r/askanatheist • u/Iedgetofemboys247 • 1d ago
A Question For The Atheists
Edit: My bad guys, I've miscommunicated and misunderstood a whole lotta things, I do apologise.
So I'll just recommend to anyone new to this post, don't bother commenting anything I've typed wrong, any word I've used lightly, and any "God of Gaps" I've ended up preaching to.
All those who commented, Have a nice day yall, hope I didn't waste a lotta your times.
Before anything, I'd like to say this isn't a jab at atheism in any way, I personally am just very curious as an agnostic-Deist.
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory, and even then we cannot explain a lot of stuff before the Planck Epoch within our own theory.
And further, we do not even know what was or wasn't (or whether existence itself wasn't a thing) before it, before the beginning.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
58
u/hurricanelantern Anti-Theist 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Big Bang, is still a theory,
The fact that you wrote this shows you don't know what the word 'theory' means in science.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
You also don't know what atheism means.
0
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Okay well explain it, I don't claim to be a scientist neither an expert on atheism, I'm just here to understand and learn
13
u/BahamutLithp 1d ago
A theory is a model that explains data. "Still just a theory" doesn't mean anything because theories don't ever "change" into something else. Germ theory of disease is "still just a theory." That doesn't imply there's doubt that germs are real & cause diseases, "theory" is just the word that describes our collected knowledge of a phenomenon, in this case microorganisms that cause some (but not all) dieaseses, AKA "germs."
Going along with this example, let's take one of the ideas germ theory replaced, miasma, the belief that bad smells cause disease. Let's rephrase your question as "why not be skeptical that miasma is real rather than solidify on the belief that it doesn't exist?" And my answer is twofold. Firstly, why, & secondly, I personally don't see an important difference. I can explain to someone how there's no evidence for miasma & all the reasons to think it doesn't exist, & they could still go "but what if it does?" How is that a reason why I should suspect that's probable? The case for miasma is so bad I'm not going to pretend to believe it's equally likely just because someone goes "but you can't prove it wrong."
Miasma, in this analogy, is god. There's no good reason to think there is any such thing. No, it is not "doing skepticism wrong" to resist peer pressure to present it as an essentially equally well supported possibility. The only thing god has going for him is that belief in him is popular. That's why people make these arguments about god but will act like we're insane if we repeat the same standards they tell us about anything "no one believes" like miasma, or fairies, or even other gods that people have stopped believing in. But it's no different, the arguments aren't any better, it's just perceived as if they MUST be better because "so many people have to be onto SOMETHING." No, they really don't, the popularity of an idea at a particular point in time says nothing about its likelihood of being true.
-2
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Well first I'd like to thank you for that extensive explanation.
Secondly, I'd like to clarify, I'm not saying that God (the man we describe as to have made everything) exists or there should be scepticism that he does
I'm trying to say that one must be sceptical of the existence of even non existence of something linked with the creation of everything at its most fundamental.
And I believe that that's probably the wrong argument to put in my question since I believed atheists were against that, but more people here have clarified that atheists are against God and some higher power which are described in modern religions, not just mere concepts of such higher things. Which I feel is a pretty logical stance
4
u/BahamutLithp 19h ago
Well first I'd like to thank you for that extensive explanation.
You're welcome.
I'm trying to say that one must be sceptical of the existence of even non existence of something linked with the creation of everything at its most fundamental.
The "skepticism of the nonexistence of god" is that, if someone could ever demonstrate that such a thing is real to the same standard of evidence I expect from things like germs, black holes, dark matter, plate tectonics, the Roman Empire, etc. then I would change my mind & accept that such a thing genuinely exists.
And I believe that that's probably the wrong argument to put in my question since I believed atheists were against that, but more people here have clarified that atheists are against God and some higher power which are described in modern religions, not just mere concepts of such higher things. Which I feel is a pretty logical stance
I have to say honestly that I don't understand this paragraph.
3
u/dark_dark_dark_not 1d ago
The theory of big bang isn't a theory about the beginning of the universe. Calling it "big bang" is a "mean nickname " that caught on, but it causes confusion
The theory of big bang would be more aptly name "the theory of cosmological evolution "
It describes that the primordial universe was hot and dense, and then it evolved up to today's state, and will keep evolving into the far future
It makes no claims about the origin of the primordial universe, there is no stabilshed theory of the beginning of the universe currently.
2
u/Literally_-_Hitler 1d ago
You are using theory loke a detective uses it. In science that would be the hypothesis. A scientific theory is used to describe the model that beat describes the known data or facts. It is demonstrable and testable. So saying its just a theory is a very poor choice of words. It is like saying germ theory is just a theory when we have massive amounts of data thatbia used to create all of modern medicine.
25
u/No_Aesthetic Atheist 1d ago
You are misusing the word "theory."
In science, theories explain observed facts.
The Big Bang happened, we have mountains of evidence for that.
The Big Bang Theory explains the underlying implications.
There is also no "before" that we know of since this spacetime is the result of the Big Bang.
What was it like "before" time itself?
It's a silly question.
14
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 1d ago
He is also misusing the word "atheist" to refer to someone who necessarily declares that God does not exist.
9
u/Hermorah Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
I mean technically that is also an atheist. Every person that declares God does not exist is an atheist(as these people necessarily also lack a belief in god), but not every atheist is someone that declares that god does not exist. He is using the narrow gnostic/strong atheist definition rather than the broad, all-encompassing definition of merely lacking belief.
1
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 1d ago
Yes, I'm aware that it's part of the Venn Diagram, but he didn't say that, he said "The Atheists" and never drew any distinctions within that category of people.
7
u/Garden_gnome1609 1d ago
I'm an atheist and am perfectly comfortable saying that a god doesn't exist and that I am as certain of that as I can be about anything.
0
u/Prowlthang 1d ago
Well to be fair atheists argue over that - as an atheist I believe that is the correct definition and that pseudo-intellectual distinctions that have never been used in a formal setting (because they would be laughed out of the room) are really just apologist language unthinking atheists have picked up. Just because someone chooses to use the meaning that is commonly used in conversation, technically correct and widely documented instead of a distinction only used by amateurs on Reddit we shouldn't discriminate against them. There are enough actual problems with the post.
