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...
3,025 users here now
Help Atheist Organizations! Voting is done: SSA: #47 with 4387 Votes FBB: #56 with 3162 Votes CC: #81 with 2248 Votes Thanks to all who voted! (full results)
Voting is done:
SSA: #47 with 4387 Votes
FBB: #56 with 3162 Votes
CC: #81 with 2248 Votes
Thanks to all who voted! (full results)
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'm telling you, there are only two pools. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 1 month ago by yellownumberfive
[–]HeavyTZM 35 points36 points37 points 1 month ago
I am agnostic. I don't believe any religions are true but I also don't deny the possibility of some type of higher power. I mean, we don't know. So what's wrong with that?
[–]thechimpinallofus 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago
My reply to the man waiting at the bottom by the pools would be: "And I'm telling you that I'm not swimming in either of them!" Or even better "and I'm telling you I want to swim in both!"
[–]BigSHug825 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
Accept only empirical, objectively observable evidence; it'll piss off everyone (except for scientists.)
[–]David1337 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Why dont we all just think for ourselves and not worry about classification? I never feel like I have to label my beliefs to anyone so I have never worried about classification. In the end there will always be certain things in any belief that you do not agree with, which is fine, because it shows that you arent concerned about any certain doctrine or set philosophy. If you are atheist/agnostic there is no reason to label yourself as that, because Im sure you came to that understanding on your own terms, not because you liked the sound of its definition.
[–]HeavyTZM 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
well there is a need to become organized so there can be a coherent group of people to counter the religious arguments for injustice
[–]David1337 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
I understand what you are saying, but I think putting a religious connotation on the arguments muddles the larger point of creating a more secular world. The fact of the matter is that there are many religious people who are totally against the church's involvement inside of the state, no less fervent than people without religion. Once we start labeling ourselves for the sake of an argument we will begin to drift off from actually solving any problems and turn a productive movement into a clash of ideologies. There isnt anything wring with people thinking that gay marriage is wrong or that masturbation is a sin. The problem is when people begin to enforce their beliefs on other individuals. We need to distance ourselves from the idea of changing the minds of the religious right, which is truly pointless, and focus on the real issue of a government that allows for these injustices to happen. At the end of the day people will always disagree on some things, which is fine, but that does not inherently make them wrong. If you want to see any social progress quit combating the religion and its beliefs and focus on the government that is implementing them as law.
[–]thechimpinallofus 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
This. I am really tired of the debate about what we should label ourselves as. Kierkegaard said that faith was a completely subjective, and therefore personal experience, and I tend to agree. All of us have different beliefs because we have unique sets of experiences that led us to those beliefs.
When it comes to agnostics, who identify with a negation of faith (which is a paradox, since we all must believe something at one time or another), the labeling game gets even more complicated. For example, my lean tends to change depending on what I am doing, my mood, or what has recently happened in my life. Sometimes, in the right circumstance, I can feel spiritual and lean into theism. Other times, my mind is as coldly rationale and cynical as the next atheist and I lean that way. I can never fully commit to either side.
Seriously, I don't have a lean. I really don't know.
[–]Chuckleboom 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
That's agnostic atheism, which is what the "can't know" section in the atheism pool represents. You don't believe that religions offered are true, however you cannot disprove them. The fact that you cannot deny a higher power because you don't have evidence against it something you should really think about. Does lack of evidence really denote a possibility?
[–]DanielTaylor 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago
"You don't believe that religions offered are true"
What If I truly don't know whether the offered religions are true?
Assume that I've got a certain-colored ball inside an opaque box. Now a group of blue-ball fans tell me to believe that the hidden ball is blue while the red-ball fans tell me to believe that the hidden ball is red. And the same is true for many other colors.
When asked: "What colour do you think the hidden ball is?"
It is perfectly normal to answer "I don't know". Of course you can also answer "We can't know (unless we open the box)", but it's also perfectly valid, given the lack of evidence that you don't know what colour the ball is or whether there even is a ball inside there.
I am neither a Ball-believer nor a ball-denier. Of course, when asked "Do you belief in a certain coloured ball?" I would answer "No I don't". But that doesn't mean that I'm a ball-denier either.
Technically Atheism means just "lack of belief". That would mean that we can call Atheists both people who deny the existence of god and people who simply don't know and just lack a belief in a certain religion.
The problem here is that you're clearly calling two people believing different things the same.
[–]Totaltotemic 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
It's simple, they contradict each other. Regardless of whether or not you follow any particular religion or what your beliefs are, it is impossible for Islam and, say, Hinduism to both be "true" because they contradict each other at almost every level. When you expand that to encompass all religions, it becomes very apparent that any one religion's doctrine discounts any other religion as possibly being true.
To use your example, it's like if you didn't even know the size of the box , if anything was contained in it at all, or what might be inside it, but different groups of people tell you different things. One group says there's a blue colored ball in there, another says there is one red ball, another says there are multiple multi-colored balls, one says there's a zebra in there, some people say it's empty, some say that if you chant in front of the box a fairy inside will make you live forever after you die. As an added bonus, all of these groups say that their chosen thing is the only thing in the box. You know they're not all right, and that only one of them even could, or maybe they're all wrong. However you can spot some of those claims and call bullshit because you don't believe it or they simply don't make sense to you (who puts a zebra in a mystical box...?).
What most agnostic atheists eventually come down to is discounting religions as being likely true one by one until you get to the last one, discount it, and find out that you've already gone through all of the possible theories.
Strictly, agnosticism relates to knowledge or the lack of ability to know about a higher power, whereas atheism is the belief that there is no higher power.
Most atheists accept that the question is unknowable, but they believe that there is no higher power. Thus making them agnostic and atheist.
The terms are separate, as you stated, but that does mean they are individual.
[–]DanielTaylor 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
I must admit that I'm slightly confused since I seem to be getting different answers from different people.
whereas atheism is the belief that there is no higher power.
Depending on who I ask it seems that atheism is the lack of belief in a higher power or the disbelief in a higher power.
It's important to set a common ground because given your definition someone who does not "believe there is no higher power" is not an atheist. Yet someone who does not believe is a higher power isn't a Theist either.
What do you call someone who does neither belief nor disbelief in a higher power?
[–]stormbeta 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
Both definitions are accurate.
Someone who simply lacks belief in a higher power is still an atheist, but they are also agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
[–]DanielTaylor 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
What's the definition for "Agnostic" in this case?
[–]Chuckleboom -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
Undecided. That sounds like a person who needs to do some research and search how they feel. You may just have your toe in one or the other, but there really are 'only two pools.'
[–]MrsChimpGod 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago*
Undecided? Possibly.
But, how about if they believe that there is no way to know, at this point, no matter how much research they do, whether there is or is not a higher power. It is an unknowable thing. It's not about not being able to make up my mind - it's about knowing that there is not enough information to form an opinion one way or the other.
Do they have to close their eyes & pick one, then, just to satisfy the people who think they must jump into one of the pools? Or, can they just sit back & watch the people swim? :-)
[–]DanielTaylor 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
Both "atheism" and "theism" describe beliefs and you might be correct that "undecided" is not a belief and therefor is not a pool.
