-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GAF Atheists: A Question
- Thread starter Bildocube
- Start date
- Status
Fragamemnon
Member
Neither-I'm completely agnostic-the demands of basic intellectual integrity (the notion that, in the argument, I hold myself to the same standard that I hold others with respect to considering evidence supporting a hypothesis) pretty much demand it. I can't prove there is not a deity (or deities, if you will), so therefore, there might be deities. You can't prove that such a thing exists, therefore, there might not be a deity. Lacking any substantial, reproduceable evidence or experiment to prove one either way, I'm left with the notion that there just isn't enough proof to prove anything.
There are as many definitions of these terms as there are things in a big thing of things, but Google's dictionary definition of agnostic is the one that works best for me:
So the way I understand the terms:
Weak atheist - does not believe that there is a god.
Strong atheist - believes that there is not a god.
Agnostic - believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not
So the way I understand the terms:
Weak atheist - does not believe that there is a god.
Strong atheist - believes that there is not a god.
Agnostic - believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not
Bah, just occured to me I probably botched my previous post. Weak atheists don't hold a conclusion regarding supreme beings as much as they do regarding claims of supreme beings.
Frag: Generally speaking, the logically correct way is that the positive claim carries the burden of proof. I don't need to prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist when no evidence has been brought forth to support their existence... doesn't mean that there won't in the future, but for the time being it doesn't merit consideration.
Frag: Generally speaking, the logically correct way is that the positive claim carries the burden of proof. I don't need to prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist when no evidence has been brought forth to support their existence... doesn't mean that there won't in the future, but for the time being it doesn't merit consideration.
Hmm, first I was Catholic, then I had the natural reaction to that in strong athiesm. After a few years I moved into weak athiesm, and now depending on the day I'm agnostic. I'm sure down the line I'll be able to say I'm fully agnostic. It's the only rational thing to be.
Edit: Or maybe not. I suppose the weak athiest definition could work for me in the long run given Hitokage's definition.
Edit: Or maybe not. I suppose the weak athiest definition could work for me in the long run given Hitokage's definition.
Teknopathetic
Member
I don't think definition of agnosticism leads them to searching Matlock. I believe that by the definition, agnostics feel that they don't know and can't possibly know and I doubt many search beyond that.
iapetus said:
Maybe it's just been a long weekend, but I don't see a difference between those two statements beyond syntax.
I don't believe there are supernatural deities or higher powers simply because there's no reason to believe as such. Much the same way I don't believe there are flying pink elephants with viper fangs somewhere in Deepest Africa, it's not a matter of faith, it's simply an absurd concept. The whole "well you have to have faith in your non-belief!" thing is frankly ridiculous if you're talking about actual atheism. I have no doubt there are self-described "atheists" to whom that could apply, but I'm not one of them.
Is it possible that magical superbeings who control all yet leave no evidence of their passing exist in some form or fashion and could one day make their presence empirically known? Of course. It's also possible that right after I hit "Submit Reply," I'll morph into a giant hippo and rampage about town until I'm brought down by tranquilizer darts or a hail of police gunfire. I would rate both about equally likely, and don't see how saying either will simply not be happening is a matter of faith.
Should evidence present itself, then I'll change my view. Until then, belief in a God is about as rational to me as believing knives cut things because little tiny "sharpness elves" are on the blade ripping apart the substance being cut as the knife moves through it. It's just fantastical invention. It doesn't need to be there for anything to function. It's essentially cosmic dead weight. To me, religion is a time-honored method of control, while spirituality is a personal security blanket. Due to their utter lack of logical or rational foundations (outside of organized religion's ability to control the masses and make obscene amounts of cash, which is obviously quite rational, if not particularly nice), I have neither the time nor patience for either.
So maybe I'm closer to "strong atheist," but my definition of my views would not be "there is no god!" so much as "why the hell would anyone think there is a god?" Note that this is not an invitation for people to answer the latter question. I honestly don't care why you think there's a god. It's merely rhetorical for the purpose of explanation.
