• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A "real" atheist...

This is a discussion/debate I get into with theist friends all the time.

Theist: "Can you prove that God does not exist?"
Me: "No, I cannot."
Theist: "If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, that means you must acknowledge there is a chance he does exist, and therefore you cannot be an atheist!"
~~pause for appropriate appreciation of their impeccable logic~~
Me: "So then, you believe that Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Zeus, and all those other gods are real?"
Theist: "Of course not! Only [name of their particular god] is real!"
Me: "But you believe that it is at least possible that those other gods are real!"
Theist: "Of course not!"
Me: "Ah, I see...so you can prove that those other gods do not exist?"
Theist (belatedly catching on): "Well...*sputter*...no...but since I know that my god is real, therefore I know that the other ones are not!"
Me: "So, we could best summarize you as being agnostic about all the other gods besides your own?"
Theist: "No, of course not! I'm a Christian/Buddist/Muslim/Whatever!"
Me: "So, even though you cannot prove that all those other gods do not exist, you nevertheless are certain that they do not. Correct?"
Theist: (generally, they don't like to answer this question)
Me: "Same for me. Even though I cannot prove that god does not exist, I nevertheless do not believe that any god exists. I am therefore an atheist."
~pause for them to consider this, and then return to their original point~
Theist: "But you can't prove god doesn't exist, that means you must acknowledge there is a chance he does exist, and therefore you cannot be an atheist!"
~repeat ad infinitum/nauseum~
 
arthwollipot said:
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god. He sees no indication that we live in that kind of universe, and comes to the firm conclusion that there is no god. Gnostic atheism. Personally, I disagree.

I think that if there is any confusion over the word agnosticism, then you have to look at the word itself. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, in the same way that atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosis is knowledge. For example, we can know that a stone is heavy, or that water flows. Its opposite, agnosis is a lack of knowledge.

Theism/atheism refers to belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can have belief without knowledge.
Click to expand...

Atheism the opposite of Theism.
I was told this is not the case at all on this forum since the pre-fix A in Atheism does not mean "opposite" it means "without"
Theism is a belief in God ,
Atheism is not non-belief in God but lack of belief in God.

Please clarify.
 
!Kaggen said:
Atheism the opposite of Theism.
I was told this is not the case at all on this forum since the pre-fix A in Atheism does not mean "opposite" it means "without"
Theism is a belief in God ,
Atheism is not non-belief in God but lack of belief in God.

Please clarify.
Click to expand...
Okay, well by this definition, agnosticism is without knowledge. It's an equally valid definition, and doesn't much change what I said.

And atheism can be either lack of belief in God (weak atheism) or belief in the lack of God (strong atheism). Neither of these have anything to do with gnosticism/agnosticism, which is about whether knowledge exists or not.
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, well by this definition, agnosticism is without knowledge. It's an equally valid definition, and doesn't much change what I said.

And atheism can be either lack of belief in God (weak atheism) or belief in the lack of God (strong atheism). Neither of these have anything to do with gnosticism/agnosticism, which is about whether knowledge exists or not.
Click to expand...

weak and strong atheism: lack of belief , belief in lack

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.
I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.
Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.
 
shawmutt said:
Why is agnosticism not sufficient to explain your stance?
Click to expand...

Like Hokulele I think you do have to define what you are talking about in any particular discussion of the existence of god/gods. I get the impression that some theists become frustrated when that is asked of them: but it is not nitpicking or any trivial thing like that: it is absolutely essential. A friend of mine puts it well: If the theist's belief is in the Abrahamic god then I am a very strong atheist indeed: if, however, he is so perverse as to define god as a tea biscuit then I am a strong theist. So that is the first problem.

As Wolfman said, theists tend to get irritated by an insistence of definition because they "know" what they mean by god: it is just that they don't all mean the same thing. But in most discussions they are talking about some variant of the abrahamic god or about deism in one form or another: mainly because my interactions are usually with people who grew up in a western culture. So if we can establish that then like others I am an agnostic atheist

In line with the first definition in your link, I believe it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. I am not always consistent in stating this and I have caught myself saying things like "I would change my mind if I got evidence of god's existence": and I think that is true but a little disingenuous: because I do not believe that could happen. It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a god or gods it does not work that way. Maybe that is its choice (if it is omnipotent as some believe); or maybe it is intrinsic to its nature (as some deists appear to believe); or maybe it is because it does not exist (as atheists believe). Hardly matters. The kind of evidence which leads me to believe in things is wholly lacking: there is nothing I can sense; there is no crucial experiment; and there is no logical argument either. Since the question has exercised people for thousands of years I conclude that for some reason it is truly impossible to know in any meaningful sense of the word "know". And so I am agnostic

But it is perfectly possible to take that position and yet believe: if it were not then there would be no believers, because it is my position that they cannot know. There are agnostic theists. I am not one of them. There are many areas of my life where I come to conclusions on the basis of insufficient knowledge: nearly all of them in fact. I do not understand the concept of gravity at all: but I believe gravity exists because that is what works for me. I do not drop something over the side of my bed before getting up each morning to check whether gravity still works: I did that loads of times from my pram when I was a baby and it always did; so now I don't bother. I cannot know that gravity will not switch off one of these days (those who understand gravity may well "know" it won't, and why it won't, but I don't): that does not prevent me living my life as if I did. In the case of gravity I am not agnostic (because there is the possibility of knowledge) but I believe in it.

