editor 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Irish_Whiskey 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]accidental_editor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RupeThereItIs 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]simianknight 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemonpjb 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jar_lobe_hellgel 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Metroid_Dichigan 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Stuewe 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]mystlynx_2k 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]antonivs 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]omers 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]accidental_editor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Gr00ber 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Audiovore 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]boggart777 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RupeThereItIs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]boggart777 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]boggart777 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]MartiniD 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]HaroldOfTheRocks 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]spaceghoti 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]TheOnlyKarsh -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]spaceghoti 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheOnlyKarsh -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]spaceghoti 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheOnlyKarsh 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]spaceghoti 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheOnlyKarsh 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]spaceghoti 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheOnlyKarsh 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TwistedD85 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Helen_A_Handbasket 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]jij 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]thunderblood 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]accidental_editor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ravenouscraving 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Terrik27[S] 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]calladus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]0007000 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]VioletaRoni 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]iDontSayFunnyThings 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Fletch71011 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]muhmann 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Timetogetstoned 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dturner0413 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]deusnefum 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]gahvandure 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TeaBeforeWar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]deusnefum 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TeaBeforeWar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]kickstand 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Ithinkverydeeply 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]meabandit 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Terrik27[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]meabandit 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago*
[–]meabandit 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bperki8 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]RupeThereItIs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Borealismeme 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]klapaucius 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CatalyticDragon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]boggart777 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Shurebis 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Twad_feu[
] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]nedstupidflanders 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]elcheecho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DavidRhye 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Humey 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]themcp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]antonivs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Uuugggg 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Atheris 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Shampyon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DingDongSeven 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]millstone 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DingDongSeven 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Buffalox -1 points0 points1 point ago*
[–]DingDongSeven -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Buffalox -1 points0 points1 point ago*
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DingDongSeven 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DingDongSeven 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]squigs -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]DingDongSeven 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]drew3000 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Choodafoo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Fronesis 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]whiteraven4 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Atheris 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Arinen 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]kbilly 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]IrrationalTsunami 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Anfrax 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Grant638 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]logophage 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]tumescentpie 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Rizuken 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]frodevil 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atheistdebateme 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]GnocciWithMe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]notmike11 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bhdz 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]konakonaNZ 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bhdz 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NeedsMoreCrazy 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Keldrath 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lfeuerbach 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bromar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JackRawlinson 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]konakonaNZ 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Shampyon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]whattothewhonow -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]klapaucius 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]whattothewhonow 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]klapaucius 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]whattothewhonow 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RupeThereItIs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]klapaucius 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dxnxax -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]ClemIsNegativer -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Honztastic -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]TheOnlyKarsh -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]makeumad -4 points-3 points-2 points ago