Ninja Scooter
Member
i guess i might be considered an athiest. I think there is a very strong possiblity there is no god or no higher power, but at the same time maybe there is. I'm just comfortable saying "i dont' know for sure" and leaving it at that. If i die and end up going before god and he's like "Why didn't you believe in me?" im gonna be like "screw you buddy! I need some PROOF!"
Shazapp said:
Have only read a little bit beyond this post, but I concur.
And what's up with saying not believing in a deity is short-sighted? I think it's short-sighted to just chalk any and everything up to an unseen, unheard, undetected "GOD", dust one's hands and say "Whelp, that's that". I also find it short-sighted because it's really only defined in terms of the human perspective. IMO, GOD is a human construct...a variable, an "X"...let's endow ourselves with purpose by making ourselves seem special, and not just animated bio-mass....let's say that we were created by something...something wonderful and powerful and amazing and perfect and above all else, painfully shy. Let's infuse this X with all of these characteristics, and attribute anything and everything that happens, as well as anything that doesn't happen, to this X. Let's say we were carved in the image of X...yeah, that'll make us feel real special and nice and important...and let's give him all sorts of contradicting characteristics, which directly conflict with his supposed perfection, and which really seem more derived from flawed humanity than flawless divinity...and lastly, let's try to cover our asses with all of the logical holes with the following, "God works in mysterious ways". GOD=X, and X=the result of our feeble human minds unable to cope with its own insignificance in the world/universe.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
OmniGamer said:
That would be short-sighted, but not all people who believe in a deity think that way. Attributing our existence to a deity is one thing; consciously passing off the unexplainable due to individual or mass ignorance is another.
There's a bit more to God and religion than that, but I think you've nailed the core [logical] reason for why most humans turn to God and religion: sanity.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I believe a lot of things I'm not 100% sure of.Spencerr said:
PhlegmMaster
Banned
I'm a weak atheist if you define god as "the sentient creator of the universe".
I'm a strong atheist when it comes to the Christian god, the Muslim god, and all other "personal" gods, as well as pretty much every god that is and has been worshipped.
Agnosticism isn't a position on the existence of god, it's just saying that you admit there isn't enough evidence to be certain god exists or not. Most people who call themselves agnostic are weak atheists, although some are just undecided or very confused.
EDIT: In other words, agnosticism is about (the lack of) knowledge you have about god, not about his/her/its existence.
I'm a strong atheist when it comes to the Christian god, the Muslim god, and all other "personal" gods, as well as pretty much every god that is and has been worshipped.
Agnosticism isn't a position on the existence of god, it's just saying that you admit there isn't enough evidence to be certain god exists or not. Most people who call themselves agnostic are weak atheists, although some are just undecided or very confused.
EDIT: In other words, agnosticism is about (the lack of) knowledge you have about god, not about his/her/its existence.
fiddlestick
Banned
what are you if you just don't care about that stuff?
Shogmaster
Member
isamu said:
OMG!!! ISAMU HAS THE INSIDE TRACK!!! HE IS TEH TRUE INSIDER!!!!
Dude, get the fuck outta here with that shit. The end of the world's been around the corner according to the like of you for the last millenium or two. If happens, it happens. I'm not gonna act like a nutjob in preparation of it because of religious paranoia.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
I'm also an Agnostic.
I find Atheists to be as annoying as the religous. Both groups are largely faith based. No one knows shit, so stop acting like you do.
I find Atheists to be as annoying as the religous. Both groups are largely faith based. No one knows shit, so stop acting like you do.
chaostrophy
Member
Weak atheist here. I know I can't prove that there's no god, but the possibility seems extremely unlikely to me.
Also, I have somewhat of a rebellious streak, so the idea of living my life by the rules of a divine authority figure is utterly abhorrent to me. If I ever find solid evidence that Christian theology is true, I'll become a Satanist.
Also, I have somewhat of a rebellious streak, so the idea of living my life by the rules of a divine authority figure is utterly abhorrent to me. If I ever find solid evidence that Christian theology is true, I'll become a Satanist.
