3 ms·

A genuine atheist, or an agnostic? If the former, why deny yourself another fabulous mystery?

andrewstuart 4y ago
I’m a deep atheist. Nothing could convince me there is a god. I simply don’t believe in any sort of god at all. No heaven, no hell. When you’re dead, you're dead. You are welcome to your own beliefs. I won’t impose mine on you and don’t impose yours on me.
- serverholic 4y ago
  What if we’re in a simulation? Couldn’t you reasonably call the creators gods?
  - thret 4y ago
    This is the line of thought that got me to abandon strict atheism, as if we are in a simulation (something I allow to be plausible if not probable) surely the computer running the simulation would be God.
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      So perhaps universal god atheist, but local god agnostic?
      - serverholic 4y ago
        The problem is then what created the local god? Another simulation? Even if it's turtles all the way down you still have the problem why does the infinite turtle system exist at all?
- Thorentis 4y ago
  Heaven, hell, life after death are all completely unrelated to whether or not there is a God. Conflating them makes the question more prosaic.
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    Perhaps for students of theology/philosophy. For an atheist, having to debate them all separately creates a situation where the burden of debating each individual point (regardless of its logical soundness) is too exhausting of an effort and is unlikely to change anyone’s mind. As such, for claims that haven’t or can’t be proven by the scientific method, the burden of proof should probably lay with the one making the claim, not the one defending against it. Of course, in my experience, the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with most modern religions. Hence, there is really no need to discuss these things, as much as I’d like to. You’re just going to come across as imposing and/or tone deaf.
    - daseiner1 4y ago
      a belief in god is not synonymous with religion and the former is orthogonal to the scientific method. questions that can’t be proven by the scientific method have no concept of a burden of proof. thus the failing of logical positivism.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ShamelessC 4y ago
        I said most modern religions, and in my experience.
- keenboy 4y ago
  Isn’t it possible that incredibly advanced beings exist somewhere? And if so, what if they colonized earth long ago? Wouldn’t we call them “gods”?
  - tremon 4y ago
    The concept of God in Abrahamic mythology isn't about ancient beings that colonized the Earth. It's about a being that purposefully constructed our celestial sphere for our benefit. And most polytheist religions used gods as a proxy for natural phenomena that they couldn't explain otherwise (such as lightning, seasons, day/night, crop yield, etc).

I’m a deep atheist. Nothing could convince me there is a god. I simply don’t believe in any sort of god at all. No heaven, no hell. When you’re dead, you're dead. You are welcome to your own beliefs. I won’t impose mine on you and don’t impose yours on me.

serverholic 4y ago
What if we’re in a simulation? Couldn’t you reasonably call the creators gods?
- thret 4y ago
  This is the line of thought that got me to abandon strict atheism, as if we are in a simulation (something I allow to be plausible if not probable) surely the computer running the simulation would be God.
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    So perhaps universal god atheist, but local god agnostic?
    - serverholic 4y ago
      The problem is then what created the local god? Another simulation? Even if it's turtles all the way down you still have the problem why does the infinite turtle system exist at all?
Thorentis 4y ago
Heaven, hell, life after death are all completely unrelated to whether or not there is a God. Conflating them makes the question more prosaic.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  Perhaps for students of theology/philosophy. For an atheist, having to debate them all separately creates a situation where the burden of debating each individual point (regardless of its logical soundness) is too exhausting of an effort and is unlikely to change anyone’s mind. As such, for claims that haven’t or can’t be proven by the scientific method, the burden of proof should probably lay with the one making the claim, not the one defending against it. Of course, in my experience, the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with most modern religions. Hence, there is really no need to discuss these things, as much as I’d like to. You’re just going to come across as imposing and/or tone deaf.
  - daseiner1 4y ago
    a belief in god is not synonymous with religion and the former is orthogonal to the scientific method. questions that can’t be proven by the scientific method have no concept of a burden of proof. thus the failing of logical positivism.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      I said most modern religions, and in my experience.
keenboy 4y ago
Isn’t it possible that incredibly advanced beings exist somewhere? And if so, what if they colonized earth long ago? Wouldn’t we call them “gods”?
- tremon 4y ago
  The concept of God in Abrahamic mythology isn't about ancient beings that colonized the Earth. It's about a being that purposefully constructed our celestial sphere for our benefit. And most polytheist religions used gods as a proxy for natural phenomena that they couldn't explain otherwise (such as lightning, seasons, day/night, crop yield, etc).