Atheism

Congratulations, you’re an agnostic

My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth.

Atheism is not about truth, it is about belief. Atheists do not believe there are gods.

If an atheist says that it is an absolute truth that there are no gods, they are an atheist, but also a gnostic. Gnostics claim to know essentially unknowable things as truths.

The concept of "god" implies not being bound by physical laws. So science simply doesn't apply here. We can never scientifically prove or disprove god's existence, because if we could, then whatever we proved or disproved wouldn't fit our concept of "god" anymore. It would just be another natural phenomenon that can be studied.

But our world functions very well without a god. If one does exist, it doesn't seem to affect anything meaningfully and noticeably. So is it really a god if you can just ignore it with no ill effects?

And without any real proof of its existence, it becomes equivalent with any other explanation that may or may not be true and can never be proven, like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn. It becomes meaningless and useless, so it can be discarded as untrue.

Atheism doesn't claim there is no god. You can't prove a negative beyond "we've been unable to find convincing evidence that it does exist, therefore it probably doesn't".

Atheism claims there isn't sufficient evidence that a god exists, therefore we don't believe in it. That's it.

If god shows up on earth and can prove being god, like idk by spawning a live dinosaur out of thin air, atheism dies instantly.

As a more concrete example: I can't prove my glass of water won't kill me. What I can do however is perform a series of tests and establish that it contains no known toxins to man, with the likelihood of it killing me being so minuscule I can be reasonably confident it is safe to drink. Bring me evidence people do die at an increased rate after drinking it and I'll gladly reevaluate. But until then, I call it safe because evidence overwhelmingly tells me it's safe.

That's agnosticism. Atheism is still a hard set belief. Agnostics know that they don't know.

My conclusion given the world as presented to me and the information I have is that there is no God.

There also is no Thor, no Santa Claus, no miracles, no ghosts, no easter bunny, and no afterlife. These are my conclusions from my time alive. If information is presented to me that changes these beliefs I'll change my conclusion. But for now, that is my conclusion. That's all. I'm not stating that "no matter what, no matter what information is presented, there can not be or has there ever been a god!", rather I'm saying that I don't believe there are any gods. It's just the conclusion from the evidence.

It is possible to reasonably demonstrate there are no gods by disproving the opposite claim.

I.e. by disproving the claims by theists.

I do not claim there is no god, as hard fact. I do, however, see the absolute lack of evidence for a divine being as justification to believe that divine beings don’t exist.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? Leprechauns? Do you have the same concern with saying they don’t exist either? Gods and Santa Claus and leprechauns are all human constructs.

That seems an oversimplification.

Afaik, atheism is more an absence of a belief in any deities. Sort of a "I do not believe that this is justified, based on the evidence I can currently see" rather than "I have definitive proof that no God or gods exist".

Though like everything else - Christianity, politics, gender, which Star Trek meme community you enjoy visiting on the Fediverse - it is all things to all people, yet not equally so.

Most first-generation atheists are extremely angry at the religious systems & peoples that hurt them, so it is tempting to extrapolate that to the general definition that that is what atheism is, but that would be like saying that conservatives are uneducated (as in, mostly true, but yet... although...). Though I also think that this is less true than it was, e.g. fifty years ago (regarding atheism I mean, whereas for conservatism it is probably the other way around).

Switching now to talk about religion, I think that to the extent that ANYTHING is hypocritical, it proves that it is false. e.g. "pro-life" policies that kill people rather than affirm health, people who show up on January 6th to "defend" the Constitution but who actually attempted something that while very inept yet still solidly lay within the definition of a coup, religious ~~fruitcakes~~ no yeah that's actually what I intend here, nutjobs is another word, but also fanatics, who ignore the very teachings that they claim to be "holy" (Love one another, do not heap heavy burdens upon others, the worker deserves his wages, etc.; btw did you know that there was one group of people that Jesus literally hated? No not the people at the temple predating upon the poor & ignorant - yeah he whipped them and then moved on without giving them much thought later, while more generally he talked about such false believers A LOT, calling them e.g. "whitewashed tombs, looking good on the outside but inside full of rot and decay"), the list can go on and on.

Yet the fact that bad examples of things exist does not negate that good examples of things can also exist. I love this verse: "Want religion that is pure & holy? Then take care of widows & orphans." (James 1:27, essentially talking up socialist healthcare policies millennia ago) People who actually show kindness, gentleness, concern about human well-being, whether they be atheist or Christian or Muslim or Mormon (capitalizing those as proper nouns while the former is not?) or whatever, I don't even care, I just stand with people who actually give a fuck. Especially over those fuckwits who claim to believe in one thing while simultaneously believing the precise polar opposite of that exact thing.