RonaldoSan
Member
I agree. Atheist think they figured it all out. Those made up if-god-existed-logic does not prove anything.Cerebral Palsy said:
Shogmaster
Member
Cerebral Palsy said:
And I find the Agnostic crowd to be wishy washy play it safe pansies that annoy even more than fundies. You either suck cock or you don't. Let go of the cock and come back when you've finally made up your goddamned mind which way to go.
krypt0nian
Banned
RonaldoSan said:
Well said and exactly what I believe. IMO it doesn't matter either way. I try and do right by others because its the corect thing to do - not for some reward/punishment structure.
I love the fundamentalist arguement that not knowing Jesus as your savior leads to a quick trip to hell. That's the crap I don't believe in.
Besides everyone knows god is a black lesbian.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
So what you're saying is you hate bi-sexuals? :lolShogmaster said:
Shogmaster
Member
trippingmartian said:
I don't know about hate, but I find them fucking annoying. :lol
"Hi, I'm a bisexual!"
"No, you're just fucking confused."
Ned Flanders
Banned
Palsy, iapetus, my heroes. Well said to both of you.
Shoggy, you sound like a member of the Bush administration. "Ever-thangs either black ur whayut here people. Is you a turrist or a patriot??"
Making a definitive negative assertion about something which by most definitions is an unknowable (god/deities) outside the realm of faith (a form of belief which does not subscribe or adhere to logic, reason, or evidentiary qualification) is akin to other forms of irrationality. Absence of evidence is simply that, absence of evidence.
Can I make definitive assertions about what happened at the begining of time? Could a giant purple monkey have banged a gong and spewed forth the fabric of the universe? Well I can certainly point to a lack of evidence in favor of such a claim, but I cannot make a definitive negative claim against it because the linearity of time means there is no conceivable way of assessing such a thing. And I could have sworn that one of the core principles of reason was that you can't prove a negative? All other inferential claims about the unknowable are simply that, inferential, anecdotal et al. The sillyness of the purple monkey theory does not make it any more or less a knowable proposition than that of god, nor does it weaken the position of agnosticism in forgoing assignment of a truth value to the unknowable. Atheism would seem to damn agnosticism for withholding judgment on the purple monkey simply based on improbability or lack of evidence, while ignoring the fact that the unknowable nature of the propostion makes a definitive negative assertion not altogether different from faith-based belief in the positive. Essentially atheism is fighting faith-based belief in god on the same terms, and thats my problem with atheism.
Shoggy, you sound like a member of the Bush administration. "Ever-thangs either black ur whayut here people. Is you a turrist or a patriot??"
Making a definitive negative assertion about something which by most definitions is an unknowable (god/deities) outside the realm of faith (a form of belief which does not subscribe or adhere to logic, reason, or evidentiary qualification) is akin to other forms of irrationality. Absence of evidence is simply that, absence of evidence.
Can I make definitive assertions about what happened at the begining of time? Could a giant purple monkey have banged a gong and spewed forth the fabric of the universe? Well I can certainly point to a lack of evidence in favor of such a claim, but I cannot make a definitive negative claim against it because the linearity of time means there is no conceivable way of assessing such a thing. And I could have sworn that one of the core principles of reason was that you can't prove a negative? All other inferential claims about the unknowable are simply that, inferential, anecdotal et al. The sillyness of the purple monkey theory does not make it any more or less a knowable proposition than that of god, nor does it weaken the position of agnosticism in forgoing assignment of a truth value to the unknowable. Atheism would seem to damn agnosticism for withholding judgment on the purple monkey simply based on improbability or lack of evidence, while ignoring the fact that the unknowable nature of the propostion makes a definitive negative assertion not altogether different from faith-based belief in the positive. Essentially atheism is fighting faith-based belief in god on the same terms, and thats my problem with atheism.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Shogmaster said:
Playing it safe? Or choosing not to push an ideology (Atheism or Christianity), which I can't prove to be correct, on others? Not that I necessarily believe the Christian version of things to be true, I don't, but I'm not about to say some sort of diety/god does not exist when I *gasp* have no fucking clue.
