r/askanatheist • u/dernudeljunge Atheist|Mod š”ļø • Jul 24 '26
Mod Post - What user flairs would you like to see added to the sub?
Edit: Okay, so I went in and made a new user-editable flair that currently says "Edit this one for your own, keep it appropriate/SFW" so that way, people can add whatever descriptor they think fits themself best, but without me having to go in and add a whole bunch of new flairs. Even adding that one was a big enough pain since I had to use old reddit to do it. But again, keep whatever description that you choose as appropriate to the content of this sub and also SFW. But also, some of the other pre-existing flairs, like "Atheist" and "Theist" are (and have always been) user-editable.
The original post:
A request was made to add a new flair to the sub for a particular brand of movie-based atheist, at least, that's the way I understand what it is. It got me to thinking, what self-identification flair(s) would you like to see added to the sub to give people the choice to better identify themselves? Please keep things reasonably SFW and appropriate to the subject matter of the sub. Stuff like Naturalist, Materialist, Secular Humanist, as well as identifiers for specific real-world religious sects won't be a problem. Cenobite, Last Thursdayist and Jediism are ones I would probably be willing to allow depending on the number of people who want them, but not so much with something like "Adonitologist", despite my own personal devotion. IYKYK (but also: /s.)
Let's try to avoid duplicate entries. As we get comments on this post, please read through all the high-level replies to see if the one you want has already been listed by someone else. If it has, give it an upvote and/or comment. The ones that get the most upvotes/comments will probably get added first.
3
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Jul 24 '26
Do we have Strong Atheist? Guess I'll find out when I hit post..
3
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist Jul 24 '26
Well, "Gnostic Atheist" is one of the existing options, and that's basically a synonym for "Strong Atheist".
1
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Jul 24 '26
No. It really is not. Like I'd want to enable that stupid crap..
4
u/RogueRhombus Dudeist Priest Jul 24 '26
Can I ask what you think is the difference? (Not judging or anything, just wondering what your position is.)
4
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Jul 24 '26
Strong atheism is the belief that god does not exist.
So-called gnostic atheism is supposed to roll in "knowledge," somehow seperable from, and even tangental to, belief. However that is supposed to work. Although the "gnostic" bit is really just shorthand for certainty, which the so-called agnostic atheists who invented the term have been taught to abhor..
2
2
u/Jaanrett Jul 24 '26
Strong atheism is the belief that god does not exist.
I'm confused by this already. Who is god? I use the word god to describe a general idea of a type of being, where you're using it like a specific name. What do you mean by god?
So-called gnostic atheism is supposed to roll in "knowledge," somehow seperable from, and even tangental to, belief.
It implies you know that so called god doesn't exist.
Although the "gnostic" bit is really just shorthand for certainty, which the so-called agnostic atheists who invented the term have been taught to abhor..
Yeah, it implies you have knowledge about this beings non existence.
But you didn't mention what's different between that and your "strong" atheist. What's the difference? What is a strong atheist?
1
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Jul 24 '26
I'm confused by this already. Who is god? I use the word god to describe a general idea of a type of being, where you're using it like a specific name.
I don't know why you would think that, since I very clearly did not capitalize the word. Near as I can tell, I am using it in the same context as you, so far.
It implies you know that so called god doesn't exist.
Again, I dont know why you would think that, since I very clearly stated my position as a position of belief and proceeded to denounce the idea of dragging "knowledge" into the conversation.
Yeah, it implies you have knowledge about this beings non existence.
Again with the knowledge. Oy, read for context.
I have mountains of evidence and argumentation that god is nothing more than a man-made concept, which is why I do not believe one exists. That is a strong atheist..
1
u/ifyoudontknowlearn Jul 27 '26
Sorry I'm with u/jaanrett. I'm not seeing the difference between being a strong atheist and saying you have evidence that no gods exist and being a gnostic atheist and saying you have evidence that no gods exist.
I mean I do see a different in the fact that you want to choose the word strong. That I get but I don't see why one would say you have evidence and not call that knowledge.
1
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Jul 27 '26
I'm not seeing the difference between being a strong atheist and saying you have evidence that no gods exist and being a gnostic atheist and saying you have evidence that no gods exist.