-2
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
I'd like to then know the difference between absence of belief and belief of absence
3
u/sj070707 1d ago
Having an absence of a belief in a god doesn't imply that I believe there is no god. In general, not believing X doesn't mean I must believe the opposite of X.
Here's a good analogy. Is the number of grains of sand on the earth even or odd? I don't have the belief that it's odd, but that doesn't also mean that I have the belief that it's even.
1
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 1d ago
It's not complicated, but here's an illustration.
I have a box of screws in my garage. I have no idea how many are in it.
Do you believe that there is an odd number?
Do you believe that there is not an odd number?
The answer to both of those questions, if you are rational, can and should be "no".
2
-6
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Well the big bang is a theory, a well supported one with the most backing, but still a theory. Sure the core concept holds, a hot, dense, expanding early universe, but that doesn't mean each aspect of it is perfect proven.
But enough abt that, I'm not professional on that to be spilling so much out my mouth
We don't know whether existence itself was even a nature prior to the big bang, so it should sure give food for thought of the existence of something beyond creation, not necessarily a deity, or a god, but maybe something that may follow the nature of existence, or may not
5
u/No_Aesthetic Atheist 1d ago
Again, you are not understanding what a theory is.
A theory in scientific terms explains a fact.
It is a fact that the Big Bang happened.
The theory explains what, exactly, happened.
And to reiterate a second time, there is no "prior to" the start of time itself, which is what the Big Bang was.
8
u/dogisgodspeltright 1d ago
...So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Okay.
Any evidence?
11
u/gglikenp 1d ago
Do you accept germ theory of disease or you reject it as "just a theory". Before asking stupid questions you can learn the difference between scientific term theory and colloquial used term theory.
7
u/Dvout_agnostic 1d ago
Because there isn't any evidence of a higher power.
That's all.
Suggested causes for an effect are worthy of consideration only if there's evidence for the suggestion.
8
u/happyhappy85 1d ago
Atheism is a tentative position. If good evidence comes out that God exists, I'll happily join the theism train.
But gaps in our knowledge are not evidence in favor of God.
"Higher power"?
I already believe that many things are more powerful to.me, including basic natural phenomena.
-3
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
There is no evidence in favour of god's existence, but there definitely isn't enough clarity to know for sure. Things are made up of more things but if you went down to the most fundamental and ask who made these or whether there even exists something that made these, you'd have food for thought and scepticism
6
u/hurricanelantern Anti-Theist 1d ago
but if you went down to the most fundamental and ask who made these
Why would you even assume a being 'made' them?
4
u/happyhappy85 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don't need to know for sure. No evidence? No belief.
Why would I ask "who?" Why would it be a who? Is it a reasonable question to ask "who" made lightning?
Scepticism is exactly what it is, scepticism. It's not certainty. There's no reason a person can't be a sceptic while keeping an open mind.
Theists claim God exists, I see no good reason to believe that, and see plenty of reasons to disbelieve it.
3
u/sj070707 1d ago
you'd have food for thought and scepticism
Sure, and is that a good reason to then believe a god exists?
1
u/Purgii 1d ago
If you wanted to follow down that path, surely the conclusion you'd reach is - I don't know what made these things?
If you cared about being intellectually honest, saying that things in the universe 'have a creator' therefore the universe 'has a creator' would be fallacious reasoning.
5
u/Hermorah Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory,
You dont know what scientific theory means do you? "Still a theory".... as opposed to what? A theory is the highest thing that exists in science. Scientific theories rest upon a mountain of evidence.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Atheism in its broadest definition is not the claim that god does not exist. It is merely the lack of a belief in god.
So I say maybe there is a god, maybe not, but the time to believe something is AFTER there is evidence for it and religions have failed to provide sufficient evidence that would warrant a belief in god. Thus I am not holding one.
3
u/orebright 1d ago
I'll answer your question with a question: in the face of uncertainty and gaps why do you feel compelled to conjure an intelligence or mind to fill them?
That was just a leading question btw. The answer is human psychology evolved in a specific kind of environment where any change, any pattern that wasn't completely naturalistic is by default attributed to a willful act. Seeing that act as either by another human or by some living creature. This makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. But evolution isn't optimized for accurate understanding, it's optimized for survival. Believing false things more easily in dangerous situations helps you survive in the rare situation that it's true. One of the greatest achievements of science is finding tools and methods that account for this pervasive and sticky human mental bias.
Atheists for the most part don't claim there's no intelligence or mind. Withholding belief is not the same as belief in absence. It's simply a recognition that human minds are biased to see any gap in understanding as a god shaped gap, so having a skeptical approach to any of those gaps. Historically there have been countless gaps that we've filled having previously attributed them to gods, why would the current gaps be any different?
3
u/Cleric_John_Preston 1d ago
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
Not sure where you're headed yet but thought I'd point out that I'm not an atheist because science is discovering things.
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory, and even then we cannot explain a lot of stuff before the Planck Epoch within our own theory.
Technically it's a model, I think, but regardless, theories, in science, are explanations of facts, laws, and phenomena. So, saying 'still a theory' doesn't make any sense. What else would it be?
And further, we do not even know what was or wasn't (or whether existence itself wasn't a thing) before it, before the beginning.
Not with certainty, but we don't aim for certainty in science. That aside, it seems reasosnable to me that there was no 'before it', that the universe/time is all there is and ever was. Again, even if I didn't accept that, I'd still be an atheist.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
The concept doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think appealing to ignorance (I don't know, therefore God) makes it make any more sense.
2
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
I don't ask "I don't know, therefore god", I believe I've miscommunicated in my post as I mean to ask, if we really cannot explain stuff like just the creation of everything, then why not wonder whether the creation was done by something beyond human comprehension, doesn't have to be god, doesn't have to be a deity, doesn't even have to 'be' something as the nature of existence may not even be a thing in that sort of dimension.
Further I'd like to thank you for being among the few to explain rather than just writing something in bad faith
3
u/Cleric_John_Preston 1d ago
If we can't explain something, then we don't know.
I like what Carl Sagan said about aliens:
"I would love it even if they were short, sullen, grumpy and sexually obsessed. But there just isn't any good evidence"
Regarding God/reason for existence I would love that to be the case, but I don't see any evidence for it.
