Here is the definition of Atheism, to get it out the way
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
So it is the positive affirmation that there is no deity, contrary to Agnosticism which states there might be one.
What evidence could an Atheist provide to an Agnostic that a deity does not (or at least, probably does not) exist? Keep in mind, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>>456270
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
>Full Definition of agnostic
>1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
>2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
Just like atheism, agnostic has two definitions
Almost all atheists subscribe to
>a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
>>456278
>Almost all atheists subscribe to
>>a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Yes, so what evidence would your provide to justify that disbelieve
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>>456270
Disbelief just means I don't believe in it. Of course there is the possibility that there is some sort of God, but if there is he doesn't seem to have a noticeable effect on your life except through the belief systems humans have created
>>456283
Even the most 'militant atheist', Dawkins, doesn't believe that the existance of a deity is impossible
>>456283
You cannot prove a negative, it's up to the one making the positive claim to present proof of it. Atheism is the status quo.
>>456284
>Disbelief just means I don't believe in it
> Of course there is the possibility that there is some sort of God
So would you consider yourself in the Atheist camp that says there probably is no deity, or the Agnostic camp that admits uncertainty? If Atheist, why?
>>456290
Well if you believe there "probably" is not one, then why? Saying you don't know is just mislabeling yourself as an Atheist when you are actually Agnostic
>>456292
Between a Atheist and an Agnostic, the Atheist is making the positive claim that there is (probably) no God. So how does he justify it?
>>456301
>Saying you don't know is just mislabeling yourself as an Atheist when you are actually Agnostic
Because some people are gnostic atheists, others are agnostic atheists
>>456301
Probably atheist because there is no good proof. But either label isnt that important to me you can call me agnostic if you like.
I have no evidence to suggest the existence of any deities and thus do not believe any to exist. Beyond that we then get into the argument of what it means to be a deity.
I mean.. Is Q dom star trek god? Why or why not?
If there were a "god".. How do we not know that's not just another form of life?
I have no reason to believe in anything I would call God and the term itself has no clear meaning.
>>456305
>Because some people are gnostic atheists, others are agnostic atheists
I always thought those were just pseudo terms that aren't taken seriously by academia. Can you please give me good links to a definition to the words? I tried to google them but can only find reddit tier nonsense, blogs, and such.
>>456312
Thats the most common argument Atheists use. Which is why I keep repeating "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Call yourself Agnostic if you want to be consistent
>>456316
>I have no reason to believe in anything I would call God and the term itself has no clear meaning.
Again
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Also, I think most scholars, even secular ones as far as I know, have a good idea of certain traits a Creator must necessary have. Omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent, all that good stuff
For most atheists it's not a matter of blind faith but if reasonable certainty.
Nothing can ever be truly known for absolute certainty but my thoughts bring me to a what I consider the most likely answer. There is most likely no God. This is not the same as saying I cannot know and being entirely neutral. I base my view of the universe upon the expectation that not God exists not that there may be one.
Of I am wrong well who knows what that would mean since I have no real source of information about such (a) God(s)
>>456324
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
True, but at the same time there is no reason to believe in something without evidence or a logically demonstrable existence. (And no I do not accept Aquinas's argument, because I do not accept the Aristotelian metaphysics its based off of)
>>456324
So Q in start trek is by definition God as are all of his species?
>>456324
>I tried to google them but can only find reddit tier nonsense, blogs, and such.
Can't be bothered, if you don't understand the implied meaning, and if you can't see the false dichotomy your trying to impose for something so individual as 'beliefs'.
my rough 'definition' of this concept would be
Agnostic atheist - does not currently believe in a deity, but does not rule out the possibility of it existing
Gnostic atheist - does not believe in a deity, and is certain that none exist
just like the agnostic theists, compared to YEC
>>456328
>There is most likely no God.
Okay, but what evidence leads to this conclusion?
>but at the same time there is no reason to believe in something without evidence or a logically demonstrable existence.
No reason to disbelieve it either, which is why with the logic, Agnosticism is a more consistent worldview, as far as I see
>>456334
>>456334
Don't know anything about Star Trek, but I doubt it friend.
Oh wait, uncreated. The creator must necessarily be uncreated in order to truly be "God". There we go, so no Q is not.
>>456341
For the sake of the thread, I'll just say my question is directed towards any worldview that asserts "there is not (or probably is not) a deity". Don't wanna derail it being prissy with definitions
>>456343
>No reason to disbelieve it either,
So do you believe in elves? or fairies? I can never rule out the possibility that these things exist, never. But it would be a herculean task to maintain that kind of neutrality, not to mention impractical
>>456369
>So do you believe in elves? or fairies?
I think we have pretty good evidence against their existence. For example, I don't think there are any habitats that'd provide a suitable environment for a fairy to live. Most places would be too dangerous I think
Let's be serious okay?
>>456301
Agnostics don't believe in god so they're atheists by definition. Little kids don't believe in god either so they're atheists.
You don't find it silly that someone would go from atheist to theist despite not changing their opinion?
>>456390
Yea I wasnt using the Disney definition of fairy, more like the medieval one.
And I am completely serious.