Ahem, anyway there are multiple types of atheists. Some just don't really care, while some are outright militant, and I understand both POVs. There are several sub-categories of atheist too - implicit vs. explicit, weak vs. strong (e.g. a child who hasn't been exposed to religious ideas is a weak atheist, not having made a conscious choice to reject that category of thinking), positive vs. negative, etc. I'll leave you with this interesting (to me) quote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

First of all there is no atheist movement. Not sure where that’s coming from.

Atheism establishes nothing. It is the default position. It is the religious who make the claim of a god and put forth no objective and independently, peer-reviewed evidence to support it. It is not the burden of atheists to bring anything to this debate.

So we keep to our default position.

You have this quite, quite backwards. If religionists would provide some actual tangible evidence of their god, that is scientifically verifiable, then we would be the first to change our position.

Strangely, religionists don’t seem to comport to that same, actual, open-mindedness and understanding.

The chances of any particular theistic belief being correct by sheer chance are beyond astronomical. Even if I believed there was a possibility of a deity (and that depends a great deal on exactly what qualities were ascribed to a divinity), I would be 100% certain it's not what anyone currently believes.

The biggest issue I have with your points are you can apply that same logic to all kinds of absurdity. Pick one or create one and it applies.

I also disagree with you that it is a healthier mindset to believe in essentially an unlimited amount of possibilities (unlimited because you can't define an unknown in this case) but whether something is healthier or not is not a factual statement. It is just a subjective statement that is based too much on the individual and the mental status of that individual to determine if it is healthy or not. I could argue that it was unhealthy to believe in what I used to believe(specifically evangelical/Protestant Christianity) because of my underlining condition of dealing with obsessive compulsive disorder and depression, but that claim of being unhealthy doesn't hold much weight because again, it depends on the mental state of an individual.

For myself, yes I am an atheist and yes if I come across evidence that convinces me differently then my views will change, but that doesn't make my current stance any different or say weaker as some weak atheism(I find that term laughable), especially when I don't have the knowledge of what that evidence would be to convince me.

Also remember, theories are believed to be true until proven wrong when it comes to science. The word theory is used differently in science then in colloquial type of discussions. So for example, just because we believe the theory of evolution is fact, that doesn't mean we think a creation story myth is possible because we use the phrase, theory of evolution. I bring that up only because, the fact science has changed in the past doesn't mean we can't believe our current understanding as fact.

This seems to me like a categorical error. You speak about proof and facts, which are ultimately connected to the scientific method. Scientists often say "There is no evidence, that this happens/exists" (that phrase is important) and will disregard it, until there is evidence. That doesn't make them close minded. Changes in knowlege are applied when they arrive, not through speculation without evidence beforehand. That way we can approximate the truth in our physical world. There is no scientific evidence of a god existing, so scientists disregard her, until such evidence appears.

Now you could say, that a god would exceed the physical limits of our world/existance. But then the whole scientific method becomes useless (as how would you get scientifical evidence for something outside of the scientific world) and you cannot speak about facts or truth or proof. This is the realm of belief, not science. And it will stay this way until a god would bridge over this devide.

So i would say: When talking about science, proof and facts, you need to stay in the reach of the scientific method. When talking about something outside of its reach (metaphysical), then its belief. Even you talking about the possibility of a god is a question about belief.

All good atheists are open to the possibilities, because we do not have atheism as a belief, but as a word to express that we are a=without + theism=religion.

Personally, even if a deity showed up and perform a miracle right before my eyes, I would not convert without a massive discussion because my personal moral compass would not allow myself to worship a being that holds so much power, but actively refuses to reduce suffering in such a large scale, but that is just me.

If it had a good reason such as being imprisoned by an evil deity and just having freed itself, and coming back to us to help us, then it would get my full support and belief, after some scrutiny of course.

Being attached to current facts is the rational thing to do. Of course they are going to become obsolete, but if a prehistoric man was convinced that black holes exist, it wouldn't be a genius, but a guy with irrational beliefs. You can be "right' for wrong reasons, that is not a valid reason to decide that current knowledge is worthless.

In the end you can believe in god if you want, but the rational thing is to not believe in god as long as there is no evidence of its existence. But of course not everything needs to be rational, and if believing in god makes one feel better about their life, why not. As long as it doesn't impact others badly obviously.

Being certain of something, doesn't mean that you're closed minded. I am certain there is no God, as defined by any popular description I've heard in my life.

But if God themself, in whatever form, appeared to me, explained the situation and performed a few petty miracles at my request, I would then be convinced that they actually are God and that I understand the extent of their abilities and intentions.