In the case of god I am atheist on the same basis: I must come to a conclusion because I need to make decisions about how to live my life. Whatever kind of god the theist believes in it has consequences for behaviour at some level. My particular mindset leads me to conclude that there is no god because, unlike gravity, I have never come across any problem which could be solved if god existed and not otherwise. That is where my occasional lapses into "if I got the evidence I would change my mind" come from, and that is true: but I would not be honest if I said that my agnosticism covers it: because I do not believe in god in a reasonably active way - by which I mean all of my relevant behaviour is predicated on lack of belief.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
In line with the first definition in your link, I believe it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. I am not always consistent in stating this and I have caught myself saying things like "I would change my mind if I got evidence of god's existence": and I think that is true but a little disingenuous: because I do not believe that could happen. It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a god or gods it does not work that way. Maybe that is its choice (if it is omnipotent as some believe); or maybe it is intrinsic to its nature (as some deists appear to believe); or maybe it is because it does not exist (as atheists believe). Hardly matters. The kind of evidence which leads me to believe in things is wholly lacking: there is nothing I can sense; there is no crucial experiment; and there is no logical argument either. Since the question has exercised people for thousands of years I conclude that for some reason it is truly impossible to know in any meaningful sense of the word "know". And so I am agnostic.
Click to expand...
This is what I describe as "strong agnosticism". I thought I'd come up with the idea myself. :D
 
Shawmutt , I think this one from Mar\/in nailed it :

Do I think it's possible to prove whether a deity exists? No, so I'm an agnostic.

Do I believe that a god exists? No, so I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

Atheism and Agnosticism are two perpendicular axis where one can find himself defined/projected. So yes, atheist are not automatically agnostic as you stated above.
 
!Kaggen said:
weak and strong atheism: lack of belief , belief in lack

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.
Click to expand...


That´s not how it works. When you claim atheists need a belief system/mythology, then it´s your job to show the evidence for that claim.

I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.
Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.
Click to expand...


I´ve experienced quite a lot of alternate states of consciousness in my life, but can tell you for sure that I never felt the need to mythologize.
I do like good stories, but I do not take them for real.
 
Fiona said:
In line with the first definition in your link, I believe it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. I am not always consistent in stating this and I have caught myself saying things like "I would change my mind if I got evidence of god's existence": and I think that is true but a little disingenuous: because I do not believe that could happen. It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a god or gods it does not work that way. Maybe that is its choice (if it is omnipotent as some believe);
Click to expand...


If you allow for the possibility I bolded, then it´s possible that this god would change its choice.
So it may not be possible today to know whether a god exists, but it could be possible in the future? Or do I have a mistake in my thinking?
 
jimtron said:
I wonder how many atheists "claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist"? That reeks of straw in my view.
Click to expand...

For what it is worth, I have known at least one gnostic atheist.

arthwollipot said:
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins is not a gnostic atheist. He said:

Richard Dawkins said:
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
​
Click to expand...

A better example would probably be Victor Stenger.
 
Georg said:
That´s not how it works. When you claim atheists need a belief system/mythology, then it´s your job to show the evidence for that claim.




I´ve experienced quite a lot of alternate states of consciousness in my life, but can tell you for sure that I never felt the need to mythologize.
I do like good stories, but I do not take them for real.
Click to expand...

Refer to the what is religion thread for my evidence.

Mythologizing is part of waking analytical consciousness and is not restricted to a story which you believe is not true.
For instance it is easy to create a myth around a well establish scientific theory.
Darwinism is one of these in my opinion. It is a personification myth of inanimate objects and forces.
 
shawmutt said:
What do you believe is the standard definition of agnosticism?
Click to expand...

I'll go with dictionary.com I guess:

an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Speech is what sets us apart from other animals, and should have concrete definitions. How else are we to understand what others are saying? I understand that words and phrases can evolve, or change over time, but I believe there must always be a consensus of the definitions of words. It seems there are a lot of agnostics (online) trying to change the definition of the word atheist.
Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree. It is important that definitions have widespread use so we can avoid confusion. That being said, this particular argument in this particular setting is pointless. You understand my philosophical position so quibbling over labels isn't necessary.

I specifically call myself "agnostic atheist" because people tend to think "agnostic" means I'm on the fence while "atheists" are dogmatic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom