7 ms·

>Well, it sounds like you went from being an atheist to an agnostic. That certainly is a more rational and less dogmatic position to take, based on what we know

>Well, it sounds like you went from being an atheist to an agnostic. That certainly is a more rational and less dogmatic position to take, based on what we know. What we know is that there is absolutely no proof that God exists. With that being the case, I don't see why being an atheist is not the most rational position to take. Can I win a $100 million lottery someday? Sure. Should I be living my life believing that I'd win a lottery? No, that would be stupid.

Pimpus 8y ago
Yeah, I've people compare belief in God to wagers or lotteries or invisible unicorns. I find arguments like this to be intellectually lazy. The universe had to be formed somehow, right? It's a mystery how. God is a possibility.
- axiom92 8y ago
  We don't know what it is, must be God. Sure, that's meticulous.
  - Pimpus 8y ago
    That's a strawman. It's not what I said. I'm saying that there being a creator is a serious possibility. It's certainly not the only one, but it doesn't deserve the flippant attitude or ridicule. And sure, God doesn't really "explain anything" (who created God? what is He like?). Doesn't mean it's not a possibility. Part of the atheistic position is an inability to admit that there are things we don't know. What's beyond the universe? We have no idea. I think many atheists are just reactionaries frustrated by the irrationality of religion and throw out all spiritual or religious concepts without thinking it through.
krageon 8y ago
Atheism says "god does not exist and I'm sure about this". This is exactly like saying "it's impossible for me to win the lottery" - that is the stupid position to take, because you know in this case it is untrue. Anything theological is impossible to prove one way or the other (or at least I've never heard of anything remotely approaching proof) and therefore a position of certainty one way or the other must be lunacy.
- cygx 8y ago
  Depends on your definition. Hand out sheets of paper and ask people to write down all the gods they believe exist. What's your term for people who hand in empty sheets? For many of us, that's non-theist, aka atheist. Also note that it's not only theological propositions that are impossible to prove: The omphalos hypothesis could be true and the whole universe could have started existing a microsecond ago. I could be a brain dreaming in a vat, or a simulation, and no one can prove that isn't the case. Should I be 'agnostic' about that, too?
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    Agnostics don't believe in any gods but they aren't atheists.
    - cygx 8y ago
      According to one definition among several possible definitions. Which definition is more useful will depend on the question you're asking. For example, agnostics are not theists, therefore they are a-theists - according to one possible definition of the term. Similarly, ignostics do not take a position on the existence of gods, therefore they are agnostics - according to one possible defintion of the term. In both case, you could argue that agnostics are not atheists, or that ignostics are different from agnostics. That does not mean that the binary classification theists/atheists or the tripartite classification theists/agnostic/atheist is wrong - it just means that you're asking a more nuanced question that requires a more nuanced terminology.
  - krageon 8y ago
    Yes, you should be. You should claim uncertainty about anything you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. It's fine to say you believe something is the case, but at that point you're talking about faith and you don't get to say what a "wrong" position is - it's faith after all. In any case, we're drifting way off-topic here. It's fine if you don't agree with what I think atheism is, although I would be interested to see what kind of definition you base it on. Aside from the definition (this means an outside source, not just something you write down here) I'd also be curious what you see as the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
spiralx 8y ago
> With that being the case, I don't see why being an atheist is not the most rational position to take. Because the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

Pimpus 8y ago

Yeah, I've people compare belief in God to wagers or lotteries or invisible unicorns. I find arguments like this to be intellectually lazy. The universe had to be formed somehow, right? It's a mystery how. God is a possibility.

axiom92 8y ago
We don't know what it is, must be God. Sure, that's meticulous.
- Pimpus 8y ago
  That's a strawman. It's not what I said. I'm saying that there being a creator is a serious possibility. It's certainly not the only one, but it doesn't deserve the flippant attitude or ridicule. And sure, God doesn't really "explain anything" (who created God? what is He like?). Doesn't mean it's not a possibility. Part of the atheistic position is an inability to admit that there are things we don't know. What's beyond the universe? We have no idea. I think many atheists are just reactionaries frustrated by the irrationality of religion and throw out all spiritual or religious concepts without thinking it through.

krageon 8y ago

Atheism says "god does not exist and I'm sure about this". This is exactly like saying "it's impossible for me to win the lottery" - that is the stupid position to take, because you know in this case it is untrue. Anything theological is impossible to prove one way or the other (or at least I've never heard of anything remotely approaching proof) and therefore a position of certainty one way or the other must be lunacy.

cygx 8y ago
Depends on your definition. Hand out sheets of paper and ask people to write down all the gods they believe exist. What's your term for people who hand in empty sheets? For many of us, that's non-theist, aka atheist. Also note that it's not only theological propositions that are impossible to prove: The omphalos hypothesis could be true and the whole universe could have started existing a microsecond ago. I could be a brain dreaming in a vat, or a simulation, and no one can prove that isn't the case. Should I be 'agnostic' about that, too?
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Agnostics don't believe in any gods but they aren't atheists.
  - cygx 8y ago
    According to one definition among several possible definitions. Which definition is more useful will depend on the question you're asking. For example, agnostics are not theists, therefore they are a-theists - according to one possible definition of the term. Similarly, ignostics do not take a position on the existence of gods, therefore they are agnostics - according to one possible defintion of the term. In both case, you could argue that agnostics are not atheists, or that ignostics are different from agnostics. That does not mean that the binary classification theists/atheists or the tripartite classification theists/agnostic/atheist is wrong - it just means that you're asking a more nuanced question that requires a more nuanced terminology.
- krageon 8y ago
  Yes, you should be. You should claim uncertainty about anything you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. It's fine to say you believe something is the case, but at that point you're talking about faith and you don't get to say what a "wrong" position is - it's faith after all. In any case, we're drifting way off-topic here. It's fine if you don't agree with what I think atheism is, although I would be interested to see what kind of definition you base it on. Aside from the definition (this means an outside source, not just something you write down here) I'd also be curious what you see as the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

spiralx 8y ago

> With that being the case, I don't see why being an atheist is not the most rational position to take. Because the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.