Today is National Ask an Atheist Day

[HipHopAnonymous]

Because the people who capitalize the word god understand it as such.

Santa is also capitalized.

 

[Siro]

Santa is also capitalized.

Santa is also a he!

 

[Stifle Tower]

Santa is also capitalized.

We were talking about Gordon Hayward.

 

[Bronco70]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. It states that conclusive knowledge about the existence of a cosmological creative force is impossible (at least for the moment). An agnostic can believe in a god because of other reasons, but he would not consider his belief a result of his knowledge.

As an atheist, I find agnosticism to be somewhat useless. It is not like the existence of a god has a 50/50 chance. The whole concept is utterly meaningless without context. Which god are we talking about? The ones I looked into are almost certainly false. I have a plethora of reasons why this or that religion is man-made, and the answer to all of those concerns end up being either "you got to have faith" or "you must understand it through my unique interpretation". And considering there are countless gods in countless religions, and that the chance that any of them is in any way true is close to zero, it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the hypothesis all together.

In other words, the default position is that of a natural universe inhabited by natural beings operating within the natural laws of that reality. Any claim to the contrary must be evaluated on its own merits. And I've yet to find one with enough merits to warrant serious consideration.

I would say many agnostics are also atheists. If you take the position that it is impossible to know if a God does or not exist (one sort of agnosticism), they you don't believe in a God (atheism). Probably both of those statements apply to me. I agree it's impossible to know if the God of classical Deism exists or not, for example, but I don't believe in that God any more than any other. Then, choosing/acknowledging a label becomes a matter of taste and presentation.

Probably some agnostics would say they have some level of belief, but not enough to say they really accept the existence of a God/gods. I would not be agnostic in that sense. I don't have a partial or tentative belief.

I would say a lot of the same things Siro and One Brow said on this.

For a long time I would only say that I was not religious. Not sure how people interpret that, but I pretty much refused to get into it beyond that. When I was in my teens I was kind of what I would describe as a militant atheist always trying to challenge people's religious beliefs. When my grandmother passed away I wondered if I would have gained any satisfaction by shattering her LDS faith, or if she would have gained anything from it. I decided it wasn't really important to challenge people's faith or convince anyone I was right. That's when I stopped calling myself an atheist and just said I wasn't religious. But, I just don't feel like that's completely honest. I am an atheist. I don't always like using the unicorn or flying spaghetti monster comparisons, but essentially I consider those to have as much believability as a supernatural intelligent creator being. To me that's atheism and to call myself something else is not the whole truth.

To me, there is significant insight in these answers. To be perfectly honest, because I'm simple, I have generally viewed this in these terms:

Atheist - Certain that a supreme creator does not exist
Agnostic - Certain that a supreme creator can be neither proven, nor disproved.

Thank you for expanding my understanding.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

To me, there is significant insight in these answers. To be perfectly honest, because I'm simple, I have generally viewed this in these terms:

Atheist - Certain that a supreme creator does not exist
Agnostic - Certain that a supreme creator can be neither proven, nor disproved.

Thank you for expanding my understanding.

This has historically been the case, nowadays since the claims of atheism is too difficult to rationally defend they hide behind "agnostic atheism" label.

Also notice how One Brow failed to provide any sort of positive evidence towards his unbelief in god. I am a man of science, reason, and rationality so I cannot have a worldview that contains no positive evidence towards it.

 

[franklin]

Because the people who capitalize the word god understand it as such.

Why are you profiling? teheheheh

 

[moevillini]

Of course not, you're an atheist. You wouldn't know a goddess if she bit you.

What makes you think I haven't been bitten by one before?

I don't think I said anything to imply whether or not you'd ever been bitten by a goddess. I only said you wouldn't recognize one if it happened. But maybe you would? Would you recognize a goddess? If so, only if she bit, or in general?

 

[One Brow]

Why do you call God He? tehehehehe!

Culturally ingrained sexism.

 

[One Brow]

Holy **** you are old.

That wasn't a question. I'm 50.

 

[One Brow]

This has historically been the case, nowadays since the claims of atheism is too difficult to rationally defend they hide behind "agnostic atheism" label.

I believe the term "agnostic" is recent enough that "historically" has no real meaning when applied to it. However, historically, Christians were referred to as atheists because they disbelieved in the Greek pantheon. So, the notion that there is some historically consistent notion of atheist is false.

Also notice how One Brow failed to provide any sort of positive evidence towards his unbelief in god. I am a man of science, reason, and rationality so I cannot have a worldview that contains no positive evidence towards it.

Atheism is not a worldview.

 

[One Brow]

But maybe you would? Would you recognize a goddess?