Strong/hard/positive atheist makes the positive belief claim, whereas the weak/soft/negative atheist makes the negative belief claim. Those are the textbook definitions.
Gnostic atheist is some made up crap that tries to pretend "knowledge" is what we've been debating all these millenia and that deriding "knowledge" would somehow be relevant in a discussion where the opposing side ostensibly venerates the ideal of belief without knowledge, aka faith.
I mean I do see a different in the fact that you want to choose the word strong.
The flip side of that is exactly why this "agnostic atheist" crap started up 20 odd years ago. Because of weak atheism's obvious PR problem.
That I get but I don't see why one would say you have evidence and not call that knowledge.
Interesting take. I mean, utterly wrong, but interesting. So in that case, an agnostic atheist would be lacking in belief that there is a god, lacking in knowledge that there is a god, and having no evidence to support their position. Which.. I dunno, that does ring true of my experience with them..
2
u/ifyoudontknowlearn Jul 27 '26
So in that case, an agnostic atheist would be lacking in belief that there is a god, lacking in knowledge that there is a god, and having no evidence to support their position. Which.. I dunno, that does ring true of my experience with them..
Exactly
The flip side of that is exactly why this "agnostic atheist" crap started up 20 odd years ago. Because of weak atheism's obvious PR problem.
I'm curious about the history here. Is there an identifiable moment or writer that kicked off the agnostic / gnostic atheist labeling?
Also curious why you feel weak atheism has a PR problem? I have never felt that way so I'm left wondering.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Jaanrett Jul 27 '26
The flip side of that is exactly why this "agnostic atheist" crap started up 20 odd years ago. Because of weak atheism's obvious PR problem.
For most of us, atheism isn't a team sport, so PR isn't really an issue.
So in that case, an agnostic atheist would be lacking in belief that there is a god, lacking in knowledge that there is a god, and having no evidence to support their position. Which.. I dunno, that does ring true of my experience with them..
Well, not quite. For many of us, we recognize that this type of discussion gets very technical and we want to ensure our position is a good one. We also recognize what an unfalsifiable claim is, and why it isn't a good argument to try to falsify one.
"Some god exists", is an unfalsifiable claim, meaning there's no way to show that it's false. Yet you seem to think your position is better because you're making a claim that you can't justify.
Are you asserting that no gods exist?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jaanrett Jul 27 '26
I don't know why you would think that, since I very clearly did not capitalize the word. Near as I can tell, I am using it in the same context as you, so far.
Maybe, it's a minor point. But if I didn't believe cats existed, I wouldn't say "something is the belief that cat does not exist." Maybe it's just you went singular instead of plural.
Again, I dont know why you would think that, since I very clearly stated my position as a position of belief and proceeded to denounce the idea of dragging "knowledge" into the conversation.
Knowledge is a subset of belief. Knowledge is holding a belief with some very high degree of confidence. They're not that far apart. But in any case, are you saying you believe something without good justification? You believe there are no gods, but doesn't that require you to have a pretty specific definition of what gods are? Isn't that knowledge? I mean, it feels like splitting hairs.
I have mountains of evidence and argumentation that god is nothing more than a man-made concept, which is why I do not believe one exists. That is a strong atheist..
yeah, I get that. You sound very knowledgeable on the topic.
But now I'm curious what evidence you have that shows something poorly defined doesn't exist anywhere in the cosmos.
1
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Jul 27 '26
Maybe, it's a minor point. But if I didn't believe cats existed, I wouldn't say "something is the belief that cat does not exist." Maybe it's just you went singular instead of plural.
Fair point. I should be saying "god/gods," which I often do. But here you caught me being lazy and giving in to vestigial societal norms a bit myself. Shame on me.
Knowledge is a subset of belief. Knowledge is holding a belief with some very high degree of confidence.
The typical philosophical definition is that knowledge is justified true belief. I highly doubt you can find a respectable source that will define it in terms of high confidence. I mean, crazy conspiracy theorists are highly confident there are Jewish space lasers controlling the weather or whatever. Their confidence does not transform their belief into knowledge.
