You're viewing a single thread.
Because it can't truly be proven that there either is or isn't a god / gods.
You can laugh at people for believing in a god, but at the same time I'm willing to bet you can't prove that there there isn't one.
In my mind, atheism makes just as much sense as religion - they are both total assumptions based on incomplete data. Agnosticism is the only sensible way.
Atheist here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheism is merely about trusting what's been proven, or has some evidence backing the claim that can be verified without doubt. Being agnostic is being indecisive about everything, even things that are completely made up.
One can argue that agnosticism is more scientific in that what cannot be verified, however improbable, remains possible.
What set the large masses in motion to collide in the Big Bang? What created that matter to begin with? There’s still room for the possibility of interference-based creation without contradicting modern science.
I agree with your second paragraph but take issue with your first.
Atheism is not the belief that God categorically does not exist; it's the position that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that God exists, and that therefore there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. It's a subtle but important distinction because the first is not logically consistent whereas the latter is.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, tends to either be the view that the likelihood of God existing is more or less equal to that of God not existing, or the view that we will probably never know so we cannot come down on one side or the other.
Technically speaking, there are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Someone who calls themself agnostic believes in the possibility of a god(s). Self-identified atheists are typically gnostic atheists who believe with certainty that there is no god. They could also just be agnostic, and unaware of the difference in terminology.
There are many gnostic atheists commenting on this post with the “burden of proof” argument, and likening god to an invisible unicorn. They are quite confident in non-existence.
Gnostic atheists are only a thing on paper; I've never met or heard of another atheist who ascribes to this view. As the link you provided states, this academic definition of atheism is not one ascribed to by the vast majority of self-described atheists.
Or, to quote the American Atheists organization:
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Source
On this basis, any invisible unicorn/intergalactic teapot/flying spaghetti monster argument that invokes "burden of proof" is not an gnostic atheist position. The argument is based on the idea that until evidence for an invisible unicorn exists, there is no reason for it to have any bearing on our behavior.
This is different from saying that because no evidence of an invisible unicorn exists, that we must conclude that it categorically does not exist. You cannot logically prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity.
Then why are so many atheists commenting on this post using said arguments against another person’s beliefs, if not to discredit them and convince them their beliefs are impossible? No one here is trying to convince others that “their god” is correct, so it’s clearly not in defense.
That’s the behavior of someone who is trying to convince another of non-existence, therefore, it is safe to consider them gnostic atheists.
It's not so much saying that someone's religious beliefs are logically impossible, more highly unlikely. When I typically see this rhetoric, it's generally along the lines of "how on Earth did you weigh up all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that God exists?", or more impolite words to that effect.
I personally don't browbeat the religious, so I'm not condoning it, but that's why this line of argument generally isn't gnostic atheism.
If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying that the existence of God is logically impossible, a priori, then that would be gnostic atheism. But, like I said before, that generally isn't what most atheists believe or argue for.
Thank you for your consideration to the beliefs of others. You’re more of an exception to atheists than you may know. You should read some of the other atheists’ comments on this post. They’re very quick to condemn the possible existence of god. It’s this type of arrogance that caused Einstein to liken them to religious zealots, and why he referred to himself as an agnostic.
You don’t need proof where science doesn’t have any either. The beginning of creation remains a mystery. There is currently no explanation for the motion of the masses that collided, or the source of the matter. If science can hypothesize the events leading to the Big Bang, so can religion.
Science tests hypothesizes and never claims they're true until there's mountains of evidence to indicate so.
Religion on the other hand takes a book written by bronze age goat herders and claims it to be true, damn the evidence stacked against it and contradictions within.
You’re making large assumptions. There are more religions than you know. The way one practices also may not be familiar to you. You’re demonstrating intolerance through ignorance. Maybe you should be asking questions in this post about religion, or abstain if you’re not interested in understanding it.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
That's basic deism but I would disagree and say it does conflict with science. Science is evidence-based, if you claim something exists you must present evidence to support it. I can't just claim there's a 5-ton diamond in my backyard and say "trust me bro". Nobody would believe me, so why should anyone believe in any god without evidence?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
A hypothesis requires no evidence.
Correct
It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments
repeatable controlled experiments are only one aspect of evidence gathering to falsify a hypothesis. Here are a few other methods:
- Observational Astronomy
- Modeling and Simulations
- Indirect Experiments
- Lab Experiments
- Historical Data Analysis
By combining these methods we can still falsify a hypothesis, thus allowing "science to happen".
The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence.
Correct! There is no evidence for what lead to the big bang because we can't gather any data before it started. But we have mountains of evidence that all point to a "big bang" happening - down to a fraction of a second shortly after it started! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] .