>>456399
>Agnostics don't believe in god so they're atheists by definition
That isn't true. Agnostics don't believe or disbelieve, they withhold their decision and admit uncertainty towards either leaning.
Please don't say "but they're atheist towards zeus and thor!"
>>456270
>What evidence could an Atheist provide to an Agnostic that a deity does not (or at least, probably does not) exist? Keep in mind, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
1. The sheer volume of different gods and religions established by all manner of humans throughout history is indicative of a human need to create incredible answers for incredible questions, like how did we get here, etc...
2. The fact that we, as a species, have a propensity to look for leadership by someone that knows more then we do, and is responsible for creating the things around us. This starts, for us, as soon as we leave the womb and enter the world and meet our parents for the first time.
3. We have proven through experimentation that energy is neither created or destroyed in a closed system, it is simply transformed. What this means is that the energy of the cosmos could have always been here, and will always be here, IF the cosmos is indeed a closed system.
Regardless, one must believe in one of two things, which are both incredible.
1. Either something was created from nothing, be it the energy of the cosmos, or gods.
2. OR something has always existed, ie the energy of the cosmos, or gods.
Those are your two options.
> A simple guide. What are you?
Gnostic Theist - I know and believe that a deity exists.
Gnostic Athiest - I know and believe a deity does not exist.
Agnostic Theist - I don't know and believe a deity exists.
Agnostic Athiest - I don't know and believe a deity does not exist.
>>456412
1 and 2 do not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist, you are committing a genetic fallacy. A theist could say that God's providence gave us those attributes to seek Him
3. That goes against the latest scientific evidence that the universe is indeed finite
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658
>>456270
>What evidence could an Atheist provide to an Agnostic that a deity does not (or at least, probably does not) exist?
http://pastebin.com/n9JMvCFS
>>456444
Choose your favorite one from the list, paraphrase it, and we can talk about it
nice trips also
>>456428
>1 and 2 do not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist
Sure they do.
By comparing the beliefs of human beings throughout history, it's pretty easy to conclude that god, and gods, are simply human fabrications created to answer questions we couldn't understand.
Given the fact that every major religion is filled with contradictions in how they describe their "gods", and the actions those "gods" take, it's pretty easy to see that the "god-like" behavior is far more closely related to HUMAN behavior than any "god". This is all the evidence any reasonable adult needs to conclude that the probability that mankind fabricated "gods" is FAR, far, FAR more likely than the probability that ANY "gods" exist, have ever existed, and have ever "revealed" themselves to any given human being.
>3. That goes against the latest scientific evidence that the universe is indeed finite
>http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658
First, a finite universe would be an example of a closed system, and would therefore confirm the fact that the energy used to create it has always existed.
Second, we can not know if the universe is indeed finite, due to the fact that we can't see past the cosmic microwave background radiation at the limits of our observable universe. Scientists just ASSUME that there is nothing beyond this barrier, however, our observable universe could simply be the size of a small bubble that exists in a universe so large as to be incomprehensible to human understanding, but not infinite. We could be like a carbonation bubble in a soft drink, unable to see beyond the bubble and realizing that we are but one of many bubbles that exist within a larger universe.
>>456466
>it's pretty easy to conclude that god, and gods, are simply human fabrications created to answer questions we couldn't understand.
I don't follow how its easy to conclude that. Humans are naturally inclined to believe in God. Obvious since we can not comprehend Him, we would define Him in some human relateable way, unless He chose to reveal Himself. This doesn't follow that God must not exist
>>456408
You don't find it silly that a child would go from atheist to agnostic without changing their beliefs?
And it's obvious that an agnostic would be agnostic towards zeus and thor as well.
>>456478
I don't understand your question. I don't find it silly because I think Agnosticism is a more consistent and sensible worldview.
>>456489
I'm not even agnostic, but I hope this is a troll. Thats a terribly elementary misrepresentation of what Agnostics believe. I don't understand why someone could even take the time to make this.
>>456341
Do you even know what a Gnostic is? Are you just making up definitions?
Not mutually exclusive
>>456283
If P then Q
if not P then not Q
P is evidence of god,Q is god
Assertions require evidence faggot, or else all claims are equally valid
>>456485
The question is if it is silly or not that someone can go from being an atheist to an agnostic without changing their mind.
A kid don't believe in god, and once you let the kid know about it they may say "dunno m8 I've no ide". The kid haven't changed their stance on if God exist or not, yet in one instance the kid is an atheist and in the other one an agnostic.
>>456494
>I don't understand why someone could even take the time to make this.
they're very very annoyed that someone somewhere disagrees with him in a manner he can't actually disprove but, to him, seems pointless and ridiculous.
>>456518
If P then Q
If not P then not Q
P is lack of evidence for God and Q is atheism
Since there's no lack of evidence for God then Q is incorrect.
Check mate atheists.
>>456503
There is another definition for the word, just like there is for agnostic and atheist, gnostic tradition is only one definition, the other is the antonym of agnostic
>>456529
demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of logic
should've guessed from the start
I believe god is a huge horse that wants us to fuck babies and there's no way to refute that because evidence apparently isn't required to make claims
There are blue aliens living under the surface of Pluto that juggle tangerines. You must be agnostic about this until every inch of Pluto is monitored
>>456270
>absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence
>I want to discuss this, here are things you are not allowed respond with
>>456530
Can you show me a dictionary with that definition? Also, there's many other Gnostic traditions than the Christian one.
The antonym for Agnostic would be 'believer' or 'someone who is sure of a deitys' existence'.
Burden of proof is on the person trying to prove a thing not immediately obvious,i.e. the existence of an unseen entity, I.e. the existence of god.
Thread doesn't even belong in /his/, report religion shitposts pls
>>456557
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion
> Religion
Semantics: The Thread
>>456284
>Disbelief just means I don't believe in it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
>Full Definition
>mental rejection of something as untrue
Now stop playing with words and pick a fucking side.
Can you prove that God does not exist? If not, what intellectual basis do you have for position?
>>456328
>Nothing can ever be truly known for absolute certainty
2 + 2 is 4
>there is no reason to believe in something without evidence or a logically demonstrable existence
So you disbelieve in the pants I am wearing right now? Are you sure you can really claim with any certainty whatsoever that I'm not wearing pants?
Why don't you fuckers spend as much time talking about the belief, lack of belief, lack of knowledge of, and belief in nonexistence of leprechauns?
>>456628
Only replied because it was a pretty specific question, don't get asked about leprechauns as often desu senpai
>>456624
2+2 doesn't equal 4
>>456628
Do you know any good historical leprechaun literature?
>>456648
Oral tradition.
>>456643
it does in base 10 and can be known as true A priori for certain
checkmate
>>456660
Not with my axioms B)
>>456662
List them. All of them.
ITT: let's try the negative proof fallacy again, maybe this time no one will notice
>>456669
Axiom 1: Mathematics is for gays
>>456444
I like these best
okay. I'm tired of this shit
This isn't fucking /int/. you don't need to shitsling other people's religions. And I'm not saying that in a "everyone should be tolerant and progressive guiz" way, I also think some of your beliefs are absolutely shit and you should be ashamed of yourselves for having them, but i'm not going to walk into your threads and derail them demanding proof for their claims. I know you 'think' you have proof for beliefs, and you know i 'think' I have proof for my beliefs. Leave each other alone for fucks sake. Don't bring bible verses into a thread about Neanderthals and don't bring dawkins into a thread about the protestant Schism.
Discussion here goes nowhere if every religion has to PROVE its validity day in and day out. I DON'T CARE! I am interested in the history of, say, the catholic church and frankly i don't give a rat's ass whether god can be proven or not because i don't belong to it, i'm interested in discussing its significance, its impact on other groups and how it came to be what it is today. Leave your fucking evangelism outside 4chan. It's not a tragedy to let someone believe that they're right when they aren't. You aren't going to win souls or cripple the establishment by arguing about the dictionary definition of atheism.
Why do people keep making atheism threads anyway? Atheism isn't a humanities subject. Nonreligious people should be able to discuss Pope Innocent III's legacy just fine, yet somehow you guys act like you can't fucking do anything but argue over the one thing that you are firmly set NOT to change your minds on. The answer won't fucking change no matter how many times you confront each other, so stop asking all the time.
This discussion will not end in anyone coming away from it changed, so can you guys stop making these bait threads and just talk about history and humanities? I'm sick of your console wars clogging up the board
Be there or not be there a god/gods, as long as it/them leaves/leave me alone, I leave the god/gods alone.
>>456685
kek
nice pasta
>I have something
>Let's see it
>You're claiming I don't!
>>456711
>post the 5 ways
>m-muh fallacies
>space c-cake and sky d-daddies
>fedora drops out of pockets
get good kid
>>456404
>>456551
>>456628
Elves, unicorns, and leprechauns would be corporeal beings we can reasonably assert the nonexistence of through study of regions which they are believed to have existed and any ideas supporting their existence to be shifted as explanations more in-line with a different view of the natural world.
That has not happened, and theoretically can't happen, to the existence of a deity. Also if these mythical corporeal being existed, their existence would be less imperative to the nature and purpose of human life.
>>456301
>the Atheist is making the positive claim that there is (probably) no God
No you fucking faggot, the atheist is just answering to the theist who says "there is a god" by saying "prove it fgt". The whole point of atheism is that it ISN'T a positive claim, no matter how much you fucking agnostics and theists wish to believe atheism is a dogma.
>>456685
Christianity is literary fueled by theological shitposting. The reason the pagans got converted was because Christians constantly tried to convert people while pagans didn't.
>>456842
i want sam harris to go
>>456730
>don't actually respond to what I said, but mimic my post and try to insult
Typical
>>456518
>If P then Q
>if not P then not Q
If both my parents' eyes are blue, then my eyes are blue.
If both my parents' eyes are not blue, then my eyes are not blue.
First proposition is true, second is false, which I think is useful since you're unlikely to understand the formal refutation given previously.
This hot garbage fire of a thread is why people shouldn't fuss over the label applied to their positions. It always saves time to just state the position and go from there.