But given there are only two pools, then you can't force people to jump into one or another. People who are "undecided" often call themselves "Agnostic", but those are all people who have not jumped into any pool yet and it's impossible to force them to do so.
Since they have not jumped into any pool they are neither Theist nor Atheist and it is wrong to label them as such.
Supposing there are only two pools, the current definition of Atheism includes everyone who's still on the trampoline. The logic is like "Oh, you're not in the Theist pool? Then you must be an Atheist!"
Well, no, I haven't even jumped yet and maybe I never want to do so.
[–]Chuckleboom -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago
I understand. However, the issue we are having is semantics. It's common to use the term 'agnostic' incorrectly, which is what I believe you are doing. I am not claiming that being undecided is a theological stance equivalent to theism or atheism. I am stating that if you do not know which pool you are in and you not are leaning one way or another, you are undecided and it deserves some thought.
Remaining undecided on what I believe for the rest of my life would be a burden. It is obviously easier on you, and maybe you would prefer not to explore that aspect of your life, which is fine. Best wishes.
It's not so much undecided as that we think the question is undecidable. That's different. I'm not uncertain at all about my belief that the question is undecidable.
[–]shut_your_whore_mouf 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
There is no real definition of what "God" is, if such a being existed the very concept would be beyond human understanding. If I don't know what a thing is I cannot very well claim its existence or non-existence because I would have no idea what to look for.
[–]pantsants 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
Actually there can be more logical states than true and false, depending on your philosophy of logic.
From the wiki on intuitionism:
"If a statement P is provable, then it is certainly impossible to prove that there is no proof of P. But even if it can be shown that no disproof of P is possible, we cannot conclude from this absence that there is a proof of P. Thus P is a stronger statement than not-not-P."
In application: Take P to be the statement "no god exists"
Apply the second sentence of the quote to this statement.
No disproof of P is possible, since there is no discrete evidence supporting that a god exists, we cannot however conclude that there is a proof of P.
Essentially we only show that there is not not no god, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that there is no god.
This is a little confusing with so many negatives. But I hope it is interesting to you.
[–]fillymandee 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
American voting populous defined.
[–]JustMyRegularAccount 15 points16 points17 points 1 month ago
You don't have to believe in religion to be theist.
[–]Eloni 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
But you do have to believe.
[–]HeavyTZM 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago
It's not just the lack of evidence. It's just being able to wrap my mind around the "beginning" and the seemless harmony of the universe. I definetely don't think there is a deity looking down on all of us or anything like that. It's just being able to fathom the universe coming from nothing or it's infinite existence. It's just hard to accept that without an understanding of it.
[–]Doomshock -8 points-7 points-6 points 1 month ago*
I definetely don't think there is a deity looking down on all of us
Well, that means you're could be atheist. Understanding anything isn't required of atheism.
[–]RobotSlothmanMD 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago
Not necessarily. What about deists? They don't believe any god is looking down on them, either, but they're not atheists.
[–]fillymandee 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
This.
[–]Doomshock 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Honestly, I didn't really know what deism was up until now. Deism actually seems a bit more understandable than theisms.
[–]yellownumberfive[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 1 month ago
Do you believe in a supernatural deity? It's a yes or no question. If you answer "no", guess what?
[–]DanielTaylor 11 points12 points13 points 1 month ago
It's not that easy. Answer me this question:
This can be answered "Yes", "No" or "I don't know". It is perfectly possible for someone to have their doubts or not have a definite answer to that question maybe because they haven'n made their mind up yet.
According to the definition "Atheism" is the lack of belief in a deity. This means that all people answering "No" and "I don't know" to the question I just asked you would be labeled as atheists. Right?
Yes! Technically and according to the definition yes. But there is a huge problem here: You are labeling two persons who gave completely different answers the same.
How can you label the same someone who denies that a god exists and someone who doesn't know if a god exists and just lacks the belief in a certain god?
Words are used to define and describe words. In this case there is clearly a lack of definition that causes confusion since it may bother someone to be called an atheist despite believing something different. Since the word doesn't completely manage to differentiate between these two types of people, it is perfectly plausible to use the word "Agnostic" (which means: Without knowledge) to make a difference.
[–]yellownumberfive[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
Your problem lies in seeing people who say they don't believe in god as equivalent to denying that god's existence.
Not having a belief in something is NOT the same as denying its existence.
You quickly jump the gun from agnostic to gnostic atheism in your scenario, and it isn't warranted or called for.
But that's not the question I asked. I didn't ask if you believed in a god because that question only allows for a binary answer.
What I'm asking you is the following:
Here you can have three possible answers:
Now, I would kindly ask you that in your next answer you please give each of these three positions a name. (I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I'm just curious to see how we could label them so that there is no confusion).
[–]yellownumberfive[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 1 month ago
No (denies god) - atheist (gnostic)
Yes (affirms god) - theist (you haven't given enough info to determine gnosticism or not)
I don't know - No assertion of belief in a diety = atheist. The terms of which suggest agnostic.
If you have no positive belief in deities, you are an atheist. You are without theism, without a belief in gods.
Deal with it.
[–]DanielTaylor 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago*
An Agnostic Atheist can also deny the existence of god. See, that question of Gnosticism deals with the assumption that we can or we can't prove the existence of a god.
It's perfectly plausible (and I would assume that it's the case of many in this subreddit) that someone believes god doesn't exist but at the same time admits that there may not be a way to prove this non-existence.
Given the dictionary definition of atheism (which you support), atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.
Then, I would suggest three ways of naming the possible answers given above:
No (denies god) - Strong Atheist
Yes (affirms god) - Theist
I don't know - Weak Atheist
Here's the wikipedia article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism
"Positive (strong) atheism is a term used to describe the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative (weak) atheism refers to any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but without asserting there to be none.[1][2]"
So far so good. Strong atheism denies god while weak atheism is just the lack of belief. What I'm getting at is that there are THREE POOLS.
If someone was on the battlefield and they were asked "Is there an enemy sniper on the tower?" I sure bet they would act very differently depending on what they believe.
If they believed there is no Sniper they would have no problem crossing the field in front of the tower. If they believed there is a Sniper, they would probably avoid the field or call artillery. If they said "I don't know", that means that they lack enough evidence to affirm or deny the existence of the sniper and they would probably try to gather enough evidence or avoid the field just in case.
In all three cases these people react, act and behave in very different ways.
It doesn't matter what you call it. We can call them "Strong Soldier", "Weak Soldier" and "Dubious Soldier" and someone would claim "Ha! They are all soldiers!"
Well, yes they are all soldiers but they will behave in a very different way depending in which of the three options they believe. Going back to the "Swimming pool" analogy, it only strikes me at plausible that there are three pools, despite what they are called.
Both a Panthera leo (lion) and a Panthera tigris (tiger) are from the same genus "Panthera". But they still are very different animals and have very different needs.