The Greek gods could disguise themselves as humans, so maybe not.

If so, only if she bit, or in general?

When a goddess bites you, you know it.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

I believe the term "agnostic" is recent enough that "historically" has no real meaning when applied to it. However, historically, Christians were referred to as atheists because they disbelieved in the Greek pantheon. So, the notion that there is some historically consistent notion of atheist is false.



Atheism is not a worldview.

Atheism is a worldview. A worldview is the software you use to live this world with. I think this video sums it up pretty well that atheism is a worldview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl8gLp7yx_I. You can say that atheism is not a religion but there is no rational way to say that it is not a worldview. This is a common talking point for atheists so that they can avoid all the atrocities done in the name of atheism.

 

[Bronco70]

This has historically been the case, nowadays since the claims of atheism is too difficult to rationally defend they hide behind "agnostic atheism" label.

Also notice how One Brow failed to provide any sort of positive evidence towards his unbelief in god. I am a man of science, reason, and rationality so I cannot have a worldview that contains no positive evidence towards it.

Perhaps, but to me that is unimportant. I have no more than a passing familiarity with atheism and agnosticism, so my curiosities are basic. I would rather know what they consider themselves to be than argue about whether or not they conform to what I understand them to be. I have no desire to prove to someone that their beliefs relating to the existence of any supreme being are right or wrong. I respect their outlook just like I hope they would respect mine.

 

[One Brow]

Atheism is a worldview. A worldview is the software you use to live this world with. I think this video sums it up pretty well that atheism is a worldview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl8gLp7yx_I. You can say that atheism is not a religion but there is no rational way to say that it is not a worldview.

In the video, the speaker says he has a belief system. He does not identify his belief system as atheism. Atheism is no more a belief system that aunicornism.

This is a common talking point for atheists so that they can avoid all the atrocities done in the name of atheism.

Even if I cared to avoid such a point, it would be irrelevant. Atheism is true because there is no evidence there are gods. Whether or not you can claim that atheism is responsible for slaughters won't change that.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Right atheism is not a religion, there are atheist conventions, atheist awareness promoters, gatherings of atheists, atheist fundraisers, symbols representing atheism that many atheists proudly display, and atheists see themselves to be right and all other worldviews to be wrong. It isn't a religion but acts pretty religion like. It is merely a cop out so that atheists don't have to defend their irrationality. Just like you dodging all my questions. I am a man of science, reason, rationality, and logic so obviously I do not agree with you and other atheists because I follow where the evidence leads and not the opposite.

 

[scootsy]

What do modern atheistic philosophers think of the classical and modern arguments for the existence of God?anywhere from the prime mover, to st. Anselm, to Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, etc.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

What do modern atheistic philosophers think of the classical and modern arguments for the existence of God?anywhere from the prime mover, to st. Anselm, to Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, etc.

I know the answer to it "it isn't good. it sucks because you are stupid.... oh ya btw I have to provide no positive evidence for my side of the argument" One Brow already admnitted there is no positive evidence towards the inexistence of god.

 

[scootsy]

I know the answer to it "it isn't good. it sucks because you are stupid.... oh ya btw I have to provide no positive evidence for my side of the argument" One Brow already admnitted there is no positive evidence towards the in existence of god.

what I don't like is that most atheists have a narrow definition of what god could be! If you believe in cause and effect, god could simply be the original cause!! <-- popular deist idea!

 

[The Black Swordsman]

what I don't like is that most atheists have a narrow definition of what god could be! If you believe in cause and effect, god could simply be the original cause!! <-- popular deist idea!

They say something like "I don't believe an invisible man/fairy in the sky" most theists don't believe that god fly's around in the sky like Apollo and them....

 

[Siro]

What do modern atheistic philosophers think of the classical and modern arguments for the existence of God?anywhere from the prime mover, to st. Anselm, to Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, etc.

Are we to critique all of those philosophers in response to your question?

Arguments for prime mover and all other similar arguments explain absolutely nothing. You cannot argue that the only explanation for a phenomenon is a more complex phenomenon that defies explanation. That's just silly. All of the Platonic philosophers you mention make the same argument over and over, just in different dressing. 'Nothing is perfect, but everything approaches a degree of perfection, so there got to be a perfect source'. 'Knowledge is inherently impossible, but since we can acquire knowledge, a source of all knowledge must exist.'

And so on. It's all a play on the same theme. It doesn't matter. Who cares about some ontological zen designed to justify the possibility of a generic god of any needed definition? Tell me the character of YOUR god, and it will either indeed be a conscious entity that resembles humans in cognition (very obviously false), or a vague deistic sentiment that barely grasps at a meaning.