A questions to atheists: If we come in to contact with highly advanced aliens and....

[soulcougher73]

God himself could come down and be like..."lol, I am God." And I would STILL be an Atheist.

It's just the stigma of appearing unintelligent that holds me back from believing in any religion.

I would believe he was real at this point, but i would not worship him at all. Id call him an ass and go about my day.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I would believe he was real at this point, but i would not worship him at all. Id call him an ass and go about my day.

I'd fart in his general direction.

 

[preslove]

"Agnostics" are annoying because they think they're making a distinction without a difference.

I don't believe in a human described god because it is so unlikely that one particular branch of one particular religion worshiped by primates who live on one planet among the billions and billions of other planets in the universe could describe the creator of that universe, that it is indistinguishable from impossible. I don't "believe" that god doesn't exist, I just have reasoned that the truthfulness of any PARTICULAR human religion is about as likely as my buying lottery tickets for 4 consecutive weeks and then winning in all 4 drawings.

Does that mean that there is no god? No. But it does mean that an absolute belief in Christ, Allah, Buddha, Apollo, or any other human god is absurd.

Whatever "god" that could have potentially created the universe is beyond our ken, and it's ABSOLUTE arrogance to believe that we can even contemplate such a god, let alone have described it in some ancient text.


So, is there a god? I don't know. Is Christ the son of God? Absolutely not.

What does that make me? Either an athiest or agnostic, depending on how you define them. Which becomes a tiresome game.

 

[destrekor]

ok...i still see those at 2 totally distinct different things.

atheist = definitely doesn't believe god exists. no chance to believe that god exists.

agnostic = you're not sure if god exists or not. there is a chance that you would believe.

agnostic is not a term you can use on its own. People have misused the word for generations, and I just don't get it.

Agnostic = without knowledge. Period. It doesn't imply knowledge of what. It's a type of certainty, and in truth for the longest time it, when used to describe certainty and knowledge, is connected to spirituality. The opposite, gnostic, has been used by many in the same light.

Most religious people, if they are halfway sane, should identify as "Agnostic Christian", or whatever religion.

When it is attached to something, it means you don't have 100% certain knowledge of what it is you believe. You may have a very strong belief, but you feel there isn't anything concrete, no accurate physical proof.

Same goes for atheists.
They, if they are sane, will identify as Agnostic Atheist. That means they don't believe in god, but they don't see anything right now offering certain proof alluding to god's existence, or lack of existence. They may be a firm non-believer, like myself, but acknowledge the fact that, while it makes sense to us for a deity to not be real, there is no 100% certain proof.

These are the kinds of atheists that, if a god ever came down in front of them, and said "Son, I am disappointed. I am God, why do you not believe in me?" and then does some fancy godly tricks to prove he is god, well... to put it simply, we'd accept proof of existence and acknowledge the deity. It would actually be a funny jump, going from Agnostic Atheist to Gnostic Theist.

If someone identifies as Gnostic Atheist, well... they're just absolute assholes who too deserve to be burned. I mean seriously, I think this god stuff is ridiculous and one big fairy tale, but to claim you have 100% certain proof of something NOT existing... that's just pushing the boundary.
And while not 100% true, basically these are the types of people who, even facing down a deity and witnessing proof, they'd still deny reality.

If someone is, by the incorrect term "Agnostic", I'd argue the real identifier would be Agnostic Theist. Not attached to a religion or claims of what type of God or its motives, but rather... they just believe, even if ever so slightly, that there might be a god out there. But they also don't know and don't think there is proof one way or the other.
They could use Deism or Monotheism as titles next to agnostic to further imply what their non-religious root belief is like.

 

[dullard]

atheist = definitely doesn't believe god exists. no chance to believe that god exists.

agnostic = you're not sure if god exists or not. there is a chance that you would believe.

You have poor definitions. These are much more realistic definitions:

Athiest: the evidence against god outweighs the evidence for god. But, there is still a tiny chance that god exists.
Agnostic: you can't decide.
Thiest: the evidence for god outweighs the evidence against god. But, there is still a tiny chance that god doesn't exist.

Those definitions fit the way people actually think. There is no "definitely doesn't believe" or "definitly does believe" in anything that is unprovable. There is always a smidgen of a doubt in any question of that type. Think of it more in terms of a jury. There is always a reasonable doubt, but the evidence is sufficient to pursuade you to vote guilty or innocent.

 

[AstroManLuca]

ok...i still see those at 2 totally distinct different things.

atheist = definitely doesn't believe god exists. no chance to believe that god exists.

agnostic = you're not sure if god exists or not. there is a chance that you would believe.

You only described "strong/strict" atheism.

Scientific thinkers never discount any possibility, no matter how unlikely it is. It is possible that Christianity is exactly right, and that everything described in the Bible really happened. That is extremely unlikely from a scientific standpoint, but it is still possible if God is omnipotent. Because of that, a lot of scientists and scientific thinkers will stop short of saying they absolutely do not believe in God. They'll say they're almost totally sure he doesn't exist, that the possibility of God's existence is too small to seriously consider, but that doesn't make them agnostic.