If I were a Tiger and all people called me "Big Cat", making no difference between tigers and lions (or other species) it's normal that I might want people to know that I'm a tiger, a Panthera Tigris and not a lion. Specially if all people assumed I was a lion when I told them I'm from the "panthera" genus.
Most people do not make a distinction between Strong Atheism and Weak atheism... The distinction isn't even made in this same subreddit which is called "atheism". I see it thus as perfectly normal that people who don't feel identified with what most people belief "atheism" is try to call themselves something different. In this case, someone who is agnostic means "Someone who is without knowledge."
It strikes me thus as perfectly valid that some people prefer to call themselves Agnostics instead of "Atheists" or "Weak atheists", a term little known and used.
[–]horse-pheathers 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
It actually breaks down into "yes" and "other", as belief is a binary state; you either believe or you don't, with no middle ground. If your answer to "do you believe in X" is "I don't know"? You DON'T believe in X.
[–]DanielTaylor 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago
You are totally correct. Belief is a binary state, but so is disbelief.
We could ask the same question in reverse: "Do you disbelieve in X?". If we argued that someone who answered with "I don't know" the first question doesn't believe in X, then we must also argue that this same person "doesn't disbelieve in X" either.
So, that person neither believes nor disbelieves in X. It would be false logic to put them in either "group". And that's why the most neutral and objective viewpoint sees "Three pools" and not only two.
Imagine this same "cartoon picture" being displayed in a parallel universe where most people do not believe in a higher power and the most asked question by the theist minority is "Do you disbelief in god?"
If I were to answer "I don't know" it would be wrong from the Theist side to assume that I do believe in a higher power. Just because I don't deny the existence of a god doesn't mean that I believe in it.
[–]horse-pheathers -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
Oy.
You're conflating "degree of certainty" with "does belief exist".
When you ask the question "Do you disbelieve X?", you're essentially asking "Are you reasonably sure X does not exist?", which is a way to classify certainty, not establish belief.
On the question of gods, if you answer "Do you believe?" with anything not some form of "yes", you are technically an atheist. Full stop. If you take "Do you disbelieve?" to mean "Are you reasonably certain there is no god?" (which it certainly implies), you are asking "Are you trending toward being a gnostic atheist?", which is a whole different question entirely.
[–]DanielTaylor 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago
you are technically an atheist. Full stop.
According to the current definition of Atheism, yes. The problem is that the current definition of Atheism or the people using that definition often fail to make a distinction between weak and strong atheism.
Imagine we change the definition of theism into "Lack of disbelief in a deity" and Atheism remains as "Disbelief of a deity". Then you would probably have to tell me that I'm a Theist. Full stop.
As you can see there is a problem because I would probably keep arguing that's not what I am... I would try to convince you that maybe I'm some sort of "Weak Theist", while at the same time I know that almost no one uses or knows that word and it is probably safer for me to call myself something else because I don't want to be though of as something I'm not.
Also, be aware that you're mixing up Strong Atheism with "Gnostic Atheism" which is not the same.
A strong atheist is someone who believes a deity DOES NOT exist, while a Gnostic Atheist is an atheist (it doesn't specify whether weak or strong) that KNOWS that we can gather evidence to disprove the existence of a god.
[–]AwayForToday 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
Let me help you with this "current definition of atheism" thing. It isn't. Or rather, it's only a definition used among New Atheists. I wrote a rant about it a while back here.
[–]horse-pheathers -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago
The problem is that the current definition of Atheism or the people using that definition often fail to make a distinction between weak and strong atheism.
That would mostly be the theists, who have tried to push "atheism means strong/gnostic atheism" for ages, because strong/gnostic atheism is easier for them to argue against. In fact, this is why this whole semantic/definitional discussion comes up so often; people like you have bought that lie and help promote it, weakening atheism-as-a-social-movement in the process.
The truth is the vast majority of atheists are some form of agnostic atheist; any gnostic or strong atheists out there are so rare that your concerns about the lack of distinction being made are completely baseless.
"Atheist" in practice defaults to "weak" or "agnostic atheist", by virtue of shear numbers.
Oh, and any difference between 'gnostic' and 'strong' atheism is so minor as to be meaninglessly trivial; you're again buying into the attempts to shoehorn atheism into its most-easily-argued-against subset. You've redefined "strong atheism" to scoop up the many, many agnostic atheists who do not claim certainty but state that gods are highly improbable propositions, turning "gods are highly improbable" into "gods absolutely do not exist". It's bullshit. Quit playing the churches' games, and just own up to it: you are an agnostic atheist.
I appreciate your help but I'm not so sure of the "strong atheism" minority. I don't have any numbers or statistics at hand to prove my point, but I do feel that many people, also in this subreddit, feel comfortable with the sentence "God does not exist".
And whether strong atheism is or is not a minority doesn't change the fact that we're still not making a distinction between the two completely different types of persons and beliefs the word "atheism" tries to describe.
I don't really believe it's a theist conspiracy to manipulate the meaning of words, but if it's about not playing the "church's game" as you say then I must also insist into not playing the "strong atheist's game".
It sounds silly at this point to call it like that; most people don't even want labels!
But what many people hate even more than labels is being classified into the wrong group. It is therefore necessary to have a real-life, practical and useful definition that is socially accepted.
If most of the world thinks "Atheism" is the disbelief of a god and "Agnosticism" is a neutral unknowing stance, then it's only logical for me to call them that. Better yet, these words offer a much clearer distinction and are much much more difficult to be manipulated (If that's really what you worry about).
I'm comfortable stating "god(s) do not exist". Don't mistake that for certainty, and don't call me a "strong atheist"; I've just figured the odds are so far against a deity that I am as comfortable making that statement as I am "my dog isn't getting into the trash right now" or "my significant other isn't cheating on me". There's a chance I am wrong on any or all of those three statements, but that chance in all three cases is small.
As for the "theist's game", I've been debating believers of various stripes for over twenty years now, and I have seen it played out repeatedly where first they try to pigeonhole all of atheism under the strong atheism banner, and then try to attack it because that's where they can haul out the "you'd have to have perfect knowledge" argument. This routine is as much a staple of Christian "debate" as Pascal's Wager used to be, and variants of Kalam Cosmology are becoming today.
Conspiracy? Not really; it's more a function of the hierarchical/authoritarian nature of Christianity - someone comes up with an argument that helps keep the "flock" from straying, various pastors pick it up, and next thing you know half the believers on the planet are parroting it.
If most of the world thinks "Atheism" is the disbelief of a god and "Agnosticism" is a neutral unknowing stance...
If most of the world thinks "theory" means "guess"...
You know where I'm going with that. There's "popular" usage and "correct" (what's "correct" can be strongly context dependent, of course) usage, and they often don't overlap. When talking atheism on the net, all you're going to do by clinging to the "popular" definitions is confuse a lot of discussion and waste a lot of time repeatedly going over the same "gnostic-agnostic"/"theist-atheist" axes without making any headway whatsoever. You might as well be a Christian walking up to an biologist and opining "evolution is only a theory".
[–]GnosticAgnostic 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
You're conflating "degree of certainty" with "knowledge"
All knowledge is probabilistic. When you say you "know" something, it mans you believe it to be true to a sufficiently high degree of certainty to accept it.