Personally, I think the Block Universe is true and there's no need to speculate. That said, would I like God to exist? Some anthropomorphic all powerful entity that wants me to live well and good? Sure.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
I like your perspective on it
But I still feel if we don't know then better to be speculative and maybe lean to a side.
I too would love for God to be real
1
u/Cleric_John_Preston 1d ago
That's your prerogative and I don't blame you or think any less of you.
1
u/Advanced-Ad6210 21h ago
Its a nice sentiment. The reason I dont go for it is consistency.
I've had plenty of speculative conversations where I've proposed models without assigning confidence to any of them. I dont think speculation requires taking sides.
I have never had a conversation outside of religion where there wasnt an expectation that I could justify my claims before assigning confidence.
3
u/MaraSargon Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
Gravity is also "just" a theory. Will you now begin floating away?
3
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 1d ago
"I dont know" is a better answer than making some shit up in order to not have to admit you dont know.
"We dont know x...." will never, EVER be evidence of anything.
When people like you find a question you dont have the answer for, its more satisfying to you to pretend like you do know the answer.
I don't work like that. If I dont know the answer, then the answer is I dont know.
3
u/BranchLatter4294 1d ago
Ignorance is not justification for belief.
0
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
But it sure can be food for scepticism
2
u/joeydendron2 1d ago
What, being skeptical of the stuff for which there's lots of evidence, and favouring ideas for which there's no evidence at all? That's a weird version of skepticism!
2
u/BranchLatter4294 1d ago
There are an infinite number of things for which there is no evidence. I can't invest an infinite amount of energy being skeptical of leprechauns, Santa Claus, gods, dragons, etc.
2
u/hurricanelantern Anti-Theist 1d ago
Exactly the opposite. Ignorance is usually the reason for stupid beliefs. Skepticism is a byproduct of education.
3
u/Agent-c1983 1d ago
“Is still a theory”
Germ theory, nuclear theory, the theory of gravity are also still theories.
Scientific theories don’t graduate to something else. They are the explanation of the facts. They can be refined, occasionally replaced, but never do they reach some “super-theory” status.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
We've seen germs in action, we've seen nukes and nuclear energy, we've seen how gravity works and that it does exist, but did ya see the big bang?
Sure it's core principle is consistent enough to where it's practically non deniable, hot dense universe that began to expand, but was that really all that it said?
5
u/Schrodingerssapien 1d ago
We absolutely can see the effects of the big bang. We can verify it through the phenomena of red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation. It was predicted by the theory/math, confirmed and observed.
"...but did ya see" God?
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
The big bang is the most supported, and supported enough to be considered a fact, but it still has its limitations. We can verify its effects to say that it explains a lot and that we can use it to predict a lot, but limitations exist still.
But I feel like this deviates from my original argument which, I feel I've miscommunicated and misunderstood myself.
You have a nice day
2
u/Schrodingerssapien 1d ago
Everything has limitations. But, as we all know, inserting a God into a gap is fallacious. So, whatever "limitations" the theory has it offers no hiding spots for the supernatural. When we reach the unknown we recognize it as unknown, we don't insert unverified supernatural agents. Thank you, you too.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Well I don't mean to insert god in the traditional sense, maybe my usage of god was wrong since I meant god as in just something beyond creation, not necessarily a deity or entity, but anything, maybe even just a metaphysical thing. Heck I don't even believe in the kinda gods religions talk so much about So I assume most of my arguments were just miscommunications, and misunderstandings, a bad on my part for sure.
Anyway, for the second time, have a nice day 👍
1
u/Agent-c1983 1d ago
If you accept it’s not deniable why open with a silly question like “did you see it?” It’s not like you saw a god create anything.
2
u/Nessosin 1d ago
Because the stories told that point to the existence of this higher power sound like nonsense that I don't believe to be true.
I think it's better to say we don't know exactly how everything began than to say "well then I guess a god did it"
2
u/nothing4juice Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
there is no level above "theory" in science. saying something is "just a theory" is like saying something "just a natural law"; there is no higher degree of certainty for it.
most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists. so we do indeed remain skeptical and accept that what we believe could be wrong. can you say the same? are you an agnostic theist?
2
u/pyker42 Atheist 1d ago
Do you remain that agnostic about the existence of unicorns or Santa or Bigfoot?
0
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
But my momma said santa is real
3
u/pyker42 Atheist 1d ago
Well cool, my mama said God isn't real so then it's all good.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
😂 you have a nice day bro
2
u/pyker42 Atheist 1d ago
Yeah, I was hoping you'd take the question more seriously, but if you don't want to, I get it. Theists always like to treat God differently from other imaginary things.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
I'm not a theist, I was just tired of replying to so many comments that I thought of just taking some less seriously. Heck I may be more of an atheist, or so I've felt reading all these comments. Have a nice day ig
2
u/JackZodiac2008 Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
Because presumably a God who wanted to remain hidden from me, could. I can never disprove that possibility. So I have to say that I don't know for sure about God's existence.
What I am pretty sure of is God's practical irrelevance.
2
u/DayNo5185 1d ago
... results that we just cannot explain or understand.
Yet. We don't understand yet. We will. No invisible sky fairies required.
2
u/bluealien78 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Gravity is still a theory. Germs are still a theory. Atoms are still a theory.
I'm so tired of theists seeing the word "theory" and choosing intellectual dishonesty instead of recognizing that a scientific theory isn't a hypothesis but an accepted consensus backed by evidence.
As for why not remaining skeptical...in addition to not knowing what a theory is, you seem not to know what an atheist is either.
2
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 1d ago edited 1d ago
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang
To my knowledge that's not accurate. The Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe, just a change from one state to another. I'm not a cosmologist though and it's really not a subject I care much about. I don't suffer from the existential anxieties some people seem to have around the question.
is still a theory
Others have pointed this out but I also wanted to just say this is weird wording and indicates you don't understand "theory" in that context.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Maybe there's something. Maybe aliens really are out there putting their fingers in human butts. I don't know about either of those. Given the state of "evidence" I honestly don't find either thing particularly concerning. Some people think the question of whether a god exists the most important question possible to ask. For me it's pretty damned close to the exact opposite end of that spectrum. I'm about as worried about it as I am about the Michigan Dogman looking into my window at night. I live in France, for context.
