# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**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:** [February 5, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/341 "2013-02-05T22:23:46Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > So I would like to ask the people on here who consider themselves REAL atheists as defined by someone who does not believe in “god” (or whatever you want to call it), do you believe that physical matter came out of NOTHING with ABSOLUTELY NO FIRST CAUSE? > > Please answer with a simple “yes” if you believe this happened. > > If you answer with more than “yes” I doubt if you are a real atheist. > > (Something tells me, I am going to regret this post) We don’t have enough information to know. Our universe might have come from nothing with no first cause - but it also might have been created by some grad student in another brane. We can’t talk with certainty about things beyond our event horizon - and this kind of is. What I do know for sure is that it was not created by any god humans have talked about - unless that God is a big liar. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/342 "2013-02-05T22:25:18Z")
> [@FrankJBN](#): > > I have no belief in fire breathing bunnies. That means I actively believe there are no fire breathing bunnies. No, it doesn’t. If five minutes ago you would have asked me if I am with the belief that birds called Smoky Honey-Eaters exist, I would have answered “no.” If you would have asked the follow up question, “So, you actively believe there are no Smoky Honey-Eaters”? I would have told you that that’s not true. I have no belief that they do exist, but they might; there are many species of birds I have never heard of. ---
**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:** [February 5, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/343 "2013-02-05T22:28:05Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > 1. There are two types of atheism: strong and weak. Weak atheists simply believe the null hypothesis: they assume no god exists because of insufficient evidence. 99% of atheists are weak atheists. Strong atheists are the type you’re talking about – they claim they know for certain that gods don’t exist, they have as strong a burden of proof as theists and you’d be right in challenging them. Unfortunately, nobody you’re arguing with here is actually one of these people. The definition of strong atheist that I’ve seen is one who actively believes that there are no gods, as opposed to simply lacking belief in gods. By your definition there would be more like 99.999% weak atheists. I’ve only seen one atheist who claimed he really knew no gods exist with certainty, and he wasn’t really all that bright. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/344 "2013-02-05T22:28:08Z")
> [@FrankJBN](#): > > “Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist.” You could JUST SO HAPPEN to have never encountered the idea of a god, or say “eh, maybe, but probably not.” This is passive disbelief. Or you could say “I do not believe in god” (even if you leave a tiny shred of room for being wrong), that is active disbelief. There is an even stronger claim though that was central to what x-ray and I were talking about before, and that’s positive disbelief. Positive disbelief is much stronger (and I think obviously so) than passive disbelief. It’s a common thorn in math and science, too. A lot of people mistakenly say “you can’t prove a negative”, this isn’t actually true. It’s just that in most cases it’s intractable (and yes, occasionally impossible). Take for existence the claim “there are no currently living naturally purple haired cats”. This claim **could** be disproven by rounding up every single cat on the planet and checking its hair color. This is also, obviously, a completely ridiculous and entire impractical endeavor. Instead, I passively disbelieve in naturally purple haired cats because I lack evidence that they exist, and my knowledge of genetics and my incredibly thorough experience at looking at cats on the internet tells me that this is, at best, extremely unlikely. But I do not and cannot say for certain that there are no purple haired cats until I can either: 1. Round up all the cats and show none are purple (after all, there could be some freak feral cat in a cave somewhere in Mongolia) or 2. Provide some reason it is, a priori, impossible to have a purple haired cat. This is why it is important to distinguish between the two. Passive disbelief (or even very weak active disbelief) requires little effort and is pretty close to the default logical state. Positive disbelief requires special empirical or logical knowledge of the situation to be true. Some mathematicians spend tons of hours thinking just disproving (very complex, technical) statements. This is why physicists need billion dollar experiments just to tell them a small handful of potential models aren’t viable. Saying something truly, definitely is not the case is a much stronger claim than saying something is not the case until you’re proven wrong. > [@](#): > > And what’s this distinction between not believing in particular gods oe all gods. Since I disbelieve in the existence of god(s) that includes any particular god you choose and every other god imagined. There is no or involved. It’s an inclusive “or”, it could be one, the other, or both. Most Christians are atheists with respect to every god on the planet except for Jesus/God/Holy Spirit, for instance. A Christian is an atheist with respect to Thor. Self-described atheists tend to be atheists for the vast majority of things the vast majority of the world’s religions would term deities (or, as a common statement goes, “exactly one more god than Christians are atheists of”). ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/345 "2013-02-05T22:32:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The definition of strong atheist that I’ve seen is one who actively believes that there are no gods, as opposed to simply lacking belief in gods. By your definition there would be more like 99.999% weak atheists. I’ve only seen one atheist who claimed he really knew no gods exist with certainty, and he wasn’t really all that bright. Yeah, I admitted I was wrong about the strong atheist claim later on. I maintain that at least in my dialect my use of “assume” was correct though _crosses arms_. ---
**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:** [February 5, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/346 "2013-02-05T22:35:59Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. > > I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. Let’s start a petition on [whitehouse.gov](http://whitehouse.gov) about getting an emergency shipment of cosmology books released to those debating these topics. First, scientific proof is a misnomer. Science just provides provisional understanding about things, which can be changed with more data. Proofs without errors always stand. Second, no one says that all matter came from nothing. In fact matter is what happened to the energy of the cosmos when it cooled after the Big Bang, You know e = mc\*\*2, right? Third, what happened before the Big Bang is likely to always be unknowable, though we can have plenty of theories. So no one who understands this claims to know what happened before time. ---
**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:** [February 5, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/347 "2013-02-05T22:38:45Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I don’t know. Third base! (Sorry, those of us of a certain age can’t resist that straight line.) ---
**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:** [February 5, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/348 "2013-02-05T22:41:54Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Yeah, I admitted I was wrong about the strong atheist claim later on. I maintain that at least in my dialect my use of “assume” was correct though _crosses arms_. Sorry, just trying to catch up. I myself transitioned from weak to strong. Weak is a safer position because no one can really complain about you lacking belief unless they tell you why you should believe, while it makes some sense to quiz you why you believe there are no gods. The common, and incorrect, definition of agnostic is pretty much equivalent to weak atheist - so I appreciate those who use the correct term. ETA: I see you got that one too! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/349 "2013-02-05T23:06:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The definition of strong atheist that I’ve seen is one who actively believes that there are no gods, as opposed to simply lacking belief in gods. By your definition there would be more like 99.999% weak atheists. I’ve only seen one atheist who claimed he really knew no gods exist with certainty, and he wasn’t really all that bright. I’m pretty damn sure that the omnipotent and omniscient variety of God does not exist, because I consider the concepts to be logically self-contradictory. A triangle with five angles cannot exist, for somewhat the same reason. As for smaller gods, godlets, spirits, ghosts, and ha’nts, I’m comfortable with “weak atheism.” But when you posit an entity that “knows everything,” strong atheism kicks in, big time. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/350 "2013-02-05T23:12:20Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > [@koufax](#): > > > > So what the fuck is an agnostic then? > > I don’t know. Third base! ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/351 "2013-02-05T23:13:24Z")
^ See post 347. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/352 "2013-02-05T23:21:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’m pretty damn sure that the omnipotent and omniscient variety of God does not exist, because I consider the concepts to be logically self-contradictory. A triangle with five angles cannot exist, for somewhat the same reason. > > As for smaller gods, godlets, spirits, ghosts, and ha’nts, I’m comfortable with “weak atheism.” But when you posit an entity that “knows everything,” strong atheism kicks in, big time. It’s only a contradiction if he has all three of the big omnis. He could be omniscient and omnipotent but just be kind of an apathetic (or depressed) dick. He could be omniscient and omnibenevolent, but lacks the ability to do much about it (other than giving people hope though putting his son’s face on toast, of course). Well, okay, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is till a contradiction, since omnipotent kind of entails omniscience (I guess he has ultimate power but doesn’t know how to use it?). But still, it’s only when you get to that cross section of “loves everybody and wants everyone to be happy” and “knows everything and has unlimited cosmic power” that you get into contradiction territory. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/353 "2013-02-05T23:33:27Z")
Dammit! Scooped by **Voyager**! I’m at work, doing multiple shows throughout the day, and sometimes I open a reply window and then can’t finish what I’m typing for a while. So sometimes I get ninaj’d. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/354 "2013-02-06T00:19:21Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > OP here again and I apologize for what I started although I have learned two new cool words… Misotheists and Dystheists. > > So I would like to ask the people on here who consider themselves REAL atheists as defined by someone who does not believe in “god” (or whatever you want to call it), do you believe that physical matter came out of NOTHING with ABSOLUTELY NO FIRST CAUSE? > > Please answer with a simple “yes” if you believe this happened. > > If you answer with more than “yes” I doubt if you are a real atheist. > > (Something tells me, I am going to regret this post) Real atheist here - I do not believe that physical matter came out of nothing, nor do I believe there was a first cause. You can doubt all you want, it doesn’t matter to me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/355 "2013-02-06T01:19:23Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > What then are the people in foxholes called if they don’t believe in god I usually called my grandfather _“Grandpa,”_ but the soldiers who served alongside him typically mentioned his rank or his last name. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/356 "2013-02-06T01:24:07Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > It’s only a contradiction if he has all three of the big omnis. He could be omniscient and omnipotent but just be kind of an apathetic (or depressed) dick. He could be omniscient and omnibenevolent, but lacks the ability to do much about it (other than giving people hope though putting his son’s face on toast, of course). > > Well, okay, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is till a contradiction, since omnipotent kind of entails omniscience (I guess he has ultimate power but doesn’t know how to use it?). But still, it’s only when you get to that cross section of “loves everybody and wants everyone to be happy” and “knows everything and has unlimited cosmic power” that you get into contradiction territory. Where the hell did this “omnibenevolent” bullshit come from? I never even heard that term until very recently. And for good reason, in a universe where being benevolent to one person/tribe can yield a detrimental result for another, there is no room for omnibenevolence. By the same token, omnipotence is logically unworkable, because exerting power requires relinquishing power. The third omni is actually “omnipresent”, which I think would mean extratemporal – how could it exist everywhere and not also everywhen? Combine this with omniscience, and you have a being that already knows everything that will happen, which would imply a deterministic universe, something a great many believers would object to, because that cancels out “free will” (on which subject there is another thread). So, if someone asks me “Why don’t you believe in god?”, I think I have a pretty strong case for “Why should I?” ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/357 "2013-02-06T02:28:54Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > yes, I realize now that atheists don’t REALLY exist. (just like god) I agree, atheists don’t really exist. But God does. Now that we cleared up the definition of atheists…what should we tackle next. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/358 "2013-02-06T02:29:45Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I agree, atheists don’t really exist. But God does. Now that we cleared up the definition of atheists…what should we tackle next. Same question. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/359 "2013-02-06T02:32:23Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I agree, atheists don’t really exist. But God does. Now that we cleared up the definition of atheists…what should we tackle next. You do realize that **koufax** was trying to be ironic, right? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/360 "2013-02-06T03:02:12Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I agree, atheists don’t really exist. But God does. Now that we cleared up the definition of atheists…what should we tackle next. Your inability to understand how a dictionary works? Your arrogance in thinking you have the right to give new definitions to words that already _have_ well-established definitions? Your habit of supposedly agreeing with someone, then dumping said agreement in the toilet just a couple posts later? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=19)