4 ms·

If being an atheist required 100% certainty, then only the omniscient could be atheist(and presumably only a deity can be omniscient, making atheism a paradox).

by b_t_s 6y ago

If being an atheist required 100% certainty, then only the omniscient could be atheist(and presumably only a deity can be omniscient, making atheism a paradox). In practice, most of us draw the line somewhere around "highly unlikely".

tines 6y ago
Yes, even Richard Dawkins described himself as being "6 out of 7" sure that God doesn't exist (or something like that), but I think he should still be called an atheist.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Many (most?) Christians are really only about 6 out of 7 sure that they're on the right track, too, and that doesn't seem to make them into something else, either.
  - tines 6y ago
    Of course. And the confession "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief" in Mark 9:24 was apparently good enough for Jesus.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
The definition of agnostic seems closer to “not knowing and not pretending to know” to me than an atheist. Although, I guess my personal definition has been that theist assumes a higher being exists, an atheist assumes no higher being exists, and agnostic assumes nothing.
- barrucadu 6y ago
  Unfortunately, "atheism" is a broad term which covers both people who do not believe in a higher power, and people who claim that no higher powers exist.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    What is the difference between not believing in a higher power and claiming no higher power exists?
    - barrucadu 6y ago
      I lack a belief that there is a person in Argentina called Smergold Abrahamson, as that is a ridiculous name and I have no reason to believe that they exist. But I'm not going to claim with certainty that they don't.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I think the word believe is unnecessarily complicating this. As I stated above in another comment, assumption is a better word to use than believe, so substituting that gives: “I do not assume that there is a person in Argentina called Smergold Abrahamson, as that is a ridiculous name. But I am not going to claim with certainty that they do not exist”. Which is more concisely re-written as: “I assume there is a very low probability of the existence of a person in Argentina called Smergold Abrahamson”. Which going back to the original comment, I see the difference now: “not believing (assuming) in a higher power” is different than “claiming (assuming) no higher power exists”
- soylentcola 6y ago
  I'm sure I've read this elsewhere and didn't come up with the distinction on my own, but my thoughts on this are: Theism and atheism refer to a belief or lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to a (claim of) knowledge of the existence of god(s). I'd consider myself an atheist because I don't personally believe there are gods, but I'm also agnostic regarding the possibility. I don't have enough info to rule out the possibility of a deity or deities, but I don't have any reason to believe there are any (or at the very least, not any that have a direct and personal interaction with humanity).
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That seems like an unnecessary complication of the words “belief” and “knowledge”. Belief = assumption + ego. I prefer to use the word assumption, it’s much cleaner and means the same thing as belief, without invoking emotions. Therefore I don’t see any difference in assuming or not assuming the existence of god(s), and knowledge of the existence of god(s), which are still assumptions anyway. I’m only seeing the utility of defining the following 3 groups: 1) assumes existence of god(s) 2) assumes lack of existence of god(s) 3) assumes nothing regarding the existence of god(s)

by b_t_s 6y ago

tines 6y ago

Yes, even Richard Dawkins described himself as being "6 out of 7" sure that God doesn't exist (or something like that), but I think he should still be called an atheist.

pwinnski 6y ago
Many (most?) Christians are really only about 6 out of 7 sure that they're on the right track, too, and that doesn't seem to make them into something else, either.
- tines 6y ago
  Of course. And the confession "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief" in Mark 9:24 was apparently good enough for Jesus.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

The definition of agnostic seems closer to “not knowing and not pretending to know” to me than an atheist. Although, I guess my personal definition has been that theist assumes a higher being exists, an atheist assumes no higher being exists, and agnostic assumes nothing.

barrucadu 6y ago
Unfortunately, "atheism" is a broad term which covers both people who do not believe in a higher power, and people who claim that no higher powers exist.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  What is the difference between not believing in a higher power and claiming no higher power exists?
  - barrucadu 6y ago
    I lack a belief that there is a person in Argentina called Smergold Abrahamson, as that is a ridiculous name and I have no reason to believe that they exist. But I'm not going to claim with certainty that they don't.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I think the word believe is unnecessarily complicating this. As I stated above in another comment, assumption is a better word to use than believe, so substituting that gives: “I do not assume that there is a person in Argentina called Smergold Abrahamson, as that is a ridiculous name. But I am not going to claim with certainty that they do not exist”. Which is more concisely re-written as: “I assume there is a very low probability of the existence of a person in Argentina called Smergold Abrahamson”. Which going back to the original comment, I see the difference now: “not believing (assuming) in a higher power” is different than “claiming (assuming) no higher power exists”
soylentcola 6y ago
I'm sure I've read this elsewhere and didn't come up with the distinction on my own, but my thoughts on this are: Theism and atheism refer to a belief or lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to a (claim of) knowledge of the existence of god(s). I'd consider myself an atheist because I don't personally believe there are gods, but I'm also agnostic regarding the possibility. I don't have enough info to rule out the possibility of a deity or deities, but I don't have any reason to believe there are any (or at the very least, not any that have a direct and personal interaction with humanity).
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  That seems like an unnecessary complication of the words “belief” and “knowledge”. Belief = assumption + ego. I prefer to use the word assumption, it’s much cleaner and means the same thing as belief, without invoking emotions. Therefore I don’t see any difference in assuming or not assuming the existence of god(s), and knowledge of the existence of god(s), which are still assumptions anyway. I’m only seeing the utility of defining the following 3 groups: 1) assumes existence of god(s) 2) assumes lack of existence of god(s) 3) assumes nothing regarding the existence of god(s)