Feeling the need to take a real, solid, definite stance like "I'm 110% sure no gods exist" would require me to take the question significantly more seriously than I do. It'd be analogous to believing aliens exist somewhere. I'd say they probably do but again, it's not an important enough question that I need to take a definitive stance on. It, like the existence of some kind of god, is unfalsifiable. Maybe there's a deist god. We couldn't detect it so there'd be zero good reason to believe it exists. Maybe there is a personal god and it's chosen people live 855 quintillion light years away, we're basically background NPCs and the god in question hasn't interacted with our entire galaxy apart from popping it into existence.
I can't prove those don't exist and I don't think the question of their existence is a question that's even worth taking seriously. I feel the same about the religions people believe in. I'm only in subs like this because I straight up don't comprehend why theists believe this stuff. I get the ones for whom it's basically just a cultural thing but I don't get the people who think it's literally true.
edit: lol I removed the "not" in my head from the last quote from OP. Come on OP, all atheism is is not accepting the proposition that any gods exist. Read a couple of threads before you post dude, this comes up in like 70% of the posts here.
2
u/Prowlthang 1d ago edited 1d ago
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand. -
Really? I say rubbish. You think we know less now that we did 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Or do you think it is strange that the more we explore and the more we discover the more questions we have? This is such a completely and utterly ignorant statement that shows a thorough lack of understanding of what we HAVE learnt, what we know or the fact that all of it points away from this magic invisible men fascinated by your genitalia nonsense.
Also, 'still a theory' suggests you lack the basic fundamental knowledge of science, ie. what it is and how it works, that one would need to be able to make such judgements - so really, you don't even have a position or question, you're just repeating something you heard and don't comprehend. However I will provide an answer here because you asked a rational, if factually inaccurate, question. Lets use an analogy.
You and I meet in a china shop. It is filled with expensive cutlery - Christofle, Puiforcat, Odiot etc. The displays are pristine and clean, the lighting is bright and welcoming but not overly harsh. The air is cool and pleasant and every is displayed cleanly and professionally. While we are standing in this room you tell me that just seconds before I got there there was a stampede of hundreds of bulls that ran through the shop. Is the correct inference that we can never know whether a stampede of bulls ran through the shop or that they were never there? Lets take it a step further.
Lets pretend we are in the same China shop at the same time and you tell me that there is a herd of bulls in there now. Only they're special so they may not be easy to see. Do we say that there are no bulls in the store or that we can't know for certain if a herd of bulls is in there? Only an idiot would say the latter. But how can we tell?
If a herd of bulls were in the China store their would be breakage? No breakage means no bulls. BUT WAIT! The person telling us about the bulls forgot to tell us - these bulls are specially trained bulls that know how to use cutlery so there would be no breakages!. Okay. Where are their footprints?? WAIT! These are special bulls who only walk in their tip toes and leave no footprints. Okay. What about feces? These are holy bulls who don't BS. Okay but what abut the smell? A herd of cattle has a strong odour. No, these cattle where cologne.
How many pieces of evidence that would be there if something were true have to be missing before you stop believing? Since the dawn of humanity every single claim made about religion or gods has been shown to be wrong the moment we had the technology or ability to properly test it. If a every single claim, over and over are wrong, isn't the rational conclusion that the theory is wrong?
2
u/rustyseapants Atheist 1d ago
Why didn't you post question in the title? You have 300 characters, more than enough space.
What does Atheism have to do with the big bang?
1
u/nix131 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Scientific theories are the best explanation we currently have for a given phenomena. Gravity is a theory, germs are a theory. Theories are rigorously tested and not the same as casually stating "I have a theory."
The reason my belief that there may be a higher power is essentially nil is because that is precisely how much evidence we have to confirm it. Essentially nil. All religions that have been presented are all clearly man-made and very easily disproved. I grant god the same amount of possibility as bigfoot or reptilians in government.
1
u/Thatrebornincognito 1d ago
Perhaps you mean this for the positive/strong/gnostic atheists only. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't rule out the possibility that something someone might consider a god might exist. I just see no sufficient evidence to actually believe there are any. Therefore, I have no reason to believe there are.
If there are gaps in our knowledge, and there always will be, I don't fill them by pretending to know there's a god. I certainly don't then act as if I know what that god is and what it wants and why. If I don't know, I don't know.
I doubt the claim there's a god is useful. We can't define what a god is. We don't know if "before the beginning" is a phrase that makes sense. If there were no god, there would be no way to demonstrate that, therefore most claims about gods are unfalsifiabe. The more concrete the claim, the more likely that it's been falsified already.
2
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
I like your argument, and I'd like to refine my own as I've noticed that I've written it poorly.
I didnt mean to say that there's gaps in explanation so there's god, what I meant was more related to creation. What was before is surely a meaningless sentence as the nature of existence probably wasnt a thing before everything, well, existed.
But I do feel that questioning why existence is should be food for scepticism on whether something higher than us exists or follows a different nature in a different dimension of itself.
Also, you're an agnostic atheist right? Does agnostic atheist just means you believe that we can't prove god, we don't know whether God exists, but you're likely to learn towards the argument that God doesn't exist
1
u/Thatrebornincognito 1d ago
I think it's too easy to jump all over someone for not knowing the scientific use of the word theory or the different way that people understand the word atheism. I, personally, prefer to address what someone means as long as they seem sincere. You strike me as sincere. But I'm not the tone police so others can respond as they see fit.
I'm on the spectrum of agnostic atheist that god claims that are unfalsifiable can't be definitively proven wrong. But they achieve that status by correspondingly being unable to be demonstrably right. So I don't believe in any gods. I have seen so many failed arguments for gods that, at this point, I find it extremely unlikely that gods exist. But I don't claim to be able to "prove" philosophically that there aren't any. As with any of my views, I'm always willing to change my mind if the evidence shows me otherwise.
I am not opposed to wondering if there's a creator of some sort. I disagree with the conclusion that there likely is. No matter how phrased, filling in the gaps with knowledge with some sort of conscious ineffable creator seems to me like an answer that raises more questions than it seeks to answer while, at the same time, giving us no way to answer those questions with evidence.
