What drives me nuts are people that reject religion, but hold on to some ill-defined, untestable supernatural something. If something is outside of our universe, and it can not be observed or measured in any manner, and it has no real effect on anything in our universe, and one can make no predictions based on it’s existence, and it wouldn’t really have any effect if it did exist, then I think one can make that one last leap and say it’s existence is indistinguishable from not existing.
It does however allow you to refrain from uttering the dread words “I’m an atheist.”
So the consensus seems to be, “With all of the available data at my disposal, I have not seen evidence of the existence of a God/gods, therefore I do not believe there is one/any”
How is this different from agnosticism?
In response to the OP, I’d say that I’m sure there is no evidence for the existence of God. What other stuff with no evidence should I believe in? Zombies, Vampires, Space Ninjas? Are Space Ninjas a belief you’d be willing to admit are as likely as God? If not, why not? We know ninjas existed. We know space exists. We, however have never seen any evidence for immaterial beings. Believing in one is an act of self-delusion.
Given that there is equal evidence for God and Cthulhu, why should I choose God? The whole concept of plunging your hand into the infinite vat of possible Gods and choosing one is utterly stupid.
This is why, rather than taking up theism, agnosticism, or atheism, I’ve wholeheartedly embraced apatheism, also known as the who-gives-a-shit philosophy.
I was so very disappointed when I found that Wikipedia page. I was certain I was the first person to come up with apatheism.
Atheism is not mutually exclusive from agnosticism.
When I say agnostic, I refer to someone who asserts that that the question of the existence of God or gods is something humans can never answer with any degree of certainty. In other words, he’s saying that the question itself cannot be answered. To give a somewhat silly analogy, consider this question: what was the first thing Abraham Lincoln had to eat on the day of 19 June, 1852? He was alive that day; it’s likely that he ate that day. But since he kept no diaries, and we hve no means of time travel or reasonable belief we ever will be able to travel through time, I am agnostic as to what he ate that day.
Contrariwise, when I say atheist, I mean a person who is willing to positively assert, based on either the lack of evidence or for philosophical reasons, that neither God nor gods exist. Continuing the previous example: I am entirely certain that, on 19 June 1852, Mr. Lincoln did NOT have a microwave burrito. The microwave was decades from being invented after all. Now, while it’s conceivable that he had access to one via time travel, or because the ancient Egyptians had invented the microwave and requisite power structure, brought same to America, and hidden them where he had access to them, I am certain that neither is true, and unless I was given extraordinarily strong evidence I will disbelieve them.
As I wrote upthread, I am a technical agnostic but practical atheist. Philosophically, I have to call the matter of God’s or the gods’ existence unsettled, but I can imagine them existing. But practically speaking, I know of no mythological deity that could exist, and I see no reason to think I’ll be proven wrong. It’s obvious that Yahweh, Zeus, Wotan, Krishna, Superman, and so forth are only fictions.
It’s not as cowardly. Agnosticism is about sucking up to the believers; it’s about being unwilling to simply say “I don’t believe” the way you would about other ridiculous beliefs. People don’t say they are “agnostic” about unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters or Sauron; it’s religion that gets that treatment because it panders to the believers by pretending their nonsense deserves to be taken seriously.
What if they all have it wrong. What if we are all two dimensional blind men trying to describe a 3 dimensional elephant?
It might be hard for 2 dimensional blind men to understand the motives and behaviour of a three dimensional elephant.
This is the part that I have trouble with too. Does that mean you have less objection to religions like Buddhism?
I’m pretty sure there are at least some posters that think that claim that when we die thats the end. No part of us survives death, there is nothing beyond the physical universe as we know it.
This is a good point. And many religions make it relevant by saying that there is some sort of cause and effect between what happens here and what happens there.
I think some people get a lot of comfort from the fact that so many other people seem to think its plausible. Perhaps religions just fills some basic psychological need that most of us have and that account for the large number of people with faith but most people have more faith in religion than pink unicorns.
And I think that is a reasonable position but on this board it seems to be open season on anyone who is religious. I am a fairly rational person and I realize that my religious faith is not grounded in facts but I believe nonetheless, I can’t help it. A lot of people in the world feel the same way, are we all suffering from an incredibly prevalent psychosis?
