# Atheism is now legally a religion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811 "2014-11-05T22:45:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/301 "2014-11-09T15:58:48Z")
For those disinclined to click on the image (be sure to scroll sideways)… I’d put myself in the Bottom-Right corner. ```auto **GNOSTIC** it is possible to be 100% certain | **GNOSTIC THEIST** | **GNOSTIC ATHEIST** 100% certain there | 100% certain there is a God(s) | is no God(s) **THEIST** | **ATHEIST** Believes in God(s) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––|––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No Belief in God(s) | **AGNOSTIC THEIST** | **AGNOSTIC ATHEIST** Not 100% certain | Not 100% certain But believes in God(s) | yet doesn't believe in God(s) | **AGNOSTIC** it is not possible to be 100% certain ``` ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/302 "2014-11-09T16:01:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > As many as you can show me. Given that the set labeled “Gods I can show you” contains zero members, I’ll take your answer to the question to be “zero.” Which means that–congratulations!–you sure sound like an atheist to me. I asked my coffee mug the same question, by the way; it gave me a totally different answer from yours. **cmyk** , I get what you’re saying with that chart. My quibble is that the phrase “doesn’t believe in God” is ambiguous and is not directly related to the statement above it in the atheist side. Thus my question about members of a set. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/303 "2014-11-09T16:02:00Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > Those are mutually contradictory. > > Zero is not nothing. Zero is not a void. > > Zero is something. It has actual properties that can be described. > > But most importantly for this particular discussion, zero can be used as the answer to a question about the cardinality of a set. > > Responding with “a void” is not a valid answer to the question of “How many dogs do you own?” But you can answer 0 and everyone will understand. > No. The set is not religion. > > The set is gods. > > He’s asking everyone what the cardinality of the set of gods is. Not proof, but our best guess. > Are you seriously claiming that the question “How many gods are there?” has nothing to do with math? Zero can have abstract properties, sure. But if I asked you for zero apples, or stated that I believed in zero gods, the abstractions fall away to the practical. In this case, zero is most certainly “nothing”. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/304 "2014-11-09T16:07:20Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > He’s asking everyone what the cardinality of the set of gods is. Cardinality is not the element inside the set, but the number of elements in the set. And he is not asking for proof of our answers, but our best guess at the number. I appreciate your explanation of what I’m saying–obviously I’m having trouble explaining what seems to me like an unambiguous question. The only thing I’d add to your clarification is that answers to the question such as, “Insufficient data,” “Who gives a shit?” “I’m guessing three but maybe it’s zero or it could be infinity,” or, “I have no idea,” are all acceptable answers; what’s not valid is to rhapsodize about the differences between null and zero, since that doesn’t have anything to do with the question. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/305 "2014-11-09T16:08:50Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > But if I asked you for zero apples, or stated that I believed in zero gods, the abstractions fall away to the practical. Does that mean your answer to the question is zero? (To be clear, though, I’m not asking you how many you believe in; if that’s what you’re answering, it’s a totally different question. I’m asking you how many there are.) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/306 "2014-11-09T16:10:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **cmyk** , I get what you’re saying with that chart. My quibble is that the phrase “doesn’t believe in God” is ambiguous and is not directly related to the statement above it in the atheist side. Thus my question about members of a set. Ok, so taking the Atheist column, being certain and not being certain is a binary position. You either are or are not. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/307 "2014-11-09T16:14:19Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Ok, so taking the Atheist column, being certain and not being certain is a binary position. You either are or are not. Right–but the certainty statement is “there is no god.” That’s not a position a coffee mug can have. The uncertainty position is “don’t believe in god.” That’s something a coffee mug can do. To make it equal, the uncertainty position should be, “not 100% certain but believes there is no God.” That way, a coffee mug can’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/308 "2014-11-09T16:17:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Does that mean your answer to the question is zero? (To be clear, though, I’m not asking you how many you believe in; if that’s what you’re answering, it’s a totally different question. I’m asking you how many there are.) I no not believe in any gods. Yet, I can’t know with certainty. But I think it’s zero. I don’t know what else to tell you. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/309 "2014-11-09T16:19:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Right–but the certainty statement is “there is no god.” That’s not a position a coffee mug can have. The uncertainty position is “don’t believe in god.” That’s something a coffee mug can do. To make it equal, the uncertainty position should be, “not 100% certain but believes there is no God.” That way, a coffee mug can’t do it. A coffee mug is not a sentient being. I’m not following your logic. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/310 "2014-11-09T16:25:42Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > I no not believe in any gods. > > Yet, I can’t know with certainty. But I think it’s zero. > I don’t know what else to tell you. That’s all I was asking for! I promised you it wasn’t a trick :). Me too–I think it’s zero, but am not certain. > [@cmyk](#): > > A coffee mug is not a sentient being. I’m not following your logic. Right–but a baby is, in this same sense, not a sentient being, yet some folks (not, I think, you) are saying that their atheism is identical to a baby’s atheism. And that’s the point I’m making: if you ask a baby this question, the baby is unable to answer it, because the baby has not reflected on the question. A belief in a universe with zero gods in it, however tentative or contingent, is different from having no belief about the number of gods in the universe. This seems to me like a bleedin’ obvious point, and it may be bleedin’ obvious to you, but other folks in this thread have insisted otherwise. A reflective atheism, in which someone has considered the idea of divinity and decided it’s not likely (or impossible or whatever), is fundamentally different from an unconsidered atheism, in which my coffee mug, my cat, and my infant daughter\*, have not considered the idea of divinity at all, much less accepted or rejected it. - back when she was an infant ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/311 "2014-11-09T16:37:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s all I was asking for! I promised you it wasn’t a trick :). Me too–I think it’s zero, but am not certain. > > Right–but a baby is, in this same sense, not a sentient being, yet some folks (not, I think, you) are saying that their atheism is identical to a baby’s atheism. And that’s the point I’m making: if you ask a baby this question, the baby is unable to answer it, because the baby has not reflected on the question. A belief in a universe with zero gods in it, however tentative or contingent, is different from having no belief about the number of gods in the universe. > > This seems to me like a bleedin’ obvious point, and it may be bleedin’ obvious to you, but other folks in this thread have insisted otherwise. A reflective atheism, in which someone has considered the idea of divinity and decided it’s not likely (or impossible or whatever), is fundamentally different from an unconsidered atheism, in which my coffee mug, my cat, and my infant daughter\*, have not considered the idea of divinity at all, much less accepted or rejected it. > > - back when she was an infant I see what you’re getting at, and my stance is, if it cannot be rationalized one way or the other, by faith or logic, then theism, atheism, gnosticism, or agnosticism on the matter does not apply. Just as, a coffee mug or a baby can’t believe with any certainty or not in the existence of aliens. That doesn’t mean they’re not out there… Or not. So trying to apply that logic is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/312 "2014-11-09T16:42:09Z")
I am certain that there are no ‘Gods’ as currently defined by the various religious folks around. Does that mean that there are no beings out there that may be ‘godlike’ to our senses? I have no way of knowing the answer to that - but at this point there is no evidence for such. Absent evidence for - I am comfortable stating with utter assurity that there are ‘no gods’. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/313 "2014-11-09T16:47:34Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I am certain that there are no ‘Gods’ as currently defined by the various religious folks around. > > Does that mean that there are no beings out there that may be ‘godlike’ to our senses? I have no way of knowing the answer to that - but at this point there is no evidence for such. > > Absent evidence for - I am comfortable stating with utter assurity that there are ‘no gods’. Then you’re a Gnostic Atheist, practically speaking. And an Agnostic Atheist philosophically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/314 "2014-11-09T17:12:15Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Then you’re a Gnostic Atheist, practically speaking. > > And an Agnostic Atheist philosophically speaking. I’m simply an atheist - I have no _ **belief** _ ‘in’ gods - of any type. Recognizing that you can not prove a negative does not change one’s stance in this matter. Recognizing that we don’t ‘know’ everything does not changes one’s stance in this matter. (at least not mine) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/315 "2014-11-09T17:15:03Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I’m simply an atheist - I have no _ **belief** _ ‘in’ gods - of any type. > > Recognizing that you can not prove a negative does not change one’s stance in this matter. > > Recognizing that we don’t ‘know’ everything does not changes one’s stance in this matter. > (at least not mine) Exactly. That’s why you’re an Atheist on both counts. Gnosticism refers to what you can “know”. Not belief. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/316 "2014-11-09T17:20:12Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Exactly. > > That’s why you’re an Atheist on both counts. > > Gnosticism refers to what you can “know”. Not belief. Exactly squared. Which is why I went thru this exercise - to help demonstrate that simple ‘statement’ that many others - especially the theists - try to use as an argument of why there are no ‘true’ atheists. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/317 "2014-11-09T17:23:28Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Exactly squared. > > Which is why I went thru this exercise - to help demonstrate that simple ‘statement’ that many others - especially the theists - try to use as an argument of why there are no ‘true’ atheists. Then, yay! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/318 "2014-11-09T19:06:58Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Or maybe [this scientist](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/showing-god-does-not-exis_b_3757729.html) > While we cannot prove that every conceivable god does not exist, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god that plays such an important role in the universe such as the Abrahamic God would have been detected by now. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence that should be there is not. > > Another nutter? Nah. Just another example illustrating his own point that belief can lead people astray. He has a firm belief in the non-estence of god, (his position–not the default position of atheism), and he draws a conclusion from it that is not really supported by actual facts. It could even be true, but his assertion is only coincidental to the possible truth of his assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/319 "2014-11-09T19:52:14Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > You can’t have been paying attention, then. > > [Here](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/09/i-know-there-is-no-god/), for instance, is someone stating that “I know there is no God” > In fact, he laughs at people who _“say that they are 99.99999% sure there is no God but they can’t rule it out so they only lack belief”_ > > Does he sound like a nutter to you? > > Or maybe [this scientist](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/showing-god-does-not-exis_b_3757729.html) > While we cannot prove that every conceivable god does not exist, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god that plays such an important role in the universe such as the Abrahamic God would have been detected by now. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence that should be there is not. Sounds reasonable to me. Religions make all sorts of claims about what we should see if there is a god - claims either invalidated or lacking evidence. I fail to see absolute certainty anywhere in this quote. Clearly proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof in the legal sense - and no one says that is anywhere close to certainty.l Your first quote has the person saying he knows in a weak sense of knowledge - not absolute knowledge but the sense of know we use in everyday life. Again, he specifically rejects absolute certainty. He appears to have some threshold of probability above which he says he knows things, and thinks the nonexistence of God falls above this. Again, reasonable. In a world where a rock falling in Russia is recorded on a ton of videos, God is very scarce. Perhaps he is hiding out with the flying saucer pilots. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/320 "2014-11-09T19:57:27Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Allow me to answer your second part more sufficiently. > > I don’t believe in any deities. Athiest. > > I’m not 100% certain they can’t exist, since this particular idea is unique as a matter of my philosophy that either the universe came from Something or Nothing, though I cannot rule out that if it came from Something, that Something isn’t “supernatural or divine” in some way, but I don’t put much credence in that anymore. > > So, [looking at this graph,](http://sinaiandsynapses.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Agnosticism-Atheism.png) You could plug me in the bottom-corner: **Agnostic Atheist.** No reasonable person can say with 100% certainty that no gods exist, because it is a very big universe and God may have created it for someone else. So the nonexistence of any god is unknowable in the strict sense. The nonexistence of our common set of earthly gods is a bit less unknowable. I’m not an agnostic since the existence of a God could be very knowable if he chose to show up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=17)