this post was submitted on
27 points (88% like it)
31 up votes 4 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,200,983 readers

956 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

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 ›

all 45 comments

[–]elbruce 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think "agnostic" vs. "gnostic" is a false distinction.

As far as "agnostic theists" go, I can't imagine what it would mean to believe something without believing your belief is true. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

And on the atheist side, there's really no functional difference between not believing X and believing there is no X. In either case, X is not present in the set of things you hold to exist. It's largely a language-created distinction. And I don't really know of anyone who actually insists that God has been positively proven to be nonexistent. I'm sure there are some, but it shouldn't be hard to disabuse them of that notion, as well as its unnecessariness.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you for articulating, what I was having great difficulty in doing.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That so brilliantly explains it, I've used your explanation elsewhere, under "agnosticism is dead". Thank you.

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is hugely important and more or less defines the scientific method.

There is a huge difference between knowing things and not knowing them.

Modern atheism is very largely about encompassing agnosticism is order to include people who define this whole thing in terms of what they do and do not know, and the distinction between and consequences of those two states.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]JonahFrank 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I see no reason why god should be considered any more probable than a teapot orbiting about the sun or faeries or the loch ness monster. Therefore, I "know" there is no god just as much as I know those other fictional creations of humanity's imagination do not exist.

At a certain point, agnosticism has to be seen as irrational in some cases as gnosticism would be in others.

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is not irrational to say you do not know.

There is no need to enumerate this list of hypotheses for which there is no evidence. That there is no evidence is damning enough, and the set of these things is too huge to enumerate.

You do not gain some sort of philosophical iron mind award for affirmatively dismissing the teapot, and if you are going to start doing that, you end up defining reality as something that exists inside your mind in the form of assertions made without evidence, which is part of how we got into the whole religious mess in the first place.

Look at the world. Assert what you have evidence for. The rest will sort itself out, or not. If there is reason to suspect that some evidence suggests an explanation, explore that. Otherwise, don't bother making a list of things for which there is no evidence that explain nothing.

[–]JonahFrank 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reading that...interestingly worded comment, only makes me wonder if YOU are looking at the world. "Assert what I have evidence for"? "The rest will sort itself out"?

Nevermind, I don't even care to pretend I respect anything you've said. You're crazy. While you're busy being a hippie and living and letting live, there are others out there stoning people to death because they've defined their reality on something existing inside their mind. And I'm supposed to feel bad I reject it?

You can pretend ignorance is bliss, but I KNOW there is no teapot, and I KNOW there is no god. If I sound dogmatic, fine; my dogma doesn't stone people.

Seriously..."the rest will sort itself out" Go join a drum circle. I agree with Hitchens: they are our enemy and should be stomped out.

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You completely misunderstand my comment, but there is little incentive for me to discuss further because of the ad hominem.

[–]JonahFrank 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice. I tell you I think you sound so asinine that I don't care about anything you have to say, and you counter by saying you don't want to talk anymore? Don't know if you can tell, but that's a win for me.

You're right there with someone telling me I need to be saved.

Not to mention I'm sure you'll completely ignore how I destroyed your point. Go me.

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, I may respond to your comments and I may not, but what incentive is there when you are pointlessly rude like this?

If you want to think you've gained internet points by being rude until people stop discussing with you, grats on your points and have a nice day.

[–]JonahFrank 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What incentive is there for me when I've already admitted I think your opinions are stupid? (Not an ad hominem, I'm sure you know, because I'm saying your point is stupid, not you).

If you want to think you've gained pretentious points with your bloated comment telling me I'm irrational to know a negative...well, the pretentiousness pretty much guarantees you're going to think that either way.

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You said I was crazy and a hippie, and made assumptions about my politics. That's ad hominem.

I don't even see what your point is anymore. Something about being able to make shit up because it seems obvious, if I recall correctly.

[–]JonahFrank 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was referring to that one remark about your ideas being stupid. Stay focused.

To not see the point anymore, you would have had to understand at one point in the past. Since you don't get tautologies (and therefore contradictions), you never got the point.

Something about you trying to pretend you're smarter than other people.

[–]JonahFrank 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And just to completely destroy your first point:

It is entirely irrational to say "I don't know if a triangle can have 5 sides."

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's interesting that you picked math, because you don't get to say "it is obvious" in math and accuse those who insist upon proofs of being hippies.

You either know things or you don't.

[–]JonahFrank 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I didn't use math. I used language. Triangle is defined as having 3 sides. Therefore the statement "a triangle has 3 sides" is a tautology. Furthermore, saying "I don't know if a triangle has 5 sides" is akin to saying "i'm not sure if that bachelor is married".

It's irrational, and beyond that, just plain stupid to say such a thing.

You either know things or you don't.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's 8.23 am in the UK thanks for the smile reading the last few comments of yours.

[–]JonahFrank 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I aim to please!

