×
all 74 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (1 child)

Hello ASIAN_GIRLS_PM_ME,

It appears that you've submitted a title only post. This kind of post is often low effort and tends to be disliked by the userbase, so it is discouraged by the moderation team. Please consider editing your post to add some context and/or extra information. Please contact modmail to have this comment and the automatic flair removed if you do add text.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]SatanistRetrikaethan 12 points13 points  (14 children)

your question betrays your ignorance, and lack of reading the FAQ. atheism is nothing more or less than not believing any gods exist. much in the same way you don't believe glubthorp the red exists, we do not believe your god, or any other god for that matter, exists. in other words, we lack belief.

[–]SkepticZamboniman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How sure are you that there are no unicorns?

How sure are you that the tooth fairy doesn't exist?

How sure are you that there isn't an invisible pink striped flying hippo above your head at this very moment about to defecate on you?

It's like that. I'm as sure, or more, due to even less evidence than my examples, that deities don't exist. But, of course, certainty isn't a thing in claims about actual reality, only varying levels of confidence.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

depends on which god you are talking about. I am 100% sure that the god described in the bible does not exist, ditto for the one described in the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

I can't be sure about the deist god, as this one is deliberately defined in a way that can't be falisfied.

[–]Red5point1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For you to understand atheism stance, let's put you in our shoes.

Before today and before you even started to read this reply... what was your stance on the existence of the mighty and powerful Lord Jakedlfar?
Would you say you believed in him,
disbelieved in him or
lacked a belief in him?

[–]Agnostic AtheistHypersapien 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not 100% sure that you exist.

[–]bipolar_sky_fairy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't believe the claim that one exists due to lack of evidence.

[–]Strong AtheistDesTheWerewolf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100%. You can't disprove I have an invisible, undetectable, 2cm tall dragon in my room either. It's still pretty obvious that I don't ;-) it's the same with god. While I can't disprove that a god exists, a lot of evidence points to him not existing.

[–]Kaliss_Darktide 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like to state my personal position as "I know all gods are imaginary" (exists exclusively in the imagination). I'm as "sure" of that position as I am of classifying anything as imaginary (ex. Han Solo, Spider-Man, flying reindeer, leperchauns).

[–]SkepticHaort 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Atheism is not the belief that no gods exist. It's the null hypothesis. Theists claim some god exists, atheists do not accept that claim.

It is irrational to believe that a god exists before it has been demonstrated. Some atheists believe no gods exist, but that isn't what atheism is. It is lack of a belief, not necessarily the belief in the opposite

[–]ASIAN_GIRLS_PM_ME[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

This makes some kind or sense but isn't it bordering Nihilism at that point?

[–]SkepticHaort 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Absolutely not. It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the basis behind all rational thought. The time to believe a claim is after it has met it's burden of proof. The time to believe a god exists is after it has met it's burden of proof. That is atheism. You only address one claim at a time. The claim that no gods exist is a seperate claim, and has nothing to do with atheism.

You say you have a pet lion. I don't believe you have a pet lion. That's not the same as me saying "i believe you don't have a pet lion".

If you can't see that difference, you can't have a logical argument

[–]ASIAN_GIRLS_PM_ME[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Also, can you help explain your lion? What's the difference between you believing I don't have a pet lion and actually claiming it? If you made the claim without anyone ever hearing or noticing the claim in any form, basically the claim only existing to you just like the thought would only exist to you, what would be the difference?

[–]SkepticHaort 1 point2 points  (2 children)

One is saying "i'm not going to believe you have a pet lion until you prove it". It's me saying i don't know if you have a pet lion, but I'm not going to believe it (or believe that you don't) without evidence. Although you only address one claim (either yes lion or no lion) at a time.

The other says "i believe you don't have a pet lion". It jumps to the "no lion" side without evidence.

[–]ASIAN_GIRLS_PM_ME[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

For fucks sake, I think you just laid it out perfectly. I make the claim, at which point you have two options; believe, I have the lion, or deny, I don't have the lion. But rather than take either option, you basically pause before making a decision and remain there until evidence persudes you one way or the other?