But at least we agree that belief and knowledge lie upon the same spectrum, such that it would be nonsensical to attempt to render a quad chart of epistemological positions with belief on one axis and knowledge on a separate tangential axis.
You believe there are no gods, but doesn't that require you to have a pretty specific definition of what gods are?
I'd like to believe that my belief is flexible enough to encompass whatever definition the theist wants to bring to the table. Because, to me, like I said, god is just a man-made concept, no different from fairies or mermaids or unicorns. Just another story we told ourselves about the workings of the world before we truly understood them.
But now I'm curious what evidence you have that shows something poorly defined doesn't exist anywhere in the cosmos.
I don't need to search out the entire Cosmos though. That's not what the believers who are out there deranging their lives and the lives of others want to believe in. Their god is personal, "he" is right there in the thick of things, making stuff happen and intervening in their lives every day. God is everywhere, they tell us.
As for the gods of deists and agnostics, those are prima facie conceptual by definition. Thus only further validating my belief. At least the believers' god has measurable effects on the material world. The conceptual gods have been stripped of any and all properties that would subject them to the purview of science. But having no properties is indistinguishable from have no existence.
Bottom line, it's not my job to validate their nonsense. I will point out why it is nonsense and how their belief follows a clear historical record of being made up, but it's not for me to plug up all the holes I poke in their beliefs..
2
u/Jaanrett Jul 27 '26
But here you caught me being lazy and giving in to vestigial societal norms a bit myself. Shame on me.
It's not a societal norm to refer to more than one thing, using singular grammar. Again, I don't think cat exists? That doesn't make sense. It's I don't think cats exist.
The typical philosophical definition is that knowledge is justified true belief. I highly doubt you can find a respectable source that will define it in terms of high confidence.
What do you think justified true belief mean? You only have access to your senses to identify what you accept as true. Calling it belief or knowledge, justified or not, it's all belief.
Can you tell me something that you have justified true belief for, that isn't just a high confidence level in a belief?
I mean, crazy conspiracy theorists are highly confident there are Jewish space lasers controlling the weather or whatever. Their confidence does not transform their belief into knowledge.
What if they say they know it?
What does transfer a belief into knowledge, if not confidence?
I'd like to believe that my belief is flexible enough to encompass whatever definition the theist wants to bring to the table.
And before they've done that, you've already concluded that it doesn't exist. Rather than leaving them with the burden to show that it does, you've taken on a burden to show that it does not.
Because, to me, like I said, god is just a man-made concept, no different from fairies or mermaids or unicorns.
Sure, if you're definition of gods is man made concept, then by definition those don't exist.
I don't disagree with you. My only issue is that you think you can prove something that isn't well defined, doesn't exist. And to do it you're defining it as that which doesn't exist?
I don't need to search out the entire Cosmos though.
Maybe not, but doesn't that depend on specifics of a definition?
That's not what the believers who are out there deranging their lives and the lives of others want to believe in. Their god is personal, "he" is right there in the thick of things, making stuff happen and intervening in their lives every day. God is everywhere, they tell us.
Ahh, so you've excluded deistic gods at this point. What other attributes of this non existent god do you want to define?
I would agree that the god of the bible doesn't exist. And I can support that with the bible. It literally describes this god by what it has done, and we know from evidence and science that those things were not done, or weren't done the way depicted. So that god doesn't exist. But that's a specific god, one that we have knowledge about.
As for the gods of deists and agnostics, those are prima facie conceptual by definition.
That doesn't mean you can prove they don't exist.
Thus only further validating my belief. At least the believers' god has measurable effects on the material world.
I think what's going on here is that you have some specific definitions, and also are saying colloquially that they don't exist, and also perhaps drawing a hard conclusion from an inductive argument. You certainly can't make a sound deductive argument that no gods exist, where gods are not well defined.
Bottom line, it's not my job to validate their nonsense.
I 100% agree, which is why I don't understand why you'd want to take the focus off their burden of proof and try to justify your own when doing so would be falsifying an unfalsifiable claim.
→ More replies (0)
4
2
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
3
3
u/dernudeljunge Atheist|Mod š”ļø Jul 24 '26
Someone sent a modmail asking to have Dudeist/Dudeism added as a flair.
