Is anyone else on this site an atheist?

[Comic Sans 401]

Yes, I am atheist and I have no problem with people who aren't.

[alpinefroggy 451]

I'd argue that atheism isn't actually the default position simply because the decision is made not to believe. Agnosticism, where one neither believes or disbelieves, sounds more like a neutral position to me. Whether they don't know enough to say or don't care.

 

Whether one is open to a change of view is irrelevant though. Everyone should be willing to accept new information regardless of which side they take.

 

It is actually.  And heres why and I will make some analogies.  Atheism as I said is the lack of belief in gods.  It is not the assertion that one does not exist.

 

In a court it is the prosecutions role is to prove the defendant is guilty.  This role is held by the theists.  The defendant does not have to prove they are not guilty because the default position is not innocence but not guilty just like the default position in 'does god exist' is atheism.  The jury does not vote on whether the defendant is innocent they vote not guilty or guilty.  Innocence would be antitheism but alas it is not argued that innocence is true.

 

Or on the loch ness monster.  The default position is not that it does exist or that it does not exist.  It simply is a lack of belief on either side, just like atheism is a lack of belief in gods. I dont have to assert that the loch ness monster does not exist to reject the claim by someone who thinks it does exist.

 

Agnosticism is being conflated with atheism in your statement here.  Agnosticism is not an assertion or lack thereof about the god claim.  It is a declaration of what you can know about the god claim.  If you have lack a belief in gods or a god, and you are agnostic, then you are by definition an atheist.  Personally people who say they are pure agnostics are just avoiding the atheist label or they do not fully understand what atheism actually is.

 

You don't make the decision to disbelieve.  You by default have no declaration on the god claim.  You make the decision to believe a god exists or does not exist, these have the decision because they are postive claims for knowledge.  Atheism lacks a positive claim for knowledge so it is the same thing as having no belief in faeries, or the loch ness monster or in this case the god claim. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Britney Biskit 55]

I am like, atheist to. But I don't like, have anything against people who are into religion (Unless they take it to far)

[Manman20x6 359]

I'm sort of inbetween agnostic and athiest... I say that because every time I decide to give religion a little slack, someone religious person types in something incredibly retarded and any respect I had for them drops back to zero again. >_<

 

There is no such thing as "in between agnostic and atheist". Either you believe in god, or you don't. "Agnostic" is a modifier you add to your position to specify that you are not 100% certain in your belief (or lack thereof). So you ARE an atheist.

 

Personally, I consider myself to be anti-theist, meaning that I believe religion does more harm than good overall. Just look at the way gay people are treated, even in developed countries like the USA, to see proof of the evils of organized faith.

[gamecubeguy214 2,512]

I do have a small bit of belief in God, but I use scientific explanations for things rather than saying ''Because God made it that way''.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,533]

I am an atheist as well and while I am not fond of religion itself, I have absolutely no problem with people having religious beliefs, as long as they are not forced upon others. For me, it is the people that matter and religious beliefs that they may have does not dictate this for me, unless provoked.

[Discordian 6,015]

It is actually.  And heres why and I will make some analogies.  Atheism as I said is the lack of belief in gods.  It is not the assertion that one does not exist.

 

In a court it is the prosecutions role is to prove the defendant is guilty.  This role is held by the theists.  The defendant does not have to prove they are not guilty because the default position is not innocence but not guilty just like the default position in 'does god exist' is atheism.  The jury does not vote on whether the defendant is innocent they vote not guilty or guilty.  Innocence would be antitheism but alas it is not argued that innocence is true.

 

Or on the loch ness monster.  The default position is not that it does exist or that it does not exist.  It simply is a lack of belief on either side, just like atheism is a lack of belief in gods. I dont have to assert that the loch ness monster does not exist to reject the claim by someone who thinks it does exist.

 

Agnosticism is being conflated with atheism in your statement here.  Agnosticism is not an assertion or lack thereof about the god claim.  It is a declaration of what you can know about the god claim.  If you have lack a belief in gods or a god, and you are agnostic, then you are by definition an atheist.  Personally people who say they are pure agnostics are just avoiding the atheist label or they do not fully understand what atheism actually is.

 

You don't make the decision to disbelieve.  You by default have no declaration on the god claim.  You make the decision to believe a god exists or does not exist, these have the decision because they are postive claims for knowledge.  Atheism lacks a positive claim for knowledge so it is the same thing as having no belief in faeries, or the loch ness monster or in this case the god claim. 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh. I see your point. I guess I was falling into the idea that atheism is the expressed denial of the existence of a god. That's how it's most commonly used, at least.

 

So what do you call someone who doesn't assert either claim and both believes and disbelieves in the existence of gods at the same time? That's kinda where I sit. I believe everything is possible, including the idea that nothing is possible.