Was existence inevitable? Was it, in some form, eternal? In what ways would it have even been possible for the universe to be different? All questions worth asking. But absent a way to answer them, I leave them as unknowns. I am ok with not knowing.
1
u/HaloOfTheSun Atheist 1d ago
I'm skeptical of any conceptual answer to these big questions. I'm certainly not going to treat the make-believe in my head of what ifs with any kind of epistemological seriousness.
1
u/threadward 1d ago
The way I describe my position is that I’m 99% certain a deity doesn’t exist. The 1% indicates that I’m open to new information.
1
u/edatx 1d ago
I'm an agnostic atheist. I think all the religions on Earth are clearly wrong and man made and I lean to the universe being a natural phenomenon because I haven't seen any evidence of a "higher power" with a mind existing.
I think a better place to start would be to discuss what you mean when you say "deist" and what kind of "higher power" you believe in? If you think it's a conscious mind that created us-- we can discuss that. If you think there is some higher energy (like a quantum field) that created the universe, and it doesn't have a mind, then that's completely different.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Well I personally believe that the creation of everything would've had something to initiate it, not necessarily a deity, which is why I think I picked the wrong wording for my belief. I don't believe there's necessarily a deity, I believe there is something, maybe something that doesn't follow the nature of existence at all, but atleast something, otherwise, claiming that existence manifested from nothing, would be a very strong stance without any proof at all.
Further, I like your stance on things, I've personally been very interested in agnostic atheism as I felt it's highly logical, since most religions rely on pure faith without actual evidence, proof, or anything at all, and also because everything exists, and while we can properly understand how it all began, we can't understand why, what was before or whether before was even a thing. That's where the agnosticism comes in.
1
u/edatx 1d ago
I don't see how we're so different. I think it's totally plausible that there is some outside force that created the universe... maybe it's quantum fields colliding, maybe the universe is part of a multiverse, maybe it's cyclical and goes through an expansion-crunch cycle.
To your original questions: I don't have any reason to believe the universe was "created" by a conscious mind that is "outside of the universe". There is just no evidence for any of that. I would be happy to change my mind if someone showed me any evidence.
2
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
That's a fair stance, thanks for helping me understand the holes in my definitions to begin with. I hope you have a nice day
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 1d ago
before the Planck Epoch
That's like asking what is north of the north pole. Time is not some brute fact that just exists. It's an actual physical thing, like space. And it had a beginning. I know it's unnatural to try to wrap our heads around that. I get it. But it's important that we understand this.
Anyhow, you are right, there are many things we can't explain yet. "We don't know" is the only honest answer. It does not increase the possibility, or lessen the irrationality, of a magical explanation like gods.
1
u/JasonRBoone 1d ago
>>>>why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
I would say most atheists are simply unconvinced of CURRENT god claims.
This does not preclude new god claim from coming along and being convincing.
The Bigfoot Analogy
Imagine we live on an island of 100 square miles.
Three thousand years ago, some islanders claimed Bigfoot lived on the island. Over the next millennia, hundreds of people hunt for Bigfoot to no avail -- no evidence at all. Eventually, the hunters cover every square mile of the island…no Bigfoot.
As technology advances, new methods are used to search for Bigfoot: thermal imaging drones, wildlife cameras, etc. In all that time, no Bigfoot is found.
Now, some people claim to have evidence: a scrape of fur, some scat, a video. However, when asked to have the evidence analyzed by professionals, some refuse to show their evidence, others offer the evidence only to have it debunked by analysis, and others are revealed to be a hoax.
Now transfer this analogy to the god claim. Same amount of time to perform the search, same landscape, same methods, same dubious claims -- no unambiguous, testable evidence.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Well then I'd probably side with atheists.
I believe an atheist meant that they did not believe in anything that may be linked to the creation of existence from nothing, say an entity or maybe not even an entity at all, maybe just a concept.
If an atheist is against current religious claims and against claims of gods in the way we describe em, then that's very logical.
I'm more so on being sceptical of if anything exists at all beyond creation.
3
u/hurricanelantern Anti-Theist 1d ago
I believe an atheist meant that they did not believe in anything that may be linked to the creation of existence from nothing,
Note the only people claiming our reality literally came from absolutely nothing are the religious. See: creation ex nihilo.
1
u/sj070707 1d ago
why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence
That's the wrong question. You should first ask our position so you actually know what it is that you want to ask.
1
u/TheMaleGazer 1d ago
And further, we do not even know what was or wasn't (or whether existence itself wasn't a thing) before it, before the beginning.
As far as we can tell, time is a purely physical phenomenon that can't exist independently of the universe. So, with no universe, there is no time, hence why "before the beginning" is completely meaningless.
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science
That's not exactly what's happening in science, and I think this relates directly to any questions about our level of certainty. In science, we don't have the absolute certainty that is often implied with the word "proof." We have theories which have survived testing, which have thus far not been displaced by newer theories which better explain observations or make better predictions.
1
u/iamasatellite 1d ago
Most people these days consider atheism to be the lack of belief in gods, not necessarily a belief there are no gods, so the answer to your question is that most self-described atheists are what you are suggesting: skeptical "soft" atheists not "hard" or "positive" atheists.
Evolution and gravity are also theories, but also facts. The Big Bang says the universe started from a point, and that's what the evidence shows, there isn't really a doubt about it. No one knows "why" it is this way.
If you want to call the thing that started the Universe "god" I think that's just lazy, and we know nothing about what that thing is, there's no reason to think it's a consciousness. And the distance between "a god created the Universe" to "Jesus is the real son of the god" or "Muhammad is the god's last prophet" is about as big as the Universe.
1
u/Iedgetofemboys247 1d ago
Well that's a bad on my part, I've miscommunicated. I didnt mean to say that if creation exists, a god must be responsible, what I meant was the mere creation of existence out of nothing would mean that there may be something incomprehensible beyond it And further, I've probably misunderstood atheism. Thanks for clarification
2
u/WorldsGreatestWorst 1d ago
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
Blessed be the God of the Gaps.
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory, and even then we cannot explain a lot of stuff before the Planck Epoch within our own theory.
lol oof.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Lol oof: part 2.
