4 ms·

If you simply don't believe in god, you're agnostic. If you actively believe that there is no god, you're atheist.

by gridspy 12y ago

collyw 12y ago
Actively believing there is no god, without proof of his/her/it's non existence is as evidence based as religion.
- Thimothy 12y ago
  Not arguing if this statement is right or wrong, but I think you should know that your phrase is highly controversial and the beginning of thousands flame wars through the internet. Maybe you should avoid it unless it is completely relevant to the topic at hand.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Not believing in Santa Claus, Zeus, Imhotep, Peter Pan, or The Green Lantern without proof of their non-existence is etc. etc.? The burden of proof lies with the claim of existence. In the absence of any evidence, nonexistence is the default assumption. Yet disbelief in all of these things is based on evidence, since we have looked in the places people used to believe they lived and/or domains they were believed to control, andand they weren't there.
  - mmalone 12y ago
    How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.
      - mmalone 12y ago
        I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
        prawn 12y ago
        Might help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.
        mmalone 12y ago
        Not implying anything other than that it's a proper name. Meh.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        I'm afraid I don't see the benefit of believing in a tautologically defined creator of the universe, nor do I see why such a thing should be called "god" or "God" when that term/name has so much additional meaning associated with it. It's an unnecessary complication; if calling the Big Bang or whatever might have preceded it "god" provides useful explanatory and predictive power, then such a definition might gain some traction. But as it is, the universe appears indistinguishable from a naturalistic physical process.
innguest 12y ago
Please stop spreading this myth. Agnosticism is about whether you think it's provable that there is or isn't a god. Atheism is about whether you as a person believe in a god or not. You can believe in a god (be a theist) and still think it's not provable that there is one (be an agnostic).

If you simply don't believe in god, you're agnostic. If you actively believe that there is no god, you're atheist.

by gridspy 12y ago

If you simply don't believe in god, you're agnostic. If you actively believe that there is no god, you're atheist.

collyw 12y ago

Actively believing there is no god, without proof of his/her/it's non existence is as evidence based as religion.

Thimothy 12y ago
Not arguing if this statement is right or wrong, but I think you should know that your phrase is highly controversial and the beginning of thousands flame wars through the internet. Maybe you should avoid it unless it is completely relevant to the topic at hand.
nitrogen 12y ago
Not believing in Santa Claus, Zeus, Imhotep, Peter Pan, or The Green Lantern without proof of their non-existence is etc. etc.? The burden of proof lies with the claim of existence. In the absence of any evidence, nonexistence is the default assumption. Yet disbelief in all of these things is based on evidence, since we have looked in the places people used to believe they lived and/or domains they were believed to control, andand they weren't there.
- mmalone 12y ago
  How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.
    - mmalone 12y ago
      I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
      - prawn 12y ago
        Might help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.
        mmalone 12y ago
        Not implying anything other than that it's a proper name. Meh.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        I'm afraid I don't see the benefit of believing in a tautologically defined creator of the universe, nor do I see why such a thing should be called "god" or "God" when that term/name has so much additional meaning associated with it. It's an unnecessary complication; if calling the Big Bang or whatever might have preceded it "god" provides useful explanatory and predictive power, then such a definition might gain some traction. But as it is, the universe appears indistinguishable from a naturalistic physical process.

innguest 12y ago

Please stop spreading this myth. Agnosticism is about whether you think it's provable that there is or isn't a god. Atheism is about whether you as a person believe in a god or not. You can believe in a god (be a theist) and still think it's not provable that there is one (be an agnostic).