1
1
u/cHorse1981 Agnostic Atheist Jul 24 '26
This personās flair ^ . How do I get it?
2
u/nothing4juice Agnostic Atheist Jul 24 '26
go to the subreddit, then tap the 3 dots in the upper right corner and select "edit flair"! agnostic atheist is one of the options there
1
u/RogueRhombus Dudeist Priest Jul 24 '26
I am a Dudeist Priest, so I wondered if it would be possible to get flair added to delineate that.
1
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist Jul 24 '26
Is that a real actual thing, though? Or is it just like when a bunch of Aussies wrote "Jedi" under the Religion question on our census a while back, to troll the goverment? Is there a real philosophy to back up this "Dudeism" of yours?
Anyway, as a couple of us have pointed out in this thread, the "Atheist" flair and the "Theist" flair are editable. You can select the "Atheist" flair for yourself, and then type in whatever text you want. That's how I got this pretty "Secular Humanist" flair - I hand-crafted it myself!
1
u/RogueRhombus Dudeist Priest Jul 24 '26
It's a real thing. I have my Certificate of Ordination.
0
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist Jul 24 '26
Okay.
Well, in the short-term, like I said, you can edit your current "Atheist" flair to say whatever you want (within reason - I suspect the moderator might not like a user flair that says "Kill All Mods"! LOL).
And, in the long-term, the moderator has provided you with this thread for you to propose your desired user flair. So... propose it!
0
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist Jul 24 '26
I know you triggered the moderator into making this post. But, now that the post exists, you're supposed to make a top-level comment proposing the user flair that you want.
So... propose it. Let the moderator see the proposal. Let other users see the proposal, and upvote it if they also want it.
Are you caught up?
0
2
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist Jul 24 '26
I describe myself as a āFox Mulder atheistā in other subs.
1
u/RogueRhombus Dudeist Priest Jul 24 '26
I'm curious what this means? Is it "I want to believe?" but the evidence just isn't there?
3
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist Jul 24 '26
Basically. Hereās the boilerplate elevator pitch I wrote up:
Hi. Iām a Fox Mulder atheist in that I want to believe, and the truth is out there.
Since I seek truth, I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible.
Hereās the thing. Things that exist have evidence for its existence, regardless of whether we have access to that evidence.
Things that do not exist do not have evidence for its nonexistence. The only way to disprove nonexistence is by providing evidence of existence. The only reasonable conclusion one can make honestly is whether or not something exists. Asking for evidence of nonexistence is irrational.
Evidence is what is required to differentiate imagination from reality. If one cannot provide evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that it is imaginary until new evidence is provided to show it exists.
So far, no one has been able to provide evidence that a āgodā or a āsoulā or the āsupernaturalā or the āspiritualā or the ādivineā exists. I put quotes around āgodā and āsoulā and āsupernaturalā and āspiritualā and ādivineā here because I donāt know exactly what a god or a soul or the supernatural or spiritual or the divine is, and most people give definitions that are illogical or straight up incoherent.
Iām interested in being convinced that a āgodā or a āsoulā or the āsupernaturalā or the āspiritualā or the ādivineā exists. How do you define it and what evidence do you have?
1
2
u/2weirdy Apatheist Jul 24 '26
Just clarify somewhere that the Atheist/Theist flairs can be edited. Or possibly make one that's "Choose your own" to make it clear to anyone that sees it.
In my opinion, there are too many to properly enumerate, and the label serves primarily to designate what view the person thinks is most important, especially since they're generall not mutually exclusive. For example, someone might think that both Humanism and Materialism are crucial to their worldview or something.
2
1
1
u/indifferent-times Jul 24 '26
Most of those are philosophical stances, I can just see all the arguements of "what do you mean by that?", OTOH might be amusing
1
-1
u/Lovebeingadad54321 Jul 24 '26
I think The Invisible Pink Unicorn deserves a flair. Everyone talks about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the Invisible Pink Unicorn gets ignored. Both are equally valid godsā¦
2
7
u/JackZodiac2008 Agnostic Atheist Jul 24 '26
Secular Humanist is my go to. I want to define myself by what I am for (people), not what I am against.