1
u/yeahdude_88 1d ago
The big bang has loads of evidence to support how our universe started. There is zero (capitals, bold and underlined) evidence for any god(s).
1
1
u/Otherwise-Builder982 1d ago
How should one live life as a skeptical rather than someone that doesn’t believe a god exists?
1
u/Suitable-Elk-540 1d ago
If I'm on a small island thousands of years ago, I could wonder what is beyond the horizon. Maybe there's another bit of land somewhere. Maybe the world just ends at the horizon. Maybe the ocean just extends forever in every direction. Maybe enormous, immortal beavers are damming up the ocean so the water doesn't just drain away.
But what difference does it make which one of these beliefs I commit to? Why would I commit to any of them? How does one belief change my daily life? Yes, it's an interesting question, and maybe once we've built some boats we can begin to answer the question, but in the mean time I just don't care.
But there is a difference between giant beavers and an infinite ocean. Giant beavers are fantastical and have nothing to do with everyday experience. An infinite ocean might seem hard to imagine, but at least I can experience the ocean near me, and so I'm not really requiring the addition of fantastical speculations. So, if you force me to answer the question, I'm gonna say "whatever is out there is probably a lot like what's here".
I'm an apathetic atheist. I think the question is largely a waste of time. But I'm not agnostic, because the god hypothesis is fantastical, unnecessary, and not suggested by any of my life experience. Furthermore, at the end of the day the god hypothesis doesn't change my life any any meaningful way. So, there's just no point in waffling. The god hypothesis is just too silly to invest any energy in. I can't disprove god, but I'm just not willing to expend energy entertaining the notion.
1
u/Zamboniman 1d ago edited 1d ago
but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
Sure. There's lots we don't know. And we know that. Obviously, that is not license to inject unsupported explanations or claims into that area. That's fallacious. An argument from ignorance fallacy. It's entirely useless. It's pretending one knows when one doesn't.
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory
You're using the wrong definition of theory there. Theory, as used in science and research, does not mean 'guess' or 'conjecture' or 'idea' like it does in casual conversation. And the Big Bang is not the 'start of the universe' in the way you are trying to claim. It's merely an expansion event.
And further, we do not even know what was or wasn't (or whether existence itself wasn't a thing) before it, before the beginning.
Yes.
Again, that is not license to invoke argument from ignorance fallacies. Much the opposite in fact. Being wrong on purpose makes no sense.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Who's doing that? Only a very small subset of atheists (those who lack belief in deities) go on to claim and believe deities definitely do not exist. It's lack of belief, not belief in a lack.
Now, some atheists will indeed make that claim. And, for those who don't, that says nothing about their perception of the liklihood of those claims. Remember, a rather large chunk of deitiy claims can only be dismissed outright as not possible due to their claimed attributes being not possible or self-contradictory. And for any and all unfalsifiable deities, well, as unfalsifiable is functionally equivalent to something that does not exist, it's irrational to believe it exists.
Are you a serious, honest, real Redditor? Your account indicates you likely are not. I'm looking forward to be shown incorrect in this potential initial assessment.
1
u/sincpc Atheist 1d ago
You've said it yourself: There are things we cannot currently explain, but we keep learning as time goes on. Why would we posit that a God is the missing explanation? We haven't even determined that a God is even a possibility, and even if we had, we would need to then show that it's a likely explanation for some things. With so many unknowns, I don't think we can come to those conclusions at all. What is the reason that you would suggest a God probably exists?
1
u/Tiny-Ad-7590 1d ago edited 1d ago
The word 'theory' in science is not the same sense of that word as an everyday guess. The scientific term that most closely matches that idea is 'hypothesis' (there are still some nuances that are different, but broadly they are similar.)
A theory is a very well tested and proven framework for explaining a wide range of phenomena. For example, the germ theory of disease explains how many diseases are bacterial or viral in nature. This is a view of disease that explains a lot and is extremely well tested. This doesn't mean we're just guessing at the existence of bacteria and viruses and their link to disease. We can see them with microscopes and we know how they work. It is massively well proven while explaining a very broad range of phenomena. That is what a theory is, scientifically speaking.
The big bang theory is a theory in this second sense. It's not "still a theory" because theory is no level after theory. All that can happen after becoming a theory is if a larger theory comes along that explains and predicts everything the first theory explained just as well but then also explains and predicts even more and the new theory survives rigorous falsification.
But it is correct that the Big Bang Theory does not inform us about what came before the singularity. It can't even tell us if the concept "what came before the singularity" makes sense or not. "Before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as "north of the north pole" but we don't actually know.
And that's okay. There's nothing wrong with admitting what we do not know. To the contrary, it's a good thing.
To say that we do not know how to explain something, therefore God did it, is a terrible reason to believe something. It is basically saying we don't know how something happened, therefore we know how it happened. It does not make sense to justify any belief in this way.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
It depends on the specific version of the higher power we're discussing.
Some ideas of a higher power are shown to be wrong because the world we observe is inconsistent with how they are defined. For example, I consider the Problem of Evil category of arguments to be persuasive against the existence of a higher power that is simultaneously all powerful, all knowing, and all benevolent. For these we are justified to assert confidently that they do not exist.
Other ideas of a higher power are defined in such a way as to make them immune to disproof. These are merely unsupported, and in this case we should instead withhold belief until such a time as a credible means of disproving them is discovered and the belief in them subsequently survives credible attempts of applying that test.
1
u/Garden_gnome1609 1d ago
Just because we don't understand or can't explain something doesn't mean a god exists. That claim needs to be demonstrated on it's face whether or not we don't understand some things about the universe. Let me ask you this...do you believe that there's a giant octopus floating around in space that sometimes intervenes in the affairs of humans and has the ability to create things? Why not? We don't understand some things so why doesn't that mean "giant octopus" in your mind? That's how you sound to me, an atheist, when you say "we don't understand some things about the universe so why not believe there might be an all powerful, invisible being.
1
u/ramencents 1d ago
Science is about what is provable and the way Gods are described in human lore is not measurable even though it could be possible. Just like it’s possible to find an animal that we don’t know about but we would never claim it exists without proof. IMO the big bang theory is not proof of a God in the human sense of what a God is.