[–]GnosticAgnostic 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
That's redundant. Believing something is accepting something to be true. The epistemic justification of the belief isn't really a part of the discussion.
What?
No, seriously...what?
Because you made the mistake of conflating belief with surety, and I was correcting you, and you come back and label my definitional post as redundant because the word I am defining means the same thing as the definition I gave it?
Whatever you are smoking is some pretty potent shit.
[–]MrsChimpGod 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
What if my answer to 'Do you believe in X' is "I believe that X is possible, but have no proof that it is or is not"?
I can't 'believe' or 'disbelieve' without more information.
Belief is a binary state. You either have it or lack it. "Undecided" means you lack it.
[–]gazoogle 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Do you believe I have a brown eyes?
No, I do not - I have no belief about your eye color whatsoever beyond probabilities based on average occurrence across the general population. Your eyes might be brown - the odds actually favor it - but I haven't enough data to establish a belief.
[–]robywar 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
When you're asked the question "Does (a) god exist?" the answer can only be "Yes" or "No."
If you're inclined to say "I don't know," then you're saying "No, but maybe it's possible. But no, I don't currently believe (a) god exists."
Therefore you're an atheist. But if you leave a sliver of a possibility with that "I don't know," you're an agnostic atheist.
In my home, right now, am I holding a pen in my hand?
There are indeed only two possible realities:
But it would be absurd not to consider the possibility of answering "I don't know", specially given the lack of evidence. There are thus three possible answers. Two of them refer to the actual status of reality and the third one avoids any claims of knowledge of said reality.
The most popular definition for atheism is "Lack of belief in a deity". According to that definition, if you don't believe in a deity then you're an atheist. Yes, according to that definition, then yes.
But you must possibly be able to see that the given definition is skewed, because it's trying to group three different types of answers into only two categories.
Imagine we changed the definition of atheism and theism, and it would now be this way:
Suddenly all those people who answered "I don't know" should now be called theists according to this definition.
You might probably think that "This is not correct. You can't change the definition of a word". Actually, yes, I can. Definitions and words are not definitive as they are man-made and are subject to change.
It happened to be that one fine day the person who was in charge of defining the word "Atheism" decided to call it "A lack of belief in a deity". If by chances of history it would have been different and Theism would have been defined as the "lack of disbelief" then I would probably now be in a Catholic Forum, trying to explain why I don't want to be called a "Theist".
All this happens because we're trying to classify three different status into only two categories. It would be much better to admit the third category according to the third possible answer and call it... "I-don't-know-ism" or whatever. Right now the most popular word for that seems to be "Agnosticism".
[–]robywar -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
But there are 2 different questions being asked. "Am I holding a pen?" is not the same as "Do you believe I am holding a pen?" To the first, "Maybe" is a valid answer. To the second there are only 2 options, yes or no.
If you are asked "Is there a god?" it's perfectly valid to say yes, no, or I don't know.
If you are asked "Do you think there is a god?" there are only two options, yes or no. If you question at all, then your answer has to be no.
Agnosticism/gnosticism answers if we think we can know something. Honestly, I can't be sure that I'm not a brain in a jar or a super advanced computer program running on some alien kid's graphing calculator. I certainly cannot know for sure there is absolutely no god. But I don't think there is. So I'm an agnostic atheist, as you are.
If you are asked "Do you think there is a god?" there are only two options, yes or no.
In that case I would like to put in doubt the validity of the question used to classify people's beliefs.
If "Am I holding a pen?" offers three possible answers and "Do you believe I am holding a pen?" offers only two possible answers, aren't we then wrongly classifying in the second question all those people that would answer "I don't know" in the first question?
There is a clear difference between someone who answers "No" to "Am I holding a pen?" and someone who answers "I don't know.", yet we are still putting them in the same group.
It is thus not strange at all that the "I don't know" group decides to call itself something else that does not put them in the same group with those who answered "no".
But we're not putting them in the same group.
So if someone asks you if you're an atheist, you can say yes or no and have answered the question. You are or you aren't. So far so good.
But what is an atheist? Some one who does not have a belief in a deity. Again, a binary position: one does or does not.
Now, the question "Is there a god?" is a bit trickier. What I'm asking is your opinion in a factual matter. To say either yes or no would be a gnostic answer. You are claiming to know a fact. I don't know is the only reasonable choice. The agnostic answer.
However, the word agnostic by itself is meaningless in the context of any particular question because it's not specific to theism. If I asked you if there was life on the moons or Jupiter you could be agnostic.
Therefore what concerns us most here, regarding religious views, is the answer to two separate questions. "Do you think there is a god?" and "Do you claim to know the truth about the reality of that last question?"
A Gnostic person would claim they know if there was a god. An agnostic would not.
So you can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or an gnostic theist.
Anyone who says they're simply agnostic is not answering both questions.
Ah! I can see why we are not sharing a common conclusion. You are using the terms "gnostic" and "agnostic" in a different way than they are commonly used.
I don't want to say that you're wrong, because there is probably no wrong or right, but when we are talking about gnostic theists and agnostic atheists, the question is not: "Do you claim to know the truth about the reality of that last question?"
The question is: "Is it possible to know whether a god exists?"
Wikipedia explains it quite well: "In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Simple English Wikipedia has got a shorter and easier version of the same article: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
We both think that the "Do you claim to know the truth about the reality of that last question?" is a very important question. But as you can see, this question is not being answered at any point, so that both people are indeed thrown into the same sack.
Bah semantics. I think we generally agree! :)
[–]FriendlyCommie -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago*
*Not having made up your mind
*Not knowing
Are both not believing
The only thing that wouldn't be not believing would be: "yes"
Indeed.
Yet should we give both people who say "No" and "I don't know", the same name? There is clearly a difference.
[–]FriendlyCommie -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
Well isn't that the difference between implicit and explicit atheists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
Yes, yes it is.
[–]DanielTaylor 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago*
Indeed. Also called "Strong atheism and weak atheism".
Yet in real life no one uses those words and many don't know the distinction between them. Most of the time the word "Atheist" is used solo, without any other adjective. Not only does this lead to confusion because it fails to make that distinction between the two types of atheism but most of the time people assume that being an atheist means "disbelieving in a deity".
It is thus, understandable that given the social definition of "atheism" and that it is used alone without further distinction in 99.99% of the time, that the people who are on the "I don't know", weak side of atheism decide to call themselves something different to avoid confusion, such as agnostic [without knowledge].
It is important to notice that someone who claims to believe in something, someone who claims to disbelieve in something and someone who claims he doesn't know, they all will act in very different ways.
Imagine you're standing in a long corridor with $500 at the other end. Just at the middle, there is an intersection with a machine gun pointing at the path between you and the money.
In the first scenario I show someone how I unload the machine gun completely. When I then ask them "Do you believe the gun is loaded?" the answer will obviously be "No" and they will act accordingly and grab the $500.
In the second scenario I show someone how I load the machine gun completely. When I then ask "Do you believe the gun is loaded?", the answer will be "Yes", and they'll refuse to walk down the corridor in order to avoid being shot dead.