If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Science is willing to discard ideas that lack evidence or aren't falsifiable. Is religion ready to stop preaching because faith, by definition, is a lack of evidence?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
The difference between string theory and Spinoza's god is the falsifiable part. String Theory, being a scientific theory, makes predictions that should be able to be tested through experiments (although testing will likely be a challenge much like Astrophysics and will instead depend on other scientific methods to gather evidence for/against it). Spinoza's God is a philosophical concept and not directly falsifiable through scientific methods. Spinoza's god is the equivalent of me claiming I'm friends with a telepathic unicorn from another dimension, both useless and irrelevant.
[1] Gravitational Waves: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-cosmic-discovery-could-be-closest-weve-come-beginning-time-180950109/
[2] Redshift: https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-a-redshift-give-evidence-to-the-big-bang-theory
[3] Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-microwave-background-proves-big-bang/
[4] Abundance of Light Elements: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
[5] Expansion: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html](https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
[6] Olbers' Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers's_paradox
[7] Quasars Existence: https://www.astronomy.com/science/60-years-of-quasars/
[8] WMAP Survey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wilkinson-Microwave-Anisotropy-Probe
All religion is untested made up nonsense, no exceptions.
If you make it up without evidence, it can be thrown out without evidence. Athiests make no claims, there's nothing to throw out.
The real answer to these questions is "we have no idea", everything else falls under russel's teapot.
Are you this arrogant in condemning everything you don’t understand?
If you truly believe “you have no idea,” then how can you be sure every religion is wrong without understanding them?
I do understand that it is something people made up without any evidence.
I am this arrogant about anything without evidence, if you present evidence, then I have a reason to believe.
Do you not believe in untested hypotheses or theorems? They are also made up without evidence.
The Big Bang itself has evidence, like the rapid expansion of the universe from the universal center in a state of decay toward entropy. According to the laws of physics, the masses that collided could not have spontaneously begun moving towards each other without force. Suggesting they began to move on their own without propulsion is just as made up as a creator pushing them.
That just leaves you with the conclusion that "there is no current explanation" not that you can make whatever you want up.
Making up whatever you want is exactly how science works. It’s called a hypothesis. In science, that hypothesis is tested repeatedly. This is why science is best suited for repeatable phenomena.
In this case, neither science nor religion can test said hypothesis. Why is science correct but religion is not in this situation?
Because science doesn't assert all hypothesis are true
Who says god’s existence is proven? It’s called a belief for a reason. It’s no different than a hypothesis.
be·lief

noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself"
Which is completely different from a hypothesis, which is that something might be true and we should test it
Okay but here in the real world, those making the claim have the burden of proof.
This is a classic, literally text book example of the logical fallacy of ignorance.
Invisible unicorns exist, and because you can’t disprove it, we should build unicorn fences.
The logic doesn’t follow.
I don't disagree that religious people need to prove their beliefs. They are the ones making up insane stories that all contradict one another, and it is absolutely up to them to prove that there is a god, or miracles, or whatever.
Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?" That doesn't make them correct. More correct, maybe, as they aren't the ones making up the stories in the first place, but I'm fairly sure history and science have proven time and time again that humans know less than we think.
Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?"
Very few atheists say this. The vast majority of us say we don't know one way or the other.
That's being agnostic, not atheist
Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are both atheists. Assuming all atheists are gnostic atheists is like assuming all Christians are Catholics.
Gnostic atheists are rare, and if you want evidence look at this thread.
This has become a misunderstanding of language and wording.
When I say agnostic, that includes "agnostic atheists". Does that clear things up?
I swear some people (i.e. self proclaimed "atheists") get offended at the thought that they might be associated with anyone religious by accepting the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, agnostic.
I'm tapping out of this thread, didn't come here to argue about English. Also, please don't take my last paragraph as an attack - it's a general observation.
No, this was your misunderstanding:
Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?"
The language is irrelevant, you're claiming something that's just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish "agnostics" from "atheists" isn't the real issue.
The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic. Actually I cannot say I have ever once heard of a gnostic atheist, i.e. someone who would want to “prove no gods exist”. You (and afaict, all atheists) agree that that would be absurd, because for all we know some god is hiding under a rock somewhere. We can’t claim certainty until we’ve checked under every rock.
Agnostic atheism is where people generally land when they realize that none of the theists have found anything, either. Why believe in something prior to the point of there being any valid reason for the belief?
To further illustrate, do you believe in unicorns? No, right? Does that mean you say you can prove there aren’t any? Also no, right? Same situation with agnostic atheists.
Sorry if I’m over-explaining, it’s a commonly misunderstood topic
Really? They’re all over this thread citing the “burden of proof” argument and likening god to a unicorn.
Requiring someone to provide evidence to back up a claim is not the same as taking a position that the claim isn't true. This is the root component of the burden of proof and the stance many people have towards a god claim: they aren't convinced the god exists due to a lack of evidence provided by the person claiming the god does exist. Until there's actual evidence it's rational and reasonable to withhold judgement.