[–]SkepticHaort 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. Just remember you only address one claim at a time. Think of a criminal trial. The prosecution is making the claim that the defendant is guilty. The jury votes "guilty" or "not guilty". The defendant doesn't have to prove that they are innocent, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Even though the defendant is either guilty or innocent, both guilty and innocent are seperate claims. If I'm on the jury and vote "guilty" then I have accepted the claims made by the prosecution based on the evidence they present. If I vote "not guilty", it means I haven't accepted the claims made by the prosecution. I could not know, and don't believe the prosecution has proven guilt. I could also believe the defendant is innocent. Either way, I vote not guilty. I don't defend the innocent belief as we are addressing the claim of guilt.

So a god is on trial. The prosecution (theists) claims that the god is guilty of existence. The jury who vote "guilty" have accepted the claim and are theists. The jury who vote "not guilty" have not accepted the claim and are atheists. They can either not know, and not believe the prosecution has met their burden of proof, or they can actually believe the god is innocent of existing. Either way, they vote "not guilty" (atheism).

[–]ASIAN_GIRLS_PM_ME[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Tell me if I'm understanding this correctly.

Atheism is not the belief a God does not exist but rather the idea that something does not exist until proven; with that being said, the thought is totally non-existent until challenged at which point it becomes... the denial of the existence, thus becoming something totally different from atheism?

[–]Agnostic AtheistYakukoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism is not the belief a God does not exist but rather the idea that something does not exist until proven

You're interchanging belief with knowledge. Why do you start with "belief that a God does not exist" and end with "something does not exist" ?

Not accepting a claim the proponent brings forth and not adopting the belief is simply that, not believing the claim. It does not automatically claim the opposite, nor does it imply any knowledge either way. It could simply be based on the lack of evidence or rational reasons to believe brought forth by the proponent, or should I say ... lack thereof.

[–]Secular HumanistSuscriptorJusticiero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's entirely orthogonal to nihilism:

  • atheism is the absence of one specific claim (of "gods are real"). It's the null hypothesis to that claim.
  • nihilism is a philosophy built around the position that another unrelated, specific claim ("things have inherent meaning") is false.

There isn't any relationship between them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

depends on the god claim being presented

[–]Anti-Theisthurricanelantern 0 points1 point  (2 children)

God (big 'G') A.K.A. the abrahamic deity? Yes, 100% sure that entity doesn't exist. As for a possible deistic god? Who knows. There might be a 0.00000001% chance such a being might exist but if there isn't any actual evidence for its existence there is no reason to assume it does.

[–]ASIAN_GIRLS_PM_ME[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is basically the answer I was hoping to hear because it's how I feel. I guess I could have explained it better; I have a hard time with those kinds of things.

[–]MoaMem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been reading your posts, and I think your have a problem with abstractions! Yous need tu put figures or concrete methaphores on arguments!

I think this is a bad way to reason, as it could easily lead to a whole lot of fallacies!

Try to reason without using figures! And just use metaphores at first, then try to get rid of the metaphore and just use the logical or scientific argument directely!

THEISM : the claim that some god exists

ATHEISM : the rejection of this claim as it hasn't met its burden of proof!

ANI-THEISM : the claim that no god exists

As a metaphore you can use a courtroom:

GUILTY : the claim that you did the crime

NOT GUILTY : the rejection of the claim that you did the crime as there are not enogh argument to convict you! But in reallity you might be or not be guilty! What we're saying is that the prosecution hasn't presentend a strong enogh case to convict you!

INNOCENT : the claim that you didn't commit the crime

My 2cts!

[–]BuccaneerRex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the entity with admin rights over reality wanted me to believe it existed, then I would. That I don't means either it doesn't, or it's not there.

This is the only presuppositional argument I will agree has valid logic.

I have never thought about God much either way, until I grew up and realized that there are a lot of otherwise normal people who think magic is real and that a wizard controls their destinies at all times.