In the third case scenario I cover the machine gun with a black piece of cloth and do something beneath it, maybe loading or maybe unloading. A very feasible answer when asking now the question "Do you believe the gun is loaded?" would be "I don't know".
And that person may want to approach the machine gun and take off the black cloth to gather more evidence or maybe even completely refuse to walk down in corridor.
What's important to realize is that these three people in this thought experiment showed very very different behaviors depending of what they believed. There are thus "three pools". Trying to group people of one pool (behavior/belief) into another would be a mistake.
According to the definition of weak and strong atheism there should be thus a pool called "Theism" a pool called "Strong atheism" and a pool called "Weak atheism".
But when you see that most people don't make a distinction between the second and the third pool, specially since you don't feel identified with the second pool, then it's only logical to start using a different word such as "Agnosticism".
[–]CainCuroen 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Let me show you a nifty chart that many agnostics prefer that should explain it.
http://i.imgur.com/3My7N.png
[–]HotInTheStreets 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
This, saving this for next time I run into an annoying atheist
[–]fookhar 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
You shouldn't, since it's wrong. You don't have to actively believe gods don't exist to be an atheist. And lacking belief in gods do not make you agnostic, believing that we can't or don't know if gods exist makes you agnostic.
[–]fookhar -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago*
That chart is just flat out wrong.
EDIT: And here's why: You don't have to actively believe gods don't exist to be an atheist. Lacking belief in gods do not make you agnostic, believing that we can't or don't know if gods exist makes you agnostic.
[–]CainCuroen 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
Bear in mind that how you identify a person is irrelevant, and that the way they identify themselves is what matters in the case of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
People can identify themselves however they want, but if they label themselves using words that have set definitions and their beliefs don't actually reflect those definitions, then they're just creating unnecessary confusement.
[–]squigs 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
That seems to be a highly specific question that seems to be carefully worded to shove people into one of two highly specifically defined categories, neither of which tell us anything interesting.
Personally I identify as a slightly agnostic moderately strong atheist-deist-pantheist.
[–]WolfySnackrib 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago
This picture is only partly correct. Depending on the definition of agnosticism, there may or may not be just the two pools, and trust me there are more than one definition of agnosticism. One of the secondary actually refers to a person who considers himself undecided when it comes to religion. But by the primary definition, that the truth value of claims concerning deities can not be determined, sure, exclusively through that definition there are only agnostic or gnostic atheists and agnostic or gnostic theists. Took me a while to figure out the divisiveness of people who got tangled up with the word agnosticism, and I got all tangled up in it too, and for a while thought the two pools was the right answer to the question what agnosticism means. Turns out everyone is right rather than just one side. Together they're right.
[–]triplaur 11 points12 points13 points 1 month ago
This is actually a perfect portrayal of what happened to me. I realised that in practice, yes I am an atheist. Intellectually on the other hand, I am agnostic because humanity does not yet have the means to truly disprove god in a pure scientific way.
[–]Zakams 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU&list=FLr8jSDGDYjeuiuoKpiofJRA&index=2&feature=plpp_video
I do realize that it is a bit hard to understand, but I do believe humanity knows enough about the universe to not need god to explain any of it.
[–]flying_retard 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
It all depends on your concept of god/absolute and the universe. To some god=universe.
But a guy on a cloud with a beard, if he's not Kamesennin thats just retarded.
[–]onthefence928 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
if god = universe, then yes god exists, because the universe exists, but its also not the same thing theists are talking about when they say god, so its not theism, its naturalism
[–]SparkandFire 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
I find most of debate is about definitions.
[–]onthefence928 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
at least the amatuer debates on /r/debatereligion
[–]colbert_for_prez 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago
What if God (whatever you want to call him, Allah, Jesus, or even an entire-civilization) wrote out the physics of the universe and then set it all in motion? I don't understand why the idea of that is so far-fetched. If the entity is all-powerfull then it would make sense, that before even time itself existed he/she/they/it had to re-write some code and put some bolts into place before kick starting this thing we call reality. (that isn't my personal opinion though, I just like to raise that point and debate it a little.).
Also, to say that we know enough about the universe to not need go to explain any of it= implying we can explain everything (because the argument would be "how does X happen" "Were not sure" "Then I guess its just god at work")....well I think it's a little early to say we know it all. Yea, we don't need to say "well I guess that's just god" but there have to still be things out there that would make us say "how is that even possible?".
[–]Zakams 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have put "any" in there.
[–]thekikuchiyo 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Theism and atheism are answers to a question of 'do you believe' in god. Not which one is true, but to describe your beliefs. By answering agnostic you are really just declining to disclose your opinion. I've met many people who will claim that they know one way or another, but put to the test I've never met anyone who could remove any doubt about their position.
The question 'Are you a theist or an atheist' should be read as one category that believes in god, and another category that includes everyone else. Agnosticism is a statement about the conviction of that position not a third option.
[–]emoney_33 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
It's a legit third option for those who were indoctrinated during their deconversion. During the time period where the mind is being liberated from the shackles/fear of eternal damnation, it is on the path to atheism but not healed enough to admit to itself it does not believe. It's a shitstorm of cognitive dissonance, and it's not fun. Claiming agnosticism helps, even if it is being out of the water so to speak as in this comic.
[–]thekikuchiyo 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
I understand where you're coming from because I'm a former Southern Baptist from Georgia, and I agree for a person who has been taught that even questioning your faith is a sign a spiritual danger, changing your identification from 'Christian' to 'atheist' is one of the toughest decisions a person will ever make in their life, and I don't mean to diminish that. However, it is still inconsistent to allow the definitions of words to be changed solely for ones own comfort, while it may be emotionally helpful, it is not intellectually honest. For me, the crux of becoming an atheist was deciding that the latter was more important to me than the former.
[–]emoney_33 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
I agree with you, I just mean that the intellectual dishonesty is usually a necessary step forward. For many minds the step from theist to atheist is too big and their minds will not let them entertain it, so they need something to allow them to explore their doubts. Agnosticism offers an intellectual loophole between the illogical beliefs that are ingrained and the logical world in which we observe. We aren't coming strictly from logic and reasoning, we are coming from an imprisoned mind.
At least for me raised Catholic I don't remember a decision to become atheist, more like a long drawn out process of resolving the cognitive dissonance between what made logical sense and what I felt I knew based on upbringing and anecdotal experience. I certainly preferred to identify myself as agnostic because it alleviated the impending doom I felt otherwise. Eventually over time my mind has been slowly liberated, but it's definitely been a process. Even to this day I get a subtle uneasy feeling when I say that God does not exist.
TL;DR You can think of it as "I believe", "I don't believe", and "I don't know what to believe!" The third option is intellectually lazy to remain in longterm but is frequently a necessary option while transforming from theism to atheism. Being a theist, at least it was the case for me, is your brain thinking it actually knows, not just believes, but knows without a doubt that God exists. It's not always easy to overcome.