I'd probably pop up in here and be like "ok, I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out..." Because I assume most other atheists would rather know the truth, than prove that they're right. Many of course would think I'm trolling, maybe a few would ask questions, maybe I'd eventually get one or two to believe me. I'd probably get better results if I could convince God that appearing to more people might help his PR, but, mysterious ways and all...

Anyway, I'm convinced because of the evidence before me, new evidence might lead to a new view, but it has to happen first. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Russell’s Teapot.

technically most athiests are agnostic but they think the probability of god, gods, supernatural, or whatever is so low as to be zero. Probabilities on the order of a specific photon from a flashlight hitting a specific atom in the air. something that makes a multiple lightning strikes or multiple jackpot lottery winnings or an extinction meteor hitting next thursday because we missed apparently did not notice it ti be everyday ordinary comment events. Its really hard to discuss how low the probability a particular athiest views it but in most cases someone who identifies as an athiest will have levels that you need douglas adams to truly express how low it is. For myself I used to identify as an agnostice because my agnosticism was such I thought of it as a coin flip. Part of my reasoning had to do with my faith in the logic and reasoning of man on a large scale. Anyway we have had the millenium and all its entailed humanity logic and reasoning wise and I now identify as athiest. I view the probability likely higher than most athiests but definitely well below any number a reasonable person would consider a non zero number in percent but maybe on the level of hitting multiple jackpot lotteries in short order.

Many atheists are technically actually just agnostics, including me. Agnosticism is essentially the belief of "I dont know for sure either way".

I can't give definite proof that there is no god like entity/ies out there who have designed reality, the cosmos, our planet and human form. However I do know that if they exist they made me with all these doubts and disbelief in established religious systems, and they sure as shit don't need my veneration during my lifetime.

First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn't to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions.

Welcome. Happy to talk with people rather than have to counter rhetorical attacks.

My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth.

Personally, I'm partial to the definition of Atheism as 'Lack of belief in any gods' rather than 'Belief that there are no gods.' I fit both definitions but I think the first is more accurate and better represents most Atheist's relationship with the truth value of the claim. Even for those of us who believe there are no gods I believe it's a grand commonality between a super-majority of atheists that there's some quantity of sufficient evidence that would change our minds... though quite likely the specific amount will vary from one to another.

But saying that there's no god with certainty is something I'm just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress.

The way I see it most of the time scientific advancement doesn't say our previous understanding was wrong, rather that it was incomplete. One of the better examples being Newtonian Physics and Relativity, Newton wasn't wrong so much as his work didn't account for special behavior under extreme circumstances. We do occasionally have counter examples such as miasma being replaced with the Germ Theory of Disease but this tends to be when a historical unscientific position is unraveled by a scientific explanation.

As-is I don't see how any such gods that have been commonly claimed could exist as stated without them violating various scientific, and in some cases logical, laws. So, I feel quite secure in my position that these things that contradict our best evidenced understanding of the universe are not real.

I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.

Sure, it's worthwhile to look at the evidence against our own positions. But evidence is the key word here. The theistic position has yet to forward any noteworthy body of anything that would fit the definition of the word. They're welcome to keep trying in perpetuity if they so wish but I'm not going to lend credence to the claim until such time as they are not only successful in finding something that is evidence but a sufficient body of it to outweigh what the claim is mutually exclusive with which already has evidence or they can by some means discredit the whole body of evidence against their claim and forward evidence for it.

That being said so long as there is measurable harm to come from theistic belief and the benefits of it are ephemeral I will be opposed to inflicting it on others.

I usually don't believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.

I don't believe that that's the case. To be no amount of assertion creates a chance that anything could be the case. What makes a chance is that an assessment of possibilities puts a known or estimable probability on it being the case.

Science teaches us to believe things as true if the stated theory matches with the given evidence or impossibility of evidence for the inverted thesis. There is no evidence either way but we can accept what the answer is most likely and wait for someone with actual evidence for the contrary who will most likely never appear.

Atheism doesn't mean I know there are no gods. I suspect there aren't, because religious claims about gods and reality don't stand up to scrutiny. The more excuses you have to make for why reality doesn't work the way you insist it should, the less inclined I am to believe you know what you're talking about. Arguing for a prime mover or appealing to consequences doesn't convince me either. I'm intellectually honest enough to say that I don't have concrete knowledge that there are no gods the way I know there's no money in my wallet, but not being able to prove there are no gods isn't enough for me to believe that there are. Wanting to believe there are gods is no more useful than wanting there to be money in my wallet. It's still a claim that requires validation, not a default assumption.