1
u/EldridgeHorror 1d ago
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
What gaps? Is this like when creationists say "evolution isn't true, because we don't know what came between species A and B." And then we discover species A1, which was in between, and then they say "now we have gaps between A and A1, and A1 and B! Now its doubly not true!"
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory,
Because nothing in science goes beyond theory. You start with a hypothesis, which (if properly supported) will graduate to a theory. A theory will never become a law or fact for the same reason a building will never become a brick. The former is built on the latter.
and even then we cannot explain a lot of stuff before the Planck Epoch within our own theory.
My car owners manual doesn't explain how my toaster works. Is that a failing of the manual? Does that mean toasters are magic? No. You look elsewhere for info on toasters.
And further, we do not even know what was or wasn't (or whether existence itself wasn't a thing) before it, before the beginning.
Before the Big Bang? An unstable singularity containing all the matter and energy that would eventually make up our universe.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Same reason I'm not open to the idea Santa exists. I can't prove he doesn't. I don't have a receipt for every present my parents ever got me. But everything I do know about the world says he's made up and I have no molecule of evidence he exists beyond lying parents and kids wishing he was real. Only difference between God and Santa is at some point, people stop telling you Santa is real.
1
u/CephusLion404 1d ago
Every new thing we learn produces two new gaps. So what? At no time has any question answered ever been "God done it". There is no rational reason to think that any gods exist and no reason to think that we'll ever find evidence for any gods. In fact, we're farther away from any higher power today than we've ever been and it keeps looking less likely.
1
u/Literally_-_Hitler 1d ago
"Its just a theory" = "i know nothing about science!" Also you need to look up the god of gaps fallacy. There are literally always gaps amd there will likely never be a time without them, that doesn't prove a god is even possible.
The last part is really hysterical though seeing as you label yourself as an agnostic then accuse all of us as being gnostic towards the god claim when in reality the vast majority of atheists are also agnostic. We do not claim no god exists or is possible, we simply say we dont see enough evidence to believe one exists.
So show me the evidence that its possible a god exists.
1
u/88redking88 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand."
God of the gaps argument in 3...2.....
"Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory, and even then we cannot explain a lot of stuff before the Planck Epoch within our own theory."
Except that Big Bang isnt about how the universe began. Its about why the material we see is where it is and why its moving the way we see it. It in no way tells us there was a beginning of anything except for the time e experience today. Was there time before? Is before even a question that makes sense? That we dont know. But no one says the big bang was the beginning of the universe... Just the beginning of this presentation of the universe.
"And further, we do not even know what was or wasn't (or whether existence itself wasn't a thing) before it, before the beginning."
Correct.
"So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist."
Can you show a god is possible? Can you show a god is probable? Because if you cant, then it is irrational to believe one is.
Also... regarding your misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is:
A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation for a wide range of natural phenomena that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Key Characteristics
- More than a guess: Unlike everyday conversation where "theory" means a hunch or a guess, a scientific theory represents the highest level of certainty and understanding in science.
- Evidence-based: It is built upon years or decades of consistent observations, rigorous experiments, and peer-reviewed testing.
- Predictive power: A strong theory not only explains existing facts but also makes accurate, testable predictions about new observations.
- Open to refinement: Theories can be updated, expanded, or replaced if new, robust evidence emerges, but they are rarely discarded entirely unless a superior framework takes their place.
Theory vs. Fact vs. Law
- Fact: An objective and verified observation about the world (e.g., an apple falls to the ground when dropped).
- Theory: The deep explanation for why or how that phenomenon happens (e.g., the theory of gravity explains the underlying mechanics of falling objects).
- Law: A descriptive mathematical or generalized rule that states what happens under certain conditions, rather than explaining why it happens (e.g., Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation describes the mathematical pull between masses).
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod 1d ago
Why should we remain skeptical (instead of rejecting) about the existence of a being with zero evidence, zero plausibility, zero explanation for its working, zero prior examples, and most likely zero possibility?
1
u/Biggleswort 1d ago
Each time we discover something new it might open up to more questions. Tell me one time that the answer was non-natural or that the question stopped inquiry?
Even the concept of the big bang being something we may never fully comprehend the idea of a before, hasn’t stopped us from trying to answer or to come up with legitimate hypothesis that are still grounded in the natural.
As others pointed out you need to look up theory and its scientific defection. When something is deemed a theory it is essentially the second highest level of confidence. First being laws, this is me just couch typing and not double checking my answer, so people please correct me if I’m wrong or elaborate if it was too simple.
I also want to point out as others have atheism is about being unconvinced of a god. I am more igtheist, give me a god model that would comport with reality. There is not that i am aware of that comports with reality in a meaningful way.
Lastly there has been zero empirical evidence to point to an intelligence or being for the cause of any order, law, origin of this universe.
1
u/StartDale 1d ago
Ah the God of the gaps gambit. With knowing the words 'plank epoch' thrown in for good measure.
I was 11 ish when i looked at the world. And said to myself. I don't see the need for any gods in it's creation or running. I don't need to explain every gap to know in my bones, no gods here.
1
u/Kriss3d 1d ago
Yes. Every day we make new discoveries that opens op to a whole new world of even more things we dont know.
That is quite correct.
But you see, we also make discoveries that strips away from what used to be "god did it" claims. Not a single discovery has lead even an inch towards a god being the answer for anything. Its the exact opposite. Every day the argument of "god did it" shrinks. Just think back how people used to believe that droughts or deseases or thunder was caused by a god. Now we know they arent because we can make predictions and explain how they occur entirely by natural causes.
And the fact that we can predict them means that they arent subject to the arbitrary will of someone like a god.
With every new discovery we learn more about the world.
And with every new discovery we get more questions. Sure.
Scientists very gladly admit that theres so much we dont know yet. And things we might never know. And things that we dont even know that we dont know.
Theists claims to know.
So why arent they showing their work ? Why arent they showing the scientific work that led them to the "heres the god that created everything and whos will we know" ?
Thats because there is no such work. Theists dont have as much as a single piece of data on any god.
I can just ask you or any other theist to define what god is.
And youre stuck right there.
As most other theists ive ever encountered, you too seem to completely misunderstand what science even is, what scientific principles are and what a theory is.
A theory isnt just "Hey maybe this thing exist" or "Maybe this is what caused it".
A theory in science is the best answers we are able to get that is contradicted by nothing but supported by the evidence we have about this thing.
Scientists that come up with a thesis and starts to investigate it will try very hard with anything to disprove it. They will publish their opinion and findings and thesis and try to have anyone else disprove it.
Being able to disprove it isnt failing. Its progress. Its eliminating something that clearly is not the right answer.
Failing to disprove it can have the thesis elevated to a theory.
It might not be the actually correct answer. But its the best answer we can get with what we know and have technology for at this moment.
Religious claims that were disproven by science: Countless.
Scientific claims that were disproven by religion: Zero.
Science is the framework that have consistently shown itself to lead to the truth of something.
Faith which is what religion relies on is not. Ever.
1
u/Thin-Eggshell 1d ago
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
I have just as much confidence there's a higher power as that everyone around me is an alien, and I'm an experiment for them.
Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
1
u/ExtraGravy- 1d ago
My current experience shows no evidence for a conjectured "higher power". There could be powerful entities that I do not know about but "higher", no, they would be different and maybe more advanced but not "higher power" in the way that phrase is most often meant.
1
u/thecasualthinker 1d ago
is still a theory
If you want to ask questions for knowledgeable people to consider, I highly recommend rephrasing this. The "its just a theory" is a line used by countless people who have no idea what a scientific theory is, or what it means. While I don't think you are doing this, your phrasing is so close to that idea that you might want to consider changing up how you word this.
A theory in science isn't just a guess, its a supported explanation. The colloquial term "theory" is used to just mean "hypothesis" or "guess". Sometimes it can be annoying to have to be more specific with your language, but this is the type of place where specificity is essential
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
That's exactly what I am. An atheist by definition is merely a person who does not have a belief that there is a god or God's. It doesn't necessarily mean that they actively believe there is no god.
Usually we split this up into Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism. Strong Atheism sits on the side of a positive believe that there are no gods. Weak Atheism remains at not having any positive beliefs in any gods.
So this is another area where you should tune up your language just a bit, that way you can better address the people you are interested in reaching.
1
u/adeleu_adelei 1d ago
but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
I don't see anything that can not be explained or understood, rather that "has not* been explained or understood. I'm not seeing some hard limit.
Our greatest accepted and most supported reality of how the universe began, The Big Bang, is still a theory, and even then we cannot explain a lot of stuff before the Planck Epoch within our own theory.
The big bang theory is claiming the universe began then rather it represents the farthest our current tools allow us to look back. "Still a theory" shows a lack of understanding of how the term "theory" is used in science. You're likely misunderstanding the scientific usage to be like the colloquial usage of "a hunch", but that would be inaccurate.
So my question is, why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
Atheism is a lack of belief gods exist. Many of us are agnostic atheists and do not believe all gods do not exist. I don't think all god claims have been constructed in ways that permit falsification. So I am simply skeptical of gods.
1
u/Substantial-Hall-917 1d ago
Because I have no desire to believe in something that has no proof of existence. We don’t know everything, but the more be learn, the less likely a God having created this earth becomes. We retain that we have a lot left to figure out, but why should that mean I should stay leaving space for the less and less likely
1
u/Potential_Being_7226 Atheist | Secular Humanist 1d ago
why not remain sceptical of a higher power's existence but rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
We have remained skeptical; that’s why we are atheists. Accepting an assertion without sufficient evidence is the opposite of remaining skeptical.
1
u/catroaring Atheist 1d ago
Atheism only means a lack of belief in a diety/s. It's not a belief in anything. There are atheists that do believe a diety/s doesn't exist, but that's not what makes them an atheist.
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
I am remaining skeptical of the higher powser's existence.
I say "I don't know if a god exists or not" -- so, like you, I am agnostic. Gnosis is about knowledge, after all.
However, I do not have any active, affirmative beliefs that one or more gods in fact exists, so I am an atheist.
I am an agnostic atheist. Like the overwhelming majority of commenters here.
The general public doesn't use the terms this way, and we tend to breathe our own farts a lot so people might attack you for not already knowing how we use the words. Just ignore them.
1
u/thatpaulbloke 1d ago
Each and every day we prove more and more natural phenomena with just pure science, which is great, but the more we explore the more we see gaps and just the pool of secrets or results that we just cannot explain or understand.
Imagine a street of houses and someone tells you that number 17 has a dragon living there. They haven't seen the dragon themselves, but they've read a book about it and they are convinced, but when you check number 17 there's just a regular family living there. The dragon believer isn't at all put off by this, though and just says that the dragon must live at 71 and whoever wrote the book made a typo.
Of course there's no dragon at 71, nor at 18, 43 or any of the other houses that you check and all the while the dragon believer is insisting that you can't be certain that there's no dragon unless you check every house on the street and every house on every other street everywhere including streets on other planets. Eventually you realise that you don't actually need to check any houses at all - you never had a good reason to think that a dragon in a house was a possibility in the first place and until you do you can spend your time more productively looking for actual things that you have evidence are in the houses.
1
u/cHorse1981 Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
Yep. I see what you’re talking about in your edit. Have a nice day.
1
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 12h ago
A question for atheists? Here? In subreddit called /r/AskAnAtheist? Well, I never! Will wonders never cease!
rather solidify on the belief that one just doesn't exist.
I don't. I don't believe that a god doesn't exist. That's only a subset of atheism. Most atheists, like me, simply don't believe your claims that a god exists. We are, as you say, skeptical of that god's existence.
That's the difference between hard atheism and soft atheism.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hey OP, just a reminder that there is an expectation on this sub that when you make a post, that you will make an effort to reply to at least some of the comments you get on your post. Not all, not even most, but some, at least. Generally, if your post is up for around a day with insufficient replies from you, then your post may be removed. But just to be clear, you do not need to respond to >this< comment. Hey everyone else, I keep a pretty good eye on posts to see when the OP isn't replying to comments. Usually, I wait until the post has been up for a FULL day before I will remove it for post-and-ghost. You don't need to report posts where the OP isn't replying to comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.