 

I know it kinda contradicts itself but I could never make up my mind whether I believed or disbelieved so I kinda sit inbetween and just constantly explore the possibilities. My philosophical motto is generally "Question everything. Everything."

[Kapitan zur See Hans (Daz) 883]

I am an atheist, I do not believe in any form of higher power presented in human religions today or in past religions. Now this may push me into the agnostic category however I refuse to acknowledge that, but I believe it is entirely possible for there to be higher beings. This isn't to say that there is a deity out there, but the possibility of another being that has the capabilities of what a human may perceive as a god. Unless the being was around before existence of anything in this universe I can't believe in a deity.

[alpinefroggy 451]

Huh. I see your point. I guess I was falling into the idea that atheism is the expressed denial of the existence of a god. That's how it's most commonly used, at least.

 

So what do you call someone who doesn't assert either claim and both believes and disbelieves in the existence of gods at the same time? That's kinda where I sit. I believe everything is possible, including the idea that nothing is possible.

 

I know it kinda contradicts itself but I could never make up my mind whether I believed or disbelieved so I kinda sit inbetween and just constantly explore the possibilities. My philosophical motto is generally "Question everything. Everything."

That is a a self contradictory proposition and for lack of better a better term, rhetorical and logical nonsense. You don't really make up your mind to disbelieve. You by default disbelieve in everything until you make a positive claim for knowledge. Atheism is the most nuetral stance you can have as long as you don't also accept antitheism. If you claimed no God exists in which case you are an antitheist or a gnostic atheist. I would best categorize you as an agnostic atheist. It's a pretty broad term. If you claim to know you cant/don't know in either direction and accept no gods then that is what you are.

[Justin_Case001 4,891]

I am an agnostic atheist.  I believe that it's technically intellectually dishonest to be gnostic anything.

 

To clarify: 

 

                 gnostic theist: absolutely sure god exists

                 agnostic theist: not sure, but god probably exists

                 gnostic atheist: absolutely sure god does not exist

                 agnostic atheist, not sure, but god probably doesn't exist.

 

To be gnostic anything seems presumptuous to me, because it's impossible to know one way or the other.  We cannot conclusively prove or disprove god.  (Not yet, anyway.)  So, I'm agnostic atheist, with a pretty heavy lean towards the atheist.  I completely respect and tolerate spiritual belief.  I don't want any part of it, but I tolerate and respect it.  However, I am opposed to organized religion for a variety of reasons.  I don't want to turn this into a debate, but I just can't answer the title question without mentioning that.

 

 

I still think Vladimir Putin might be a fictional character.

You win for best quote ever said on MLPF.  Hats off, dude.

[Discordian 6,015]

That is a a self contradictory proposition and for lack of better a better term, rhetorical and logical nonsense. You don't really make up your mind to disbelieve. You by default disbelieve in everything until you make a positive claim for knowledge. Atheism is the most nuetral stance you can have as long as you don't also accept antitheism. If you claimed no God exists in which case you are an antitheist or a gnostic atheist. I would best categorize you as an agnostic atheist. It's a pretty broad term. If you claim to know you cant/don't know in either direction and accept no gods then that is what you are.

I dunno. It's not as simple as saying I don't believe when I regularly talk to/pray to random gods on the chance they actually exist.

 

In conversations like this one I can just as easily argue against religion as I can argue for it.

 

Sometimes I have faith that there is a higher being out there and will argue to hell and back for that cause. Other times I do exactly the opposite and only believe what is provable. Sometimes I do both at the exact same time.

 

I also don't believe a contradiction is proof of nonexistence, which is part of why I'm like that.

[alpinefroggy 451]

I dunno. It's not as simple as saying I don't believe when I regularly talk to/pray to random gods on the chance they actually exist.

 

In conversations like this one I can just as easily argue against religion as I can argue for it.

 

Sometimes I have faith that there is a higher being out there and will argue to hell and back for that cause. Other times I do exactly the opposite and only believe what is provable. Sometimes I do both at the exact same time.

 

I also don't believe a contradiction is proof of nonexistence, which is part of why I'm like that.

The label is simple it's either atheist you lack a belief or theist you have a belief. It can change because labels can be narrow. Personally I have no idea why you would want to bounce back and forth it we can take that to the debate forum.

 

A contradiction isn't proof of anything, it's just nonsense.

[Discordian 6,015]

The label is simple it's either atheist you lack a belief or theist you have a belief. It can change because labels can be narrow. Personally I have no idea why you would want to bounce back and forth it we can take that to the debate forum.

 

A contradiction isn't proof of anything, it's just nonsense.

I certainly don't do it intentionally. It literally happens on the fly at any given moment. It gives me a range of perspectives to work with though.

 

I guess there's not a word for being both atheist and theist at the same time.