[–]Azara1th 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
We also cannot disprove the existence of fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, wizards/witches, pixies, etc. We can, however, find origins for many of these in human invention. Gods are no different, we need not hold any of them as possibilities any more than any other human invented myths. We can understand the motivations for their invention, but there is absolutely no evidence or sound logic behind them - no supernatural realm.
[–]dizzygfunk 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago
Why so worried about labeling people?
[–]fruchle 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
While I entirely get your point, there IS a reason behind this clarification:
it helps people (who were agnostic/gnostic theists in transition) strip away the last vestiges of gnostic theism.
[–]KinnNotap 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
Haha, looks like I get two pools!
[–]bloinggloing 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
Yeah. I don't think it's quite that simple.
[–]kremit73 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
the way i see it, atheism is just as arrogant as theism in stating that the know without a doubt that there is no higher being/power. i prefer to view it scientificly in that there is a slight probability that there could be something beyond ourselves, be it a god like being or alien expirementor, that we have no way of fully denying the possibility of such a being.
we had no idea that black holes existed until hawking's work and gravity lensing.
basically i see it as we aren't the ultimate authority in our scientific world and maybe we just haven't found a way to witness said being and until we reach a state of literally knowing all that we can about our universe that there is still a possibility that some being exists, in no way the way that today's religions describe it, but still some force greater than ourselves. and to claim without a doubt that there is nothing is arrogant and misleading.
we should be looking for all ways to view our universe and not close off an entire region of thought just because you don't agree with religion
[–]Avar_Ice 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago
That pretty much sums up my agnostic atheism. Not exactly, but close enough to laugh at.
[–]AGaW 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago
Gnosticism isn't logically sound, so that also goes for the most of us.
[–]Rizuken 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago
Gnosticism isn't logically sound
it is if you adjust your idea of knowledge to being within percentage chances instead of absolute certainty.
[–]Falkner09 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
right, that's what people don't seem to get about science and reasoning. there's always a hypothetical possibility that something we don't know is responsible for leading us to believe something is wrong. for example, we have abundant evidence for gravity. yet, it's possible that the evidence has been manufactured to deceive us by someone else. but this is so far outside the realm of reasonable likelihood that we can safely say it is not the case. likewise with the existence of God.
[–]AGaW -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
Could you elaborate, please?
[–]Rizuken -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/xf7op/im_telling_you_there_are_only_two_pools/c5m79at?context=3
[–]Grauzz 12 points13 points14 points 1 month ago
I no longer buy into the idea of agnosticism. We know enough about our own universe and history to refute the major religions of today with 100% certainty.
The idea that there's something else out there underlying the entirety of the universe that we live in? Sure, I'll see that, one idea I've heard lately being the universe is a giant simulation, possibly even by our future selves. Crazy, out there, a little wild, yeah, and I'm not saying I'd buy into that idea specifically...But saying you don't/can't know in regards to the Christian god, just as one example? I call bullshit.
[–]Msj2705 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago*
We can say that all gods in the books available to the public do no exist with absolute certainty.
But it is impossible to say that there is not an all-powerful being. Being all powerful, it could exist without us ever finding it. It could be in another universe, another dimension, another wavelength we can't detect. It's impossible to say that we know a creature like that does or does not exist without knowing everything there is to know about everything, which is impossible in the foreseeable future.
That said, it sounds like a bit of a stretch.
It's technically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of any god.
A god that is, per definition, all powerful and beyond the rules and laws of this universe can at any point be tricking you or be testing you.
Of course this is also true for all other omnipotent gods we can think of: Including the flying spaghetti monster or the All powerful cat-God which I just made up.
And that's why I don't care whether there is a god or not.
[–]shoulderdestruction 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago
I agree. If you take a step back and redefine 'god' ultimately as the process that facilitated the beginning/continuation/simulation of the universe, then I have no problem with deism.
All this personal god business is nonsense.
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago*
But why call those things deists cite "God", we already have better terms for such things.
"Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe? Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy then you can find God in a lump of coal." - Stephen Weinberg.
[–]Acseeley -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
Are you saying that you should take the agnostic approach? Not acknowledging the concept of god makes you agnostic. But I sense that you don't believe in their summary of what God is, so you are an Atheist as well.
Welcome to 1 pool, you are an agnostic atheist!
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago
I know I'm an agnostic atheist, I never said otherwise.
I was commenting on the futility of language deists use to describe 'god' when what they are really talking about is something else entirely, they simply ascribe meaning to it that they probably shouldn't.
[–]Acseeley 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago
Are the theists gnostic, or do they just think they are?
Honest ones would be agnostic, those claiming things like personal revelation would rightly be considered delusional.
[–]Acseeley 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago
100% certainty that you know all that is known and that that which is unknown is a pretty bold position to take, don't you think? In other words, you believe just like a Christian does, that you have a defined answer on the subject. Does this mean that the burden of proof is now on you, the one making the claim, that there is no higher power as well? Seems like a slippery slope. Much more rational to claim that the concept of god/s cannot be known, but oh yeah, that one you read about in a book (GodAllahOsiris).. I don't believe in that. Agnostic athiesm.
[–]destrucci 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
I would claim 100% there is no higher power until any evidence is shown that there is such a being. I think that is what he was going for. For now Abiogenesis and Evolution is our best explanation for origins and how humans came about. You can speculate but until the evidence is shown it's 100%.
[–]Acseeley 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
"You can speculate" not if there is 100% proof.
"You would claim" but you can't prove. Christians make the same claim.
[–]destrucci 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Worded poorly it rather late here. My point is that there can't be a maybe or claim without evidence so it's 100% no creator until evidence is shown.
[–]Acseeley 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
But there is still the possibility of evidence, which makes 100% an impossible conclusion.
It's 100% true until evidence is show. If evidence is show then wouldn't 100% true statement.
Right now I say 100% that there isn't a creator. But that is subject to change with evidence. Saying anything less that that would mean we have evidence to the contrary.
[–]rj20876 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
If it were 100% true, then there would be no evidence that could contradict it. Lack of presentable evidence for or against it doesnt change whether its true or not, just our level of knowledge on the subject. No matter how much evidence humans have had for gravity in the past, or in the future, it does exist. Just because they didnt know it, didnt make it any more or less true. That's why Ive always taken the hard agnostic atheistic position. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a creator but saying you know there is not, simply because of a lack of evidence is falling into the same dogmatic trap as the religious.
[–]atheists_suck_mirite -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
So, you don't know about Dragons, Fairies, Ghosts, Lochness monster, The Yeti, UFO abductions, Astrology...?
He was talking about the Christian God. I would add personal god(s) of all religions to that.
[–]Acseeley 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
The things you spoke of, I do not believe in as they are products of a human mind. Do I know there is no higher, unnamed, unfathomable higher power?? No, neither do you, for or against. So again I don't have absolute knowledge, nobody can, but since you brought all that to the table, no I don't believe in them. Why can't I say that I know they do not exist? Because you are asking me to make a knowledge judgment on something that people believe in. 2 concepts, knowledge and belief. Read the Tao te Ching, it will help you understand and be at peace with what can not be known.