The unicorn (or other mythological beings) are used as a similar case to illustrate to a theist that they have the same kind of attitude towards the idea of a unicorn existing as an atheist does to any gods. They're both neat concepts, but without evidence showing they actually exist, they're nothing more than an idea for stories and art.
I’d respect that opinion if this were a post about debating the existence of god. This is a post asking religious people why they are religious. Atheists were not under attack, nor were any religious people asserting that others should believe their faith. Actively attempting to discredit the beliefs of another is just as self-righteous as attempting to convert without request.
This is the fundamental problem that Einstein had with the arrogance of atheists. As a self-identified agnostic, this is why he was offended when he was referred to as an atheist.
“fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/07/26/128769603/the-hidden-dimensions-of-science-vs-religion
Yes, really! I endorse Azimir’s explanation fully.
To potentially address some confusion:
If you said there are no gods, that would be a claim that requires proof. You would then have the burden of proving that there are no gods. Exceptionally difficult, as one could be hiding anywhere.
If you claim there is at least one god, then you have the burden of proving that.
Where would you land if you believed neither claim could be proven? Well, it turns out, you could actually be either an atheist or a theist! All we have learned so far is that you are agnostic.
This is where the story ends for the agnostic atheist. They have no reason to believe either claim, and therefore they do not believe there is at least one god, and therefore they are an atheist.
The agnostic theist however has additional work they must perform in order to become a theist from this position. They must believe in at least one god to be a theist, but they have no evidence that would compel such a belief. So they must take it on faith.
This leads to additional questions such as: is faith a good reason to believe in things? Can’t you use faith to believe in literally anything, thereby making it useless?
This is generally why the atheist is involuntarily forced to withhold belief. I phrase it that way because often people forget how beliefs work, they are compulsions. They can’t choose to look past these thoughts and believe in a god any more than you could choose to set aside your better judgement and believe, and I mean really believe, in unicorns.
I understand if you also can’t choose not to be offended by the unicorn comparison, btw. I didn’t like hearing it the first time when I was young and involved with the church. It made me think “surely that’s a step too far, and these two concepts are incomparable. Billions of people worship, they can’t all be that wrong”. It inspired me to go look and see what all of my fellow religious people had to offer in that regard. And to be honest, I still love hearing from them, but the truth is so far nobody has any evidence whatsoever. Most religious people themselves will even admit that. So it really does just come down to faith in the end.
By definition, science has proven nothing. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Yet you believe in science, but expect religion to have proof.
I’m unconvinced by your claim that science and religion are the same. Can you prove that?
That is not my claim. I’m stating that the scientific method is not a proof. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Science is best suited for testing a hypothesis of repeatable phenomena. An untested theory is no different than religion.
Interference-based creation can be considered a hypothesis. It is a theory that a supreme being or entity created and set the masses in motion that caused the Big Bang. Science also has unsupported theories about creation prior to the Big Bang.
My point is that a truly scientific person would accept all possible theories, no matter how improbable, until data is provided to believe otherwise.
Sure, and so as an atheist and an otherwise “scientific person”, I do accept that god is a valid hypothesis. And I will remain an atheist until any evidence pops up to support that hypothesis.
At some point I think you may have gotten confused by terminology. It is indeed similar to various other scientific ideas, which are believed only after being tested. You do not accept every hypothesis as being the truth until proven otherwise. That is the essential difference between conducting science and exercising one’s imagination.
That’s wholly incorrect. The vast majority of astrophysics is comprised of untested theories. The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena. The evidence we’ve collected is used in creating the theories, but they remain untested.
Religion is referred to as a belief (hypothesis) in god. There is evidence of improvement in the quality of life and personal contentment by believing in god, however the existence of god remains tangibly untested.
I myself am a physicist lol, I assure you that we do not believe in our work in the way you suggest. This is why it has been so outlandish and perplexing for you to continually insist that I “believe” in every science themed idea but irrationally hold religion to some even higher standard. I’m sorry my friend, but I stand by my conclusion that you have simply made some mistakes along the way while learning about all of this. It happens to all of us, the important thing is having a willingness to reexamine.
But yes, many of the hypotheses regarding ‘before’ the big bang etc. are currently on the same level as the hypothesis of a god (or prime mover). As I have continually affirmed over the course of our discussion that is all correct and definitionally compatible with atheism and the scientific method. I think perhaps we have reached the end of what we can discuss, unless you are willing to take into consideration how the scientific community actually thinks, rather than trying to insist they use your personal definitions of their words
I agree with you. For what it’s worth, so did Einstein.
Source?
He very clearly spoke against organized religion and dogma. However, he maintained that he himself was agnostic. He labeled atheists to be just as arrogant as religious zealots for their absolutist views.
He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
On another occasion, he criticised “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
He took offense to being labeled as an atheist. Not because of his Jewish roots, but because he believed that there was a possibility of a divine creator.
Ah okay, we’re on the same page now - you were referring to their last bit, not necessarily the first when speaking of Einstein. That lines up with what I knew about his beliefs