[alpinefroggy 451]

I certainly don't do it intentionally. It literally happens on the fly at any given moment. It gives me a range of perspectives to work with though.

 

I guess there's not a word for being both atheist and theist at the same time.

You can't be both atheist and theist at the same time because you do not meet both definitions if you do. A term which could describe the situation: doublethink.

If you hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time then that is irrational. I hate to say make up your mind but what you say makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Discordian 6,015]

You can't be both atheist and theist at the same time because you do not meet both definitions if you do. A term which could describe the situation: doublethink.

If you hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time then that is irrational. I hate to say make up your mind but what you say makes absolutely no sense to me.

I feel it's important to think irrationally when pondering the mysteries of the universe simply because there are so many viewpoints that can't be reconciled so I'm okay with that state of affairs, personally.

[Buzz 1,769]

Yes, Im an atheist. Nothing more, nothing less. Id say why but most people have stated my reasons above and im really not in the mood for a religious argument! -_-

[Kivil 1,721]

I'm an Atheist but I have to not talk about it at school considering I live in "The Christian Belt" everyone at my school is a Christian and I most definitely hate it.

[Wicked Funky 2,955]

I'm an atheist, wich some of my (christian) class mates has some major problems with. First day of high school went something like this, "Hey dude guy man, you christian mate?" "nah"  "some other religion?" "nah." "What do you belive in then? a dust cloud in space?!" "I don't exactly belive in anything." "Your life must be depressing man."  (his actuall words).... I don't like them :I

 

@,

 

I know the feel. Religion can be such a pain sometimes.... Well some of the religious people at least...

Edited January 6, 2016 by InTEMsive

[Shadowdragon606060 16]

MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME MEEEEE

 

I dont believe in go dor heaven or hell. God is stupid and really mean. I wouldnt believe in him even if he was real. (But he isnt so yay)

[alpinefroggy 451]

I feel it's important to think irrationally when pondering the mysteries of the universe simply because there are so many viewpoints that can't be reconciled so I'm okay with that state of affairs, personally.

Why would you ever want to do that? That is not the way to explore the universe. The mysteries of the universe are explored without presuppositions. The Big Bang and universal expansion came out of the red shifting galaxies away from us. This was from open minded scientists who didn't hold contradictory beliefs. What you do is take the position of atheism and do not hold any beliefs about anything until they are demonstrated. Acting irrationally will cloud your ability to evaluate things and you are not justified in any way from taking contradictory beliefs or claims that have not been demonstrated.

[Discordian 6,015]

Why would you ever want to do that? That is not the way to explore the universe. The mysteries of the universe are explored without presuppositions. The Big Bang and universal expansion came out of the red shifting galaxies away from us. This was from open minded scientists who didn't hold contradictory beliefs. What you do is take the position of atheism and do not hold any beliefs about anything until they are demonstrated. Acting irrationally will cloud your ability to evaluate things and you are not justified in any way from taking contradictory beliefs or claims that have not been demonstrated.

Let's put it this way: I'm not a scientist. Nor will I ever be.

 

I don't believe something has to be demonstrated to be true either. There's too many things that simply can't be explained using the physics of our universe because they contradict existing math and science.

[KatonRyu 1,033]

I'm more agnostic than atheist because while I, like you, don't believe in God because of lack of scientific evidence, the existence of a deity can also not be disproven. (I'm only referring to the existence of God, not anything that has been written in the Bible. Many of those claims have been soundly disproven.) In any case, I see no reason to believe because modern science does not require the existence of a god.

[alpinefroggy 451]

Let's put it this way: I'm not a scientist. Nor will I ever be.

 

I don't believe something has to be demonstrated to be true either. There's too many things that simply can't be explained using the physics of our universe because they contradict existing math and science.

Science does not have to be the sole provider of explanations for reality. However. Reason and evidence are the best ways to demonstrate something. My position is that you are not justified in believing something you cannot demonstrate. To do so is irrational because it opens up a whole bunch of things you in theory could not demonstrate that are beyond science or reason and evidence and use this same like of reasoning to justify things like big foot, or magic, or the existence of a soul.

 

What are these things you that contradict existing science and math you say?

[Discordian 6,015]

Science does not have to be the sole provider of explanations for reality. However. Reason and evidence are the best ways to demonstrate something. My position is that you are not justified in believing something you cannot demonstrate. To do so is irrational because it opens up a whole bunch of things you in theory could not demonstrate that are beyond science or reason and evidence and use this same like of reasoning to justify things like big foot, or magic, or the existence of a soul.

 

What are these things you that contradict existing science and math you say?

Anything fiction. It's a whole new ball game when you get into how things work in fictional universes.

[alpinefroggy 451]

Anything fiction. It's a whole new ball game when you get into how things work in fictional universes.

You are invoking special pleading. Why?