Are you saying that being 99.999% certain that God doesn't exist, while still leaving room for that possibility, makes you an agnostic? What about people who do believe in God but occasionally have doubts? Are they agnostic too?

 

[preslove]

You have poor definitions. These are much more realistic definitions:

Athiest: the evidence against god outweighs the evidence for god.
Agnostic: you can't decide.
Thiest: the evidence for god outweighs the evidence against god.

Those definitions fit the way people actually think. There is no "definitely doesn't believe" in anything. There is always a smidgon of a doubt.

The problem with creating a a category of "theists" is that the category doesn't really exist in its naked form.

Christians are "theists who believe in Christ."
Muslims are "theists who believe in Allah."
A 'Theist' in its naked form would believe that "There may be people who believe in an amorphous creator who we can't really define"

While I am 99.9999999999999999999% certain that Christians and Muslims are wrong, I cannot be certain (or really care to have an opinion about whether) that "theists" are wrong.

 

[destrekor]

"Agnostics" are annoying because they think they're making a distinction without a difference.

I don't believe in a human described god because it is so unlikely that one particular branch of one particular religion worshiped by primates who live on one planet among the billions and billions of other planets in the universe could describe the creator of that universe, that it is indistinguishable from impossible. I don't "believe" that god doesn't exist, I just have reasoned that the truthfulness of any PARTICULAR human religion is about as likely as my buying lottery tickets for 4 consecutive weeks and then winning in all 4 drawings.

Does that mean that there is no god? No. But it does mean that an absolute belief in Christ, Allah, Buddha, Apollo, or any other human god is absurd.

Whatever "god" that could have potentially created the universe is beyond our ken, and it's ABSOLUTE arrogance to believe that we can even contemplate such a god, let alone have described it in some ancient text.


So, is there a god? I don't know. Is Christ the son of God? Absolutely not.

What does that make me? Either an athiest or agnostic, depending on how you define them. Which becomes a tiresome game.

You are something of a Agnostic Deist, though even Deists argue such an architect did involve itself with humans (gave them intelligence and/or life, wants them to show morals), though they reject the notion that he interacts with humans through miracles and whatnot.
Basically a "here you go" at first, then hands-off type of god. Built the house, let them live there and then completely ignore them for the most part.

Maybe even somewhat of a Panentheist (all is within God, as in the universe is contained within God, so God is kind of meta-corporeal), which is different from Pantheism (all is god, in that nature and God are simply different words for the same thing. No story, no direction, no creation - just... natural laws).

In general, you just seem like an Agnostic Theist. Basically a Deist, as I'm sure there are Deist camps that reject the notion that such a God even cares about humans and Earth.

 

[dullard]

Are you saying that being 99.999% certain that God doesn't exist, while still leaving room for that possibility, makes you an agnostic? What about people who do believe in God but occasionally have doubts? Are they agnostic too?

Sadly, from what I've seen of ATOT agnostics, they would generally answer yes to both of those questions. They want the definition of agnostic to be so broad that it is a useless category. That everyone should be agnostic.

Agnostic should be considered more of a state of mental paralysis. Agnostism is the state of being unable to weigh the pros vs the cons.

 

[dullard]

The problem with creating a a category of "theists" is that the category doesn't really exist in its naked form.

I tried to leave open that door by not capitalizing god. But, you are correct. I will leave my statement be though, since I think that is a technical detail that doesn't need to complicate my simple point.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Sadly, from what I've seen of ATOT agnostics, they would generally answer yes to both of those questions. They want the definition of agnostic to be so broad that it is a useless category. That everyone should be agnostic.

Agnostic should be considered more of a state of mental paralysis. Agnostism is the state of being unable to weigh the pros vs the cons.

Know what pisses me off?

"I'm agnostic"
"WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND? WHY DON'T YOU HAVE AN OPINION?"

"I'm atheist"
"YOU IDIOT, HOW CAN YOU COMPLETELY DISCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD EXISTING? IT'S STILL POSSIBLE!"

"I'm agnostic atheist"
"WHY DON'T YOU PICK ONE? QUIT CONFUSING ME WITH ALL YOUR FANCY-SHMANCY NEW-AGE DEFINITIONS!"

What. The. Fuck. Is this on purpose? Are people intentionally trying to attach some ridiculously dumb stigma to every possible belief term in order to marginalize agnostic atheists or something? Or is it just a bunch of dumbshits being dumbshits on the internet?

 

[preslove]

I tried to leave open that door by not capitalizing god. But, you are correct. I will leave my statement be though, since I think that is a technical detail that doesn't need to complicate my simple point.

The problem with using "theists" as a category, though, is that some Christians like to retreat to that position so that they can argue that athiests don't really get metaphysics and are overstepping their epistemic bounds. The problem is that Christians aren't just theists. They are "theists that believe in Christ." While the former is defensible logically, the latter is not.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Who would plant a virus on their spaceship when they try to destroy the earth?