You either know something to be true/false, or you don't.
Prove to me that some kind of higher power, who was responsible for our creation, does or does not exist. Then I will make up my mind.
Sadly, most Atheists have become exactly what they dislike. Hypocrites looking to force their faith based beliefs upon others, and childishly put-down anyone who may disagree (e.g. you). You're a prime example of this with your pick a side bullshit. I either have to believe you or the bible bangers, right? In that case, which fraud do I believe? Neither are basing their beliefs on facts. I guess I'm fucked.
Agnostic. And with conviction. I can firmly say that I do not know either way and will never know.
Well, Christians can't possibly be the ones that suck cock since homosexuality is reportedly evil, so I'm just going to take this as you implicitly coming out of the closet.Shogmaster said:
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
i thought and atheist denied the existance and agnostic was unsure but doesn't practice..
isn't your description of a weak atheist agnostic?
I'm a "weak atheist" of the strong opinion that every single religion out there is fucked up and crazy and just embarrassing for god to watch if their is a god.
You notice most of them do that right after some christian just implied (or just flat out said) that if we don't subscribe to your methods we will burn in eternal misery and pain? wonder which is really worse.....
ZOMG GETS ME A SAND-WITCH BOARD QUICK
just because the religious nutters will probably self fulfil a prophecy by blowing up large parts of the world doesn't make it gods doing
isn't your description of a weak atheist agnostic?
I'm a "weak atheist" of the strong opinion that every single religion out there is fucked up and crazy and just embarrassing for god to watch if their is a god.
You notice most of them do that right after some christian just implied (or just flat out said) that if we don't subscribe to your methods we will burn in eternal misery and pain? wonder which is really worse.....
ZOMG GETS ME A SAND-WITCH BOARD QUICK
just because the religious nutters will probably self fulfil a prophecy by blowing up large parts of the world doesn't make it gods doing
Shogmaster said:
No. It's you that's wishy washy; have you examined why is it that you're strong aetheist? Properly examined?
The burden of proof is upon you to explain how there can't be a God/creator entity.
Not just a christian god, but any entity with sentience able to fufill the qualifications needed to create the universe.
Sure you can try draw upon the aetheist explanation I give (void, infinite time, small chance of something happening), but even then that's just one theory among an infinite of possible theories that are able to meet the criteria of self sustaining logic.
How can you say with certainty that then, there isn't a bastard God that hides all evidence of his doings from us? Improbable is the right word to use... but impossible? On the basis of what we know, no.
But the thing is...
with the abrahamic religions... many parts of it already contradicts the evidence that we've come across, such that they've been modified so many times to account for new evidence that, they're not even the things they once were. Sure you can insert self sustaining logic into the equation, i.e. the bastard god that puts things in places and has us find the stuff in order to 'test our faith', but that doesn't make it any realer, even though it becomes a possibility... based on what we know.
catfish said:
Bull. Just look at all the evangelical atheist reactions that some people can't resist every time there's an opening on GAF. Sure, sometimes it's in a reaction to equally noxious crap from a believer, but often it's just an uncalled for attack on someone else's beliefs.
I'm with Cerebral Palsy on this one, although I'd modify his assertion to read:
My changes highlighted.
iapetus said:
IMO, when someone says to me that they believe in (a) God, and just leave it at that(meaning not trying to push their beliefs on me), I have absolutely no problem with it...but if I were to say I don't believe in (a) God to a believer, it illicits condemnation, auto-judgement(for instance, not believing in (a) God is tantamount to not having any morales or ethics), pity(you poor unfortunate soul), etc. Saying you don't believe in (a) God to some believers is like saying you yourself are God, or something, cuz they act like it's such an affront to them...for instance, simply stating why you don't believe in what they believe in constitutes "an attack on their beliefs". It is that defensive insecurity that grates me, especially when all things considered, logic is against them. And i'm sorry, but we live in a logical world do we not? I should hope so, but then again, this is the same world where people will embark upon an expedition to an underpass in the middle of Squat'n'Shit, Nebraska just cuz some water and rust stains sorta, maybe-if-you-drink-till-you-pass-out-then-wake-up-then-stand-on-your-head-and-squint-with-one-eye-closed kinda look like "Jesus".