[–]armchairdetective 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
Why do people get so riled up over people that are uncertain?
I'm an agnostic and I manage not to get irritated by those who believe or by those who don't believe (so long as they are not militant and offensive in their beliefs).
[–]alphanumericsheeppig -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
It's not so much that people get riled up over people that are uncertain. That's a very rational stance. It's the whole "atheists are making a fundamental statement! They're asserting beliefs as truth, just like theists!" that some agnostics go round saying which bugs people. There is a certain subset of agnostics that likes to go round thinking their beliefs are somehow superior than those of atheists.
Anyone who smugly think's they're superior is always going to annoy those who they believe they're superior to.
This is true.
But then I find it is the case that more people are smugly superior among those who are definite in their beliefs than those who aren't.
Can't we all just get along?
[–]Lots42 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
I have no idea what this is trying to say.
Why can't agnostic just mean 'I don't know what happens after you die'?
[–]fruchle -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
because theism and agnosticism is more than about death.
I mean sure, you can redefine a word to mean whatever you want it to mean, but that kind of defeats the purpose of language as a means to convey ideas.
[–]Lots42 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
I wish there was a word that just meant 'I don't know what the heck happens after death'. Because whatever it is, I'm it.
I think everyone pretty much knows with a 100% certainty what happens to you after death. There's a lot of bacterial decomposition that occurs, for example.
Now, if you want to wonder about what happens to anything that's NOT part of your body, then you'd have to define what that is. That is, you can't wonder what happens to your soul after death without first defining what a soul is... and then even if there is such a thing.
Cart before the horse and all that, you know.
We're having trouble defining souls now? Well, fuck.
[–]alphanumericsheeppig -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago
Explanation of the image: There is a man in a position high up, obviously to jump, but is hesitant. There are two swimming pools below, but he cannot make up his mind which pool to jump into. Apparently, he identifies as an agnostic. There is an area marked in each pool as "can't know" (which could also be taken to mean "can't know with the information currently available to me"). The man at the bottom is calling up that there are only two pools. This implies that the jumper would like a third pool labelled "agnosticism". However, there is no such pool.
If the jumper decides to actively believe in God, he is jumping into the "can't know" region of the theism pool. If he does not decide to do this, then he is automatically in the atheism pool, whether he accepts it or not.
There are only two pools.
If you are not a theist, then you are automatically an atheist, whether you like it or not, whether you choose to label yourself as one or not, whether you identify with other atheists or not. There is no alternative.
If you do not believe in God, then you are atheist.
Your stances are one of
Pretending that there is some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief is a state of denial. Believing is something that you do. It's just like running. If you are not actively running, then you are not running. Just as if you do not actively believe, then you do not believe.
Most atheists, myself included, are firmly under point number 3.
I thought number 3 was agnostic and number four was atheist. Oh wells.
[–]farkwadian 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
I am agnostic, but I think that every single religion is built upon lies. If there is a "God" it exists outside of the parameters the church has created and is completely incomprehensible to us due to the complexity that it would have to exist as.
[–]enzopetrozza 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
You realize a key component of atheism /agnosticism is doubt and skepticism? That's the beauty of it, unlike most religions, you are allowed to be less than 100% on anything dealing with theology, I prefer to not recognize the existence of God, but I was once an agnostic and I get where they are coming from.
So you are a gnostic Atheist? One who has special knowledge that there definitely is no higher power 100%, and believes that there is no god?
[–]alphanumericsheeppig 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
No, he's just realised that there's no point in labelling himself as an agnostic. He is an atheist. He doesn't actively believe in God. Period. It says nothing about what he knows. He no longer feels the need to point out every time "Hey, I don't know", because he's reached the point at which he's realised that none of us actually knows.
Haha, perfect. I hate when people treat Gnosticism/Agnosticism as a separate position.
[–]Acseeley 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago
Haha. Then you have no idea what they mean.
[–]rj20876 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
I know perfectly well what they mean. They pertain to whether the person believes it is knowable. A Gnostic theist/atheist believes god exist or doesnt and that it is a verifiable position. An agnostic theist/atheist believes in their position but that it ultimately cannot be proven either way. Agnostic does not mean you just flat out don't have a position on the issue, it pertains to the belief as to whether it is a verifiable fact.
[–]1yawAworhThrowaway1 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
There's a third pool guys, join us the water is nice
Actually there's only one pool. It just has a shallow end and a deep end.
[–]TheJSEshow 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
I was agnostic for about a year. It was more of a gateway to atheism for me. I was still getting used to not believing in anything, living in a very christian family. After a while I started to realize that I was an athiest.
[–]Guidrubas 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago*
I don't understand agnosticism. Of course you don't know for a fact whether there is a god or not. Even those who claim to claim certainty that there is or isn't a god are lying, unless that person knows everything. So why use the terms agnostic and gnostic when there's only one possibility?
[–]fruchle 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago
because crazy people claim to know the unknowable.
[–]DoubleRaptor 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
The problem I have with agnosticism is that when you say you're agnostic, it seems just as good as saying "It could go either way. The chances that gods exist are equal to the chances that they don't."
This is unlikely to be true for anyone, but that's why I'm reluctant to use the terms agnostic or agnostic atheist instead of simply atheist.
[–]Acseeley -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 month ago*
False comparison. Agnosticism is a statement on knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist (without knowing but I believe in one of the the known concepts of god) or an agnostic atheist (without knowing but I do not believe in any of the known concepts of god). If you say you "know" that there is no higher power, you are just as arrogant as the knuckle draggers who "know" there is one. Think about what atheism entails, you are arguing against the belief in any established bogeyman deities. An agnostic simply says that there is no reason you could know how to come up with the concept in the first place. So this is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I know there is no reason for the concept to be established, but since thousands of flavors of god have been created, I believe in none.
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago
Uh, that's what the comic is attempting to get across. That agnosticism is not a position between atheism and theism, but distinctions within each.
[–]Acseeley -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago
"Uh" so if you are an atheist are you not also agnostic? I would venture to say we are all Agnostic no matter what we claim to know or believe in. If Atheism and Agnosticism are 2 pools, how can I both not know and not believe as I stated previously? Are you gnostic, or do you just refuse to answer the question of knowledge because you are stubborn?
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago*
Everybody who is honest is agnostic when talking about larger themes - in the specific cases of specific gods I think we can certainly be gnostic atheists if such gods are logically contradictory for example, and I'd say Yahweh is one of those that is.
Give me a concrete claim I can analyze and reject and, yes, I'm gnostic. Give me some vague bullshit about a higher power and I cannot be, because the concept is not fleshed out enough for criticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are NOT two pools, theism and atheism are - agnosticism is a pool within each larger pool as the comic depicts.
Anyone who is honest is a truthful Agnostic, anyone who isn't is a lying agnostic. 1 pool of Agnosticism for all of humanity, the shallow end as theism, the deep end as atheism.
But that's not true, is it, because there are those on both ends who claim knowledge and not always without reason (see what I said about logically incompatible deities).
No, one either believes in gods or they do not - those are the two pools. (A)gnosticism simply differentiates said pools.
[–]DeepFriedDresden -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago
What's funny is I went from being atheist to being agnostic. This happened because atheism is dogmatic, just like other theist religions, and I feel like agnosticism is the only truly free mind I can understand. I can think critically, and I don't have to become another follower of a doctrine. I'll say atheism is probably a "better" dogma to follow, but it still has its narrow-minded thoughts and its borderline worship of prominent "atheist" figures. Just because atheism doesn't have mythical figures and Gods doesn't mean a lot of the atheists on this subreddit have not apotheosized figures. I think you know who I'm referring to. Figures like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson are on here a lot. I'm not saying they weren't intelligent, I'm saying they have been overpopularized. I know this doesn't represent all of you, but it sure seems to reflect the front page r/atheists. So I guess what I'm saying is no there aren't two pools, because guess what, the world isn't black and white, and accepting a dogma, no matter how empirical or reasonable, does not make you a good person because you "chose a side". Life shouldn't be this battle between beliefs, I know it is and that's something difficult to change, but that doesn't mean there is reason to join an army, to choose a side, to decide once and for all you know what this existence is all about. Pitting science and religion against one another isn't the way it was meant to be. Hermes Trismegitus, the pseudepigraphical author of the Hermetica, spoke about how Spirituality and Science are not to be opposites for science should be or at least can be a way to worship the immaculate beauty of nature. For instance, studying physics could be a way to worship the laws of nature, the nature which may or may not have been created by a higher being, or maybe just the God(dess) that is nature. Ironically he also predicted that one day Science and Spirituality will become enemies and now that humankind has come to realize this it is scary. Frightening. I guess I just don't understand the point in picking sides. Picking sides just further sinks us into this dichotomy that religions (at least eastern, more so) try to solve and bring us back to singularity. Think about it, forcing us to choose sides will just further push us apart. Nature has already exposed our dualities physically, now we seek to separate based on philosophy? Based on belief? Because our goal is to eradicate belief (faith) rather than just to stop the religious agenda to create an authoritarian theocracy? Who gives a shit what people believe, we are all people. But I get it, you're all cowardly, we are all cowardly, and just can't say "hey, I got no fucking clue what the fuck this is all supposed to amount to!" So people choose sides and find other people who agree and follow their dogma just so they feel like they found an answer to the chaotic power play of existence on this pale blue dot. So go ahead and choose your sides, but just remember that when you die, you stop believing in your gods or your absence of gods and if you could look back, you might realize it was all petty and pointless.
[–]fruchle 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago
because atheism is dogmatic
Are you sure you're not confused with anti-theism?
Also, nothing anywhere says that you have to be an atheist forever, once you accept its "tennents".
Or to paraphrase Tim Minchin, in Storm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U ) - "if you show me evidence, I'll turn on a dime, and carve "fancy that" on the side of my cock"
That is, for example, if God came down from the heavens and said, "I want me some Taco Bell", every sane atheist would...should immediately become a theist.
I don't know many gnostic atheists. To know that the unknowable is false? That doesn't make sense.
By design and to a lesser extent, definition, I wouldn't call atheism dogmatic - only practical.
you stop believing in your gods or your absence of gods
No-one here (should) "believe in the absence of gods", any more than we call bald a hair style, or abstinence a sexual position.
This isn't about belief in a lack of gods, it's about not believing in gods.
The whole "I don't know, and I'm not going to do anything about it, so I'm just going to sit here" attitude of your post is quite depressing.
I prefer to have the attitude of "I don't know, but I'm going to damn well do my best to find out."
Anyway, it is your generalisation of atheism turned what you see as atheism into a dogma. There is no dogma. There are no rules that say "as an atheist, you must believe X, Y and Z, and worship idols A, B and C." Atheism is just a label for the very general concept of not believing in deities. It does not say anything about knowing that no god exists. Any dogma you encountered as an atheist is dogma you imposed on yourself.
[–]DeepFriedDresden 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago
I prefer the attitude of "I don't know, but I'm going to damn well do my best to find out." My rant was more a reaction to the fact that the popular pictures that make the front page of /r/atheism and reddit are often more anti-theist. In the first paragraph I mentioned that my agnosticism is a way to not say I'm this or that or the other, but to critically analyze the situation. That is what I was saying, I may have failed in expressing that, but I certainly don't think we should just give up our search for knowledge. Perhaps there is a better way to describe it than agnosticism but I believe that the posts that are on this subreddit's front page are pieces of propaganda.
And also there is a dogmatic approach in atheism, for atheism, by definition, is the rejection of belief in deities. If I believe in God, while researching evidence of evolution or other scientific claim, I am still a theist. If I instead research evolution and sorts while rejecting the belief in God, I am an atheist.
Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities, not the absence of belief in deities.
Also this is what leads me to believe a lot of r/atheists are more antitheist. That picture is currently at the top of the front page of r/atheism.
[–]chucatawa -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago
Love this!
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
[–]HeavyTZM 35 points36 points37 points ago
[–]thechimpinallofus 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]BigSHug825 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]David1337 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]HeavyTZM 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]David1337 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]thechimpinallofus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Chuckleboom 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DanielTaylor 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Totaltotemic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Chuckleboom 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DanielTaylor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]stormbeta 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]DanielTaylor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Chuckleboom -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]MrsChimpGod 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DanielTaylor 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Chuckleboom -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]stormbeta 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]shut_your_whore_mouf 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]pantsants 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fillymandee 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JustMyRegularAccount 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]Eloni 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]HeavyTZM 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]WolfySnackrib 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]triplaur 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]Zakams 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]flying_retard 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]onthefence928 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SparkandFire 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]onthefence928 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]colbert_for_prez 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Zakams 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]thekikuchiyo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]emoney_33 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]thekikuchiyo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]emoney_33 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Azara1th 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dizzygfunk 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]fruchle 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]KinnNotap 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]bloinggloing 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]kremit73 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Avar_Ice 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]AGaW 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Rizuken 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Falkner09 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]AGaW -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Rizuken -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Grauzz 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]Msj2705 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]DanielTaylor 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]shoulderdestruction 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Acseeley -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Acseeley 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive[S] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Acseeley 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]destrucci 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Acseeley 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Acseeley 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]destrucci 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Acseeley 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]destrucci 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]rj20876 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]atheists_suck_mirite -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Acseeley 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]armchairdetective 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]alphanumericsheeppig -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]armchairdetective 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Lots42 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]fruchle -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Lots42 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fruchle -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Lots42 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]alphanumericsheeppig -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]Lots42 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]farkwadian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]enzopetrozza 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Acseeley 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]alphanumericsheeppig 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rj20876 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Acseeley 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]rj20876 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]1yawAworhThrowaway1 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]GnosticAgnostic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheJSEshow 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Guidrubas 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fruchle 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]DoubleRaptor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Acseeley -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Acseeley -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Acseeley -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive[S] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]DeepFriedDresden -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]fruchle 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]alphanumericsheeppig -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]DeepFriedDresden 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DeepFriedDresden 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]chucatawa -2 points-1 points0 points ago