 

[meltdown75]

when Ellie met the aliens in Contact, they were still searching for who had created everything. this is how i'd like to believe our first contact with aliens would pan out.

 

[pontifex]

You only described "strong/strict" atheism.

Scientific thinkers never discount any possibility, no matter how unlikely it is. It is possible that Christianity is exactly right, and that everything described in the Bible really happened. That is extremely unlikely from a scientific standpoint, but it is still possible if God is omnipotent. Because of that, a lot of scientists and scientific thinkers will stop short of saying they absolutely do not believe in God. They'll say they're almost totally sure he doesn't exist, that the possibility of God's existence is too small to seriously consider, but that doesn't make them agnostic.

Are you saying that being 99.999% certain that God doesn't exist, while still leaving room for that possibility, makes you an agnostic? What about people who do believe in God but occasionally have doubts? Are they agnostic too?

i don't know there were different levels of how much you don't believe anything exists...

if you have any doubt then you are agnostic. if you have no doubt then you are atheist. if you believe then you are theist/gnostic/wtf ever.


here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist

seems pretty simple to me.

 

[AstroManLuca]

i don't know there were different levels of how much you don't believe anything exists...

if you have any doubt then you are agnostic. if you have no doubt then you are atheist. if you believe then you are theist/gnostic/wtf ever.

You didn't actually read any of the other posts, did you?

 

[SunnyD]

God himself could come down and be like..."lol, I am God." And I would STILL be an Atheist.

It's just the stigma of appearing unintelligent that holds me back from believing in any religion.

If any deity ever came down from high and started a statement with "lol", that's enough right there for me to walk away happy that my faith, or lack thereof in a god is the truth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

ok...i still see those at 2 totally distinct different things.

atheist = definitely doesn't believe god exists. no chance to believe that god exists.

agnostic = you're not sure if god exists or not. there is a chance that you would believe.

I'm about to blow your mind.

"I do not believe X" |= "I believe not-X"

SHAZAM!

"I do not believe that a god exists" is the minimally necessary and sufficient circumstance to define atheism. If a person does not believe a god exists, he is not a theist, and therefore he is an atheist.

"I believe exactly zero gods exist" is not a necessary belief of atheists, however "I do not believe a that a god exist" is a necessary prerequisite to "I believe exactly zero gods exist."

It's ok to sit down, as I'm sure your head is absolutely spinning...

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

This is an utterly pointless semantic argument. Apparently, people have many different opinions on the meaning and usage of the word "agnostic." To say that sane people only identify as agnostic is pretty blind.

I could say I'm agnostic in regards to the existence of a race of invisible zeppelin-shaped chocolate elves, but that seems to justify it as a legitimate possibility instead of just complete nonsense that can't be disproved. In that way, one could technically be agnostic toward any absurdity. I do not believe in fantastic zeppelin elves, and if I were to acknowledge that they could exist, it would only be along the lines of "Well, anything is possible." In that sense, the discussion is meaningless because so is the question of their existence. The possibility is so infinitesimally small and the reasoning behind the belief so circular and silly, that to entertain it is pointless.

That's exactly how I feel about all religious deities and supernatural forces, so I identify as an atheist, not an agnostic.

 

[AstroManLuca]

That's exactly how I feel about all religious deities and supernatural forces, so I identify as an atheist, not an agnostic.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I normally consider myself an atheist for this reason. It bothers me when people misconstrue that to mean I am certain there is no god, or that I have "faith" in the nonexistence of god in the same way that a religious person has faith in his existence.

 

[dsity]

If any deity ever came down from high and started a statement with "lol", that's enough right there for me to walk away happy that my faith, or lack thereof in a god is the truth.

Maybe the deity has a sense of humor? He's probably up there causing earthquakes and loling his ass off. I wouldn't be surprised if a second coming happened, it would be announced by a giant fackin rick roll.

 

[pontifex]

I'm about to blow your mind.

"I do not believe X" |= "I believe not-X"

SHAZAM!

"I do not believe that a god exists" is the minimally necessary and sufficient circumstance to define atheism. If a person does not believe a god exists, he is not a theist, and therefore he is an atheist.

"I believe exactly zero gods exist" is not a necessary belief of atheists, however "I do not believe a that a god exist" is a necessary prerequisite to "I believe exactly zero gods exist."

It's ok to sit down, as I'm sure your head is absolutely spinning...

yeah because i have no fucking clue what you are talking about. i do not believe a god exists = i believe no gods exist.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

yeah because i have no fucking clue what you are talking about. i do not believe a god exists = i believe no gods exist.

I think he's trying to paint a line between a simple lack of belief and active disbelief or refusal to believe.

 

[Evadman]

What someone else believes has no bearing on what I believe.

 

[AstroManLuca]

yeah because i have no fucking clue what you are talking about. i do not believe a god exists = i believe no gods exist.

What every reasonable person in the thread is doing is recognizing the difference between "I don't think God exists" and "I am certain that God does not exist."

It's basically impossible to prove a negative.