[–]pngwn56 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it would be a tad more accurate to say that agnosticism is the position that god can/could not be proved, while gnosticism is the position that god can/could be proved.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would apply "maybe" logic to this. True / false / indeterminate / meaningless.

Meaninglessly indeterminate. MAYBE LOGIC

*edit to include link.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree and that point it all collapses and becomes meaningless.

[–]Razimek 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How does that work? I can't call myself a gnostic atheist (unless you're going to go with a specific impossible definition of God with conflicting attributes), so I go with agnostic atheist, but I believe it might be possible to know, either now or in the future, but I personally don't know that any God exists or not, and due to do that, I don't believe in one either.

So whenever I read that agnostic atheism is a lack of belief in God and also the position that it's not possible to know whether a God exists or not, I cringe, because I don't claim it's impossible to know, just that I don't know.

I do believe it's not known by anybody though, and so I will happily debate, but I don't take the position that it's impossible to know, just that no-one knows now.

.. and at the same time, I can be an agnostic strong atheist when it comes to Thor or Zeus (or any God that has a specific role in polytheism). I believe they don't exist as much as I believe there's not an Elephant walking down my street.

[–]Gopaks 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not sure where I would fit past Atheist. I believe that there could be magnificent cosmic forces beyond our view and understanding (and/or purpose) but it, in no way, shape, or form, resembles anything of a god. I can't disprove there is no god but I consider the hypothesis one of the weakest and would never believe it without any sort of linking evidence to reality. Much more interesting ideas out there.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Same with atheist and added antitheist dedicated to opposing aspects of religion that causes harm. The right of an individual to practice their faith ends, where the rights of another to not be encroached upon begins.

[–]Tbabs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can any (intellectually honest) person really be a gnostic (atheist or theist)?

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It becomes such a nit picky game of semantics. I know there is no God, which is why I don't believe in any god.

The notion of this being knowable or tested now or in the future is meaningless..

[–]Tbabs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It becomes such a nit picky game of semantics.

Yeah, you're right; my only followup questions are regarding definitions of some of the words you use. I'll save us the annoyance. :P

[–]RationalUniversalist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As an agnostic theist I've noticed that I am immune to all the conventional atheist talking points.

[–]tonyp2121 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I dont think one man can truly say there is one God or there isnt, as you say its semantics but you nor I do not know if there is a God and pretending like we do is childish.

[–]brucemo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Strong" and "weak" atheism was poor terminology, and there is a relic of that on this page.

I'm tired of getting into arguments with people who refuse to accept this simple diagram, which so many of us seem to like.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agnostic Atheism is the way to go, man. I see no evidence of a God, but there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure.

[–]Avatar_with_no_name 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

agnostic [ag-nos-tik]

noun

  1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

  2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

  3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

adjective

  1. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

  2. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

  3. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

gnos·tic [nos-tik]

adjective

  1. pertaining to knowledge.

  2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

  3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

noun

  1. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agnostic atheism is DEAD.

[–]throesofdespair 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks, man. No matter how many times people post this image, Redditors still seem to not "get" it.

[–]N8theGr8 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not just redditors. I had to explain the definitions to some co-workers today. That was a really fun conversation, and I'm sure it's far from over.

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pleasure, I still remain sufficiently certain to state i know there is no god.

[–]pngwn56 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How can you be certain? I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster, nor any other god. Have something you'd like to share with the rest of us?

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Common sense doesn't allow me to be anything else other than certain there is no god.

[–]Gopaks 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have problems with that statement only because common sense is relative and certainty has always been the bane of religion.

[–]brucemo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Common sense says the world is flat. Common sense is at it's heart anti-intellectual, and has gotten people into all sorts of idiotic trouble.

[–]Geeoff359 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Many religious people tell me that "common sense" gives them the certainty of God's existence. How is your statement any better than theirs?

[–]antitheistsCOUK[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It becomes such a nit picky game of semantics. I know there is no God, which is why I don't believe in any god.

The notion of this being knowable or tested now or in the future is meaningless..

[–]Geeoff359 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For the most part I agree that semantics is an unnecessary annoyance and I would usually say that I know there is no God. Still, I'm the type of person that if I was ever to be in a legitimate debate I don't like to assert anything that I can't 100% prove with logic. I choose my words carefully because my dad always raised me to be like the lawyer he is.

[–]tonyp2121 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Its not. My opinions on God is no greater than my Christian friends, I dont think OP ever claimed his was. Personally I dont believe in a God, and I dont know if one exists, I wont pretend I do, no one truly knows whether God exists or not, no matter what anyone tells you, and to be completely honest if a dear family member wound up in a hospital I would pray to God, hoping he is real. As I assume many members of this subreddit would.

Ones opinion on God is no greater than another, but if you base your belief on a book, a book that is proven to contradict itself more than once, your belief isnt valid, its proven false, and believing in a lie isnt belief at all its gullibility.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]