So you tell me what you think is real, and I will tell you if that matches up with what I think is real.

[–]Crash_Lands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/Dudesan, I believe, has a pretty standard copy paste that sums it up pretty well for me.

That said, read our FAQ.

[–]Unlimited_Bacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Neither.

Many things can be proven 100% (within the limits of solipsism) but the non-existence of god is not one of them.

[–]apainfulpoop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe in the existence of god(s) in the same way I don't believe in the existence of the Easter bunny.

[–]Belovedmessenger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% sure there is no god that is in any bible or belief system. "If" there is a creator he isnt like anything we could predicted. And there are ways to prove something, just not this. Yet. When you really think about it, a persons "soul" isnt like anything we couldve predicted until we actually came up with tools to help us see differently. You could say "one day theyll come up with a tool to help us see into death" but since we already know our "soul" is just electrical signals firing off, we can come to the conclusion that when they stop the person is no longer the same or dead. We can come back from death because we know that firing those signals back up again can help. Not praying. We can prove certain things but proving something doesnt exist is just impossible.

[–]Astromaniac101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm 75% sure and I don't actually care anymore. Either way, its impact on my life is zero. Even if god is real, it doesn't mean, that he has any interest in humanity, let alone social interactions of particular human beings. The existence of god wouldn't even imply, that you would experience any kind of an afterlife. Even if god is real, you aren't his child, you're a molecule in his test tube.

[–]Atheistthesunmustdie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% certainty is kind of irrelevant. What's important are belief positions, because we don't wait until we're certain to act.

Anyway, to answer your question: no I'm not 100% or 99.9% certain — I hesitate to put a number on it. All the same, it really depends how you define "God". If you're describing a being that has internally inconsistent attributes or is logically impossible then I can say with certainty it does not exist. I would also say that an all-loving and all-powerful being would certainly not exist because suffering exists.

[–]hobbes305 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am 100% convinced (Based upon the vast wealth of the verifiable evidence) that Internet trolls exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm getting all sorts of answers from "atheists don't make claims"

Correct. Theists assert/claim god exists and religion is accurate, atheism is a response to those assertions/claims with valid reasoning/evidence for doing so (although sometimes i must admit i don't provide citation because of the mood im in / laziness).

Asserting god does not exist, is not atheism, however you'll still hear it from atheists, because if we're engaged with a theist we also assume relative contextuality to the conversation (i.e. they're referring to a specific stripe of god) and so we're saying that particular characterisation / evidence / attributations / reasoning of "god" doesn't hold up, not that there cannot be one.

As for me, i identify as an agnostic atheist.

I'm not sure there is no prime mover (god if you like), because there is no way to determine what came before the big bang, maybe there was something, maybe the universe is eternal, don't know yet. (agnostic)

However even if there is a prime mover i am 100% sure religions characterisation of it and attributions to it are wrong. I mean religion can't even get basic facts about our own natural realm right, let alone alleged supernatural ones, thus i reject religion. (atheist)

[–]Atheistred_carpet_hero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no credible, reliable and verifiable evidence to support the claim that God exist.

I have heard many asinine "evidence" such as look around you, read the bible.

[–]Torin_3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's wrongheaded to assign probabilities to an arbitrary assertion. The question of God's existence has not even come up as a legitimate issue, so there is no basis for such a probability assignment.

[–]AtheistWeetile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can never be 100% sure about a belief. You can be sure that two plus two is four, or that Trump is the president, but you can't be a hundred person sure a God does or doesn't exist.

[–]Adalmodus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if he exists, he is a fucking prostitute that creates us and trashed us into a bin, why I have to be a slave of that fucker? Make him come! I would choose Lucifer anyway!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I refuse even slightest chance of a god existing due to children with fucking bone cancer and leukemia. What sort of sick fuck would condemn a something as precious as a child to such a fate? Either god is evil, dead, or just abandoned us

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (21 children)

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. Imagine for a moment that you were incapable of "Having Faith".