Do you people talk like this in real life? Do you call yourself atheists? Weak, strong atheist? Agnostic? I have never heard people say such things about themselves/others.
Where I come from It`s either religious or not. Thankfully I live in a country where most are not.
I`m not religious. I despise all religion. I don`t know what I am, maybe a heathen?
Fine, whatever.
Where I come from It`s either religious or not. Thankfully I live in a country where most are not.
I`m not religious. I despise all religion. I don`t know what I am, maybe a heathen?
Fine, whatever.
OmniGamer said:
Which is fine, because some people are like that. But it's pretty easy to turn that around and apply it to a lot of the strong atheists round here.
IMO, when someone says to me that they don't believe in (a) God, and just leaves it at that (meaning not trying to push their beliefs on me), I have absolutely no problem with it... but if I were to say I believe in (a) God to an atheist it elicits condemnation, auto-judgement (for instance, believing in (a) God is tantamount to not having any brains or common sense), pity (how terrible that you've been brainwashed into faith) etc. Saying you believe in (a) God to some atheists is like saying God told you they suck, or something, cuz they act like it's such an affront to them...
Instigator
Banned
isamu said:
What's going to happen by then? Give us a preview. You have certainly gotten my attention.
Instigator said:
Theyve been saying it for 2000 years.. After all Chrisitanity, did begin as an end of the world cult - Their god has gone from plagues, floods - to turning water into wine, walking on water - to the Mother Mary appearing on some dirty wall - people's standard have dropped.
Instigator
Banned
DaMan121 said:
But Isamu implied he had knowledge of something happening. Surely, he wouldn't simply pull the old Apocalypse scare on us.
DaMan121 said:
I call false dilemma on this. None of these are comparable with the possibility of an external creator of the universe. Not even Zeus, who wasn't claimed to have created the universe, but was a God.
I think it's pretty safe to say that most agnostics find any sort of interfering god as unlikely to the point of false. At the very least, such a god must have stopped interfering at some point or there'd be nothing to be agnostic about.
MrAngryFace said:
Maybe the incompleteness theorem? Some've said that would place limits on omniscience. Not sure about that though.
Shazapp said:
Unless made to do so... depending on how powerful they are they could actually make you think/feel whatever they please...
Zaptruder said:
My view is a bit similar, I take the position that logic/truths are beyond substrate/reality, and as such all such exists without need for substrate/reality. That is all possibilities exist and have always been and always will be. Viewed outside of time, everything's always existed and always will. Concepts are what all is, everything deep down is but pure information, all moments/states of existence simply are, the abstract and the concrete... are akin to the wave and the particle.
From what I understand there's actually an extremely small but real possibility that such events could take place, they're just so extremely unlikely that such probably couldn't happen even given tens of billions of years.MattKeil said:
As for the nature of the world, I think that in this world we've seen its nature written across the fabric of its reality, throughout its history. The laws of man, the morality of man, that deemed good or evil by man is meaningless. In time power will be confered to some, and they will do as they please. There will even come times when GREAT power, enough to change the world of many, will be conferred to some. Geniuses some will be called, Dictators others, mass-murderers yet others'd be calledl, some'd be called great leaders / Emperors / kings / Presidents, and the like. Whom will be deemed worthy does not rest on the hand or the beliefs of man. Sometimes those that would be deemed utterly monstrous/abominable purely evil by man, will have bestowed upon them power to overwhelm, and to carry forth their will however distorted it may be, upon others for a time.
Instigator said:
Hmmm, I'd guess two things could happen in such a short period of time.
1.)Unified theory is developed that agrees with many-worlds-interpretation or something similar.
2.) Somehow, the ultimate possible weapon system is completed by some nation somewhere in the world(atomic weaponry becomes useless against such a nation, you can deduce the rest from there....). Though that may be a bit early for the completion of such.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll