First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn’t to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions. Maybe I’m wrong, I’d like to hear from you if I am. I’m just expressing here my perception of the movement and not actually what I consider to be facts.

My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth. I do agree that the concept of a God is hard to believe logically, specially with all the incoherent arguments that religions have had in the past. But saying that there’s no god with certainty is something I’m just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress. We’re constantly learning things we didn’t know about, confirming theories that seemed insane in their time. I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.

In general, atheism feels too close minded, too attached to the current facts, which will probably be obsolete in a few centuries. I do agree with logical and rational thinking, but part of that is accepting how little we really know about reality, how what we considered truth in the past was wrong or more complex than we expected

I usually don’t believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-10 points
*

OK, it still seems like taking sides to me when there’s no evidence one way or the other. I’d just say “I don’t know” and move on. No need to take sides on something that I’m clueless about, like what’s reality or its origins.

A human believing that God’s don’t exist based on reason is totally irrelevant, considering how limited human knowledge and reason is in these matters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

There is no third position here. You have to know whether or not you believe something. Either you believe it or you don’t.

Either you believe unicorns exist or you don’t. You can’t not know whether or not you believe they exist. You can not know whether or not they exist, but that is a different thing.

You have to know what you believe because it’s what you believe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

I think you can’t say this is a rule for every scenario. “Believe or not believe” seems to be an opinion of yours that I’m personally not bound to. I’m fine just accepting I don’t know something that is clearly outside of the grasp of my rational thought or logic.

I’m not sure why you guys keep comparing the existence of a god with unicorns or leprschauns. But ok, I’ll play along. Do I believe there are unicorns in earth? No, we have a pretty good understanding of the land of this planet. If you said “they live in another dimension” I’d just dismiss that because whoever said it has no clue about what “another dimension” is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Of course it’s a rule of every scenario. It’s a binary. There is no third position just like there is no third position between breathing and not breathing. You either believe something or you don’t. If you accept that you don’t know something, you can still believe it’s true. You can also believe it isn’t. You keep confusing belief and knowledge.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Bernard Russell used a teapot in space analogy to show that belief in something that may or may not exist and isn’t tangible to living doesn’t seem to be worth investing the effort of belief in.

Carl Sagan had a quote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Christopher Hitchens had his own: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

All of these are open-minded observations that can be easily changed with evidence that supports the religious claims. Which are lacking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

“Believe or not believe” seems to be an opinion of yours that I’m personally not bound to. I’m fine just accepting I don’t know something that is clearly outside of the grasp of my rational thought or logic.

Whether you believe something or not is not outside the grasp of your rational thought. Just… answer the question. That’s all it takes to know if you believe something, you take a moment to introspect and you say whether you believe it or not.

There’s also a difference between lacking a belief in a proposition and believing in the negation of that proposition. Lacking a belief in something (for example, any particular god) is not the same thing as believing that that god does not exist. Both are atheism, they’re just different kinds of atheism. “Strong atheism” and “weak atheism” are the usual terms to distinguish between them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Atheism is nothing more than a response to the claim that there is a God of some sort.

Specifically, a response that says “I don’t believe you”.

That’s it. That’s the minimum position to be considered an atheist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yeah, it seems like there’s a wider spectrum of atheists than I expected.

I guess I disagree with a subset of the atheist community and people are bringing up the other parts of the community that don’t match what I disagree with.

My disagreement is mostly with the atheists that say “there is likely no god because there’s no evidence”. There’s no human evidence for most things in reality, yet reality exists.

I’m aligned with the atheists that say “I don’t really know, so I won’t waste time setting my mind to a specific belief”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

There is no end to things that may exist but are not provable. Where do you draw the line? There might be a toaster orbiting the sun.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

Based on our understanding of human history, we KNOW that toasters were created on earth and that it is unlikely one is in orbit on the sun… This is based on knowledge. Even if based on knowledge, I could be wrong.

Now, what do you KNOW about the creation of the universe or the nature of reality?

This is my whole point. I’m not saying it is wrong to have solid opinions about some things. I’m saying it is wrong having solid opinions about things we really don’t understand.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So there is actually a valid critisism of Russel’s teapot, or toaster in this case, that there could be a detectable causality that put the object in orbit even if the object itself cannot be observed (such as a rocket to deliver it). However, this (minor) flaw in a popularized analogy does nothing to reject what the analogy represents: A stupid idea that cannot really be falsified, even though it is false (see what I did there?).

Atheist do not carry any belief in not believing (this even sounds stupid). We simply have come to the conclusion that there is no basis for believing in any particular denomination, nor some unspecific general one for that matter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

There is no precedence for the existence of deities.

For belief in deities, yes, but not for their existence.

That is all we need to say if we believe in the existence of deities; prior plausibility.

Staying in the middle ground of “maybe, we don’t know” makes no sense, because it puts the plausibility one step further towards “yes” than is warranted based on the evidence we have.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Atheism

!atheism@lemmy.world

Create post

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

  • This is a support and conversation community for people who don’t believe in gods.
  • Superstition hucksters have no reason to subscribe or post here at all.
  • If you are looking to debate or proselytize, options will be linked lower in the sidebar.

Acceptable

  • Honest questions or conversations.
  • Discussions on parenting or advice.
  • Struggles, frustrations, coming out.
  • Atheist memes. We can have fun!
  • News headlines relevant to atheism.

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

  • Anything against site rules.
  • Illegal and/or NSFW material.
  • Troll posts and comments. There will be no attempt to explain what that means.
  • Leading questions, agenda pushing, or disingenuous attempts to bait members.
  • Personal attacks or flaming.

Inadvisable

  • Self promotion or upvote farming.
  • Excessive shitposting or off-topic discussion.

Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we’ll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here…

…proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

Community stats

  • 1.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 291

    Posts

  • 2.2K

    Comments

Community moderators