7 ms·

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic theist (aka deist). Gnostic Theist: My God exists. Agnostic Theist: I accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic theist (aka deist). Gnostic Theist: My God exists. Agnostic Theist: I accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me Agnostic Atheist: I don't accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me. Gnostic Atheist: Deities do not exist.

whatshisface 3y ago
The operators of a computer simulation are not deities in the sense that most atheists would say they could prove didn't exist.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Atheism does not mean that you believe deities do not exist. It means you do not have the belief that they do. The absence of a belief in something does not imply a belief in the absence it. A definitive belief that deities do not exist is sometimes called strong atheism.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  Much cleaner versions is: Atheism is lack of beliefe in deity due to lack of evidence of any such/any deity. This pushes the burden of proof onto believers.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    This line of thinking is useful for rejecting others who are pushing specific beliefs, but is demonstrably flawed for making conclusions about things that are intrinsically impossible to observe.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      The thing is that it isn't a conclusion at all -- it's more of a suspension of arriving at a conclusion due to a lack of evidence supporting one.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        It “should” be
    - me_me_me 3y ago
      > impossible to observe. Meaning those things don't exist. If a thing makes no interactions with our universe by definition it doesn't exists
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    As an atheist, I don't actually care where people think the "burden of proof" lies, honestly. I have seen no evidence that there is a god, and that's all that matters to me. I have no interest in debating the existence or nonexistence of a god, so I have no need to prove or disprove anything.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Strictly speaking, no. There does not have to be any reason to not have a belief, although the one you cite will be common among those who have considered it. And you could still be an atheist even if there was evidence of a deity.
    - me_me_me 3y ago
      > And you could still be an atheist even if there was evidence of a deity. Ummmm,sure maybe proof is a better word than evidence. But if there was, it would be hard to justify staying atheist.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > A definitive belief that deities do not exist is sometimes called strong atheism. Yes indeed! My variation of atheism is often called "ignostic" -- that is, I can't tell you if I believe in god or not until you tell me what, exactly, you mean by "god". The more proper name for this is "incompetent atheism", but I dislike that name because it implies a different meaning than it has. Philosophy is fun!
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Ignostic, nice, I like it. That's a new one for me :)
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  > Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as "disbelief in God". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism The complication of the term for debate purposes only seems to come up in intellectual circles like ours, here.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    And the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article says "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.". I first understood atheism to mean an absence of belief in god as a child, and I wasn't hanging out in intellectual circles at the time! But it is certainly true that the meaning of it has shifted over time. I wouldnt say that the complication is for debate purposes only. It is a rather fundamental difference to me.
jncfhnb 3y ago
Eh, no. There’s an important semantic distinction between an external deity and an internal deity. An external deity is not present. It is not knowable. It is for all practical purposes, irrelevant. An internal deity is like Christian god. Perhaps you consider it to be the originator of the universe, perhaps you don’t. Perhaps they’re “in” the universe or not. But the important bit is that it’s “there”, with the power to influence or at least to justify a sense of spirituality. There’s no form of rational thinking that confidently concludes there’s no external deities. If you peel back the layers of agnosticism and atheism, they’re concerned with internal deities. Entities that are aesthetically deity like and have some sort of relevance that presents structure beyond observable physics. Typical atheism, even if not often articulated as such, believes that the world is what it is. External deities are intrinsically a toss up and acknowledging that does not make one conventionally agnostic.
drdeca 3y ago
I thought it was “gnostic P-ism” : “P, and I know (or am rather unlikely to be incorrect) in believing that P”, “agnostic P-ism” : “I think that P, but idk, maybe not P, who can say?” ? Is that not it?

whatshisface 3y ago

The operators of a computer simulation are not deities in the sense that most atheists would say they could prove didn't exist.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

Atheism does not mean that you believe deities do not exist. It means you do not have the belief that they do. The absence of a belief in something does not imply a belief in the absence it. A definitive belief that deities do not exist is sometimes called strong atheism.

me_me_me 3y ago
Much cleaner versions is: Atheism is lack of beliefe in deity due to lack of evidence of any such/any deity. This pushes the burden of proof onto believers.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  This line of thinking is useful for rejecting others who are pushing specific beliefs, but is demonstrably flawed for making conclusions about things that are intrinsically impossible to observe.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    The thing is that it isn't a conclusion at all -- it's more of a suspension of arriving at a conclusion due to a lack of evidence supporting one.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      It “should” be
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    > impossible to observe. Meaning those things don't exist. If a thing makes no interactions with our universe by definition it doesn't exists
- JohnFen 3y ago
  As an atheist, I don't actually care where people think the "burden of proof" lies, honestly. I have seen no evidence that there is a god, and that's all that matters to me. I have no interest in debating the existence or nonexistence of a god, so I have no need to prove or disprove anything.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Strictly speaking, no. There does not have to be any reason to not have a belief, although the one you cite will be common among those who have considered it. And you could still be an atheist even if there was evidence of a deity.
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    > And you could still be an atheist even if there was evidence of a deity. Ummmm,sure maybe proof is a better word than evidence. But if there was, it would be hard to justify staying atheist.
JohnFen 3y ago
> A definitive belief that deities do not exist is sometimes called strong atheism. Yes indeed! My variation of atheism is often called "ignostic" -- that is, I can't tell you if I believe in god or not until you tell me what, exactly, you mean by "god". The more proper name for this is "incompetent atheism", but I dislike that name because it implies a different meaning than it has. Philosophy is fun!
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Ignostic, nice, I like it. That's a new one for me :)
slowmovintarget 3y ago
> Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as "disbelief in God". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism The complication of the term for debate purposes only seems to come up in intellectual circles like ours, here.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  And the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article says "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.". I first understood atheism to mean an absence of belief in god as a child, and I wasn't hanging out in intellectual circles at the time! But it is certainly true that the meaning of it has shifted over time. I wouldnt say that the complication is for debate purposes only. It is a rather fundamental difference to me.

jncfhnb 3y ago

Eh, no. There’s an important semantic distinction between an external deity and an internal deity. An external deity is not present. It is not knowable. It is for all practical purposes, irrelevant. An internal deity is like Christian god. Perhaps you consider it to be the originator of the universe, perhaps you don’t. Perhaps they’re “in” the universe or not. But the important bit is that it’s “there”, with the power to influence or at least to justify a sense of spirituality. There’s no form of rational thinking that confidently concludes there’s no external deities. If you peel back the layers of agnosticism and atheism, they’re concerned with internal deities. Entities that are aesthetically deity like and have some sort of relevance that presents structure beyond observable physics. Typical atheism, even if not often articulated as such, believes that the world is what it is. External deities are intrinsically a toss up and acknowledging that does not make one conventionally agnostic.

drdeca 3y ago

I thought it was “gnostic P-ism” : “P, and I know (or am rather unlikely to be incorrect) in believing that P”, “agnostic P-ism” : “I think that P, but idk, maybe not P, who can say?” ? Is that not it?