Its more than dismissing it as lacking proof, its actively saying that those who have faith are fooling themselves and might as well believe in pink unicorns.
I take it you don’t believe the stuff they say in the bible, huh? It would certainly qualify as one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated.
If only faith could be had for the trying.
Science frequently requires reproducable results. We understand how lightning works but are usually unable to predict exactly where lightning will strike, we are unable to predict when earthquakes will occur. I think its a bit arrogant to believe that we understand enough about the way things work to rule out something that man has believed almost since he could think.
Some religions say that what you do in this world has consequences in the other.
Well, perhaps my understanding will never be good enough by somebody else’s standards, but it’s all I’ve got. Once we admit “Eh, who knows. This reasoning looks sound, but I could be wrong about it. I could be wrong about everything. Why bother thinking?”, all reasoning goes out the window (“Is 25 * 32 equal to 800? Eh, it looks like it is, but perhaps I’ll just never understand the subtle flaw in my argument.”). So, fine, you can consider such a possibility, if you like, but moving past it is not defective reasoning; it’s the only reasoning there is…
If you have evidence that that is not true, please say it. But ,you don’t. There isn’t any. All you have is made up myths and stories that are passed along by “educating” kids into it. I have a life time with zero data confirming the existence of ghosts, angels, gods and unicorns. Faith is the ability to continue believing in something with no evidence to support it.
Then you should try harder.
Yes, all believers agreeing with those terms are suffering a psychosis (disregarding the usually attached qualifier concerning severity). Specifically, if psychosis is defined as: a loss of contact with reality and fact is defined as: knowledge or information based on reality, then maintaining steadfast belief in something that you admit is not grounded in reality is a psychosis. That’s definitional, based on the admission that one’s religious faith is not grounded in fact; one might also use the term delusional.
If, on the other hand, one claims that one’s religious belief is grounded in fact (but of a special kind, e.g., revelation, special insight, emotional truth, etc.), then that changes things, becoming an argument about what qualifies as “fact” and/or the facts themselves.
And I say that in the other world there are pink fairies with green wings. So what?
And how is that different from delusion?
Well as far as Judeo Christian religions, we can pretty much discount them. The claim is that the Bible is divinely inspired. Yet Genesis gets it all wrong about the order of events in creation, i.e. earth created before the sun. You would think God would know how he did it and his revealed word would reflect that. It doesn’t. QED.
Well, IMO, it’s not. 
What it does do is attempt to ground the belief claim on a factual base, and thus outside the definition of “psychosis” I supplied.
Divinely inspired need not mean factually inerrant or literally true. I can name several pastors I know personally who would say that the Bible has far more metaphor and poetry and history, and one whom I have heard explicitly discount the Virgin Birth (just to name one doctrine) in a sermon as “irrelevant” and who has, in small-group discussions, explained why that doctrine arose from a misreading of Old Testament texts and a desire to insert proof of prophecies being fulfilled.
Oh, I’m sure there are lots, including myself. But this is the quote by the OP I was responding to:
I haven’t witnessed any posters here claiming there are definitively no gods. Even those that claim they are hard atheists acknowledge they aren’t making any definitive claims about reality. If you ask me if I know if there’s a car in my garage, I will answer with a yes. But that’s because I’d be using a more every day definition of know. On a more philosophical level, I realize I can know nothing except for maybe “I am”, and maybe not even that.
Also, the quote by the OP infers that atheists necessarily make definitive claims about the non-existence of gods which I hope he now understands isn’t the case.
Fair enough. But when I get to the point that you are and I sail on the ocean, look down from a hilltop, or watch a mother care for her child, I am supposed to think that this all just happened? By a quirk? That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. It seems that there is a higher order above us that guides us.
It would be like a society of worms that live underground. They only know the dirt and the area around them. I’m sure that the “atheists” in the worm community would think (if they were sentient) that this 100 sq foot parcel of land was all that there was and that since there is no evidence of anything beyond it, then there is not anything else.
I’m not putting you all down, but I can’t come around to atheism.