Faithful (i.redd.it)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
🀑 1
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 7 months ago (25 children)

Agnostics are "I don't know, probably not. It's impossible to know.".

Atheists are "I don't think there's a god, there's no proof".

Anti-theists are "there is definitely no god", and they have just as much evidence as believers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Because I just discovered it on wikipedia I think is worth adding β€˜Ignostic’ - the belief that frankly it’s pointless even discussing any of this unless you can first define a deity. Seems bloody sensible to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (9 children)

    Ignosticism sometimes want you to also define what "to believe" means.

    Why? You can see in the comment you replied to.

    When you are ignostic it is interesting that you can also be, agnostic and Christian by some definitions and antitheist by other definitions... A schrodinger christian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (8 children)

    My hot take: If most atheists would use the same definition for God as most Christians do, they would consider themselves as Christians.

    And most christians would be considered atheists if they used common atheist definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)

    If most atheists would use the same definition for God as most Christians do, they would consider themselves as Christians.

    I'd like to hear this definition of god

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    Self-referencing Lemmy comment? Not as cool as the self-referencing tweet I saw many years ago

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Sorry I meant to sent you this reply to someone else with the same question:

    https://sh.itjust.works/comment/24471142

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    I think the problem with this is that while atheists may believe in those same concepts as christians, we don't make them to be about some divine being but part of just what we are as humans and animals

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    You used loosely defined term: "Divine being". Those things are IMO by the most grownup christians internalized definition of the "divine being". So this is the same thing and can be replaced.

    I am saying most grown up Christians do not believe in an actual "divine being" (definition: a really powerful, physical, human like creature).

    There is also a concept in Christianity that "God" is a part of every human.

    Let me rephrase your comment in a few ways. Consider by the definition I am talking about: Love,wisdom,... = Concepts = Values = God = Divine being = part of humans.

    "I think the problem with this is while atheists may believe in God, we don't make them to be about God, we just think God is just inside every human."

    Or

    "I think the problem with this is while atheists may believe in Love,Wisdom,..., we don't make them to be about Love,Wisdom,..., we just think Love,Wisdom... is just inside every human."

    Ignosticism can make things annoying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)

    That would be pretty far from the actual teachings of Christianity, and from their actual holy book that is the very center of the religion.

    What you're describing is more like "I was grown in a Christian culture, but don't really buy the religion". That'd make the person an atheist who's christian only culturally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    That would be pretty far from the actual teachings of Christianity,

    That is why there is a second part to my claim. Most Christians are not Christians by the common atheist definition of God.

    and from their actual holy book that is the very center of the religion.

    Most grown up Christians read the book in a very figurative sense and strait up refuse or avoid parts that are inconsistent with their believes or even other parts of that book.

    but don't really buy the religion

    I argue that most Christians don't buy the whole religion. (For deeper response I would get annoying and ask you to define "religion", and then I can argue which parts and believes are usually internalized and which not)

    That'd make the person an atheist who's christian only culturally.

    That would make a person a-theist by your definition of deity. By the definition of "christian deity" I provided they are christian deists. By definition.

    I would argue that most common internalized definition of God by Christians is different from the official Christian definition of God. And this would make most Christians atheist by the official Christian definition. But to argue that, we would have to agree on what is the official Christian definition of God.

    Once you define God this implies also the definition of deism and atheism (if we do not get to annoying and ask about what "to believe" means).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    There are also some subtle variations in agnosticism.

    There's the soft variety that says "there is no proof that convinces me either way but I won't rule out that someone could come up with one".

    There's the hard variety that says "I don't think it's possible to prove either way".

    There's even a variety that says "it doesn't matter whether (a) god exists or not, hence there's no need for a proof".

    But yeah, the core of agnosticism is that you don't believe the existence of (a) god has been conclusively proven or disproven and are unwilling to commit either way without that proof.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)

    Anti-theists are "there is definitely no god", .

    It's more like active opposition to a theistic religions. For example many people think that "there's no gods, and theistic religions are harmful to our society"

    and they have just as much evidence as believers

    This is very stupid way to put it. If you make a claim, you should provide the proof to support that claim. The claim is that there is a god or several, yet no proof to support that claim, which means that claim is plain made up shit and the logical conclusion "there's no gods"

    See also Russell's teapot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    This is very stupid way to put it

    You have no evidence of no god.

    You could disprove specific religions making specific claims, sure. But to say there is no god anywhere in the universe of any sort? That is not a claim you can prove.

    Now if you want to reframe antitheists as anti-specific theology on Earth, then what you say makes sense. But you can't both propose a new definition mid-conversation, and then argue that my statement that was based on the first definition is stupid because you're using the second.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    The claim is not "there is no god".

    The claim is that there is a god, or multiples of them

    There's no need to claim that there is no god? It doesn't make any sense to try to prove something like that. A claim requires evidence, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    For example many people think that "there's no gods, and theistic religions are harmful to our society"

    The claim is not "there is no god".

    I don't know that to tell you. This seems internally inconsistent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, "there's no god" is not a claim, it's just the logical conclusion from all of this.

    It's like concluding that daddy long legs didn't evolve from a Chinese dragon

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    "there is no god" is definitely a claim. It can be falsified with evidence (in theory. I don't think such evidence exists).

    Perhaps you mean "I don't believe there's a god" or "I haven't seen evidence to convince me there's a god"? Those aren't claims. Those can't be falsified. They're opinions based on evaluation of evidence.

    But we're quibbling over minutia at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    If you make a claim, you should provide the proof to support that claim.

    If your claim is that "there's no gods," then you're making a claim. The assertion that there are affirmatively no gods at all is in fact just as empirically unfalsifiable as the assertion that there is definitely at least one god. In my opinion, the only reasonable position is to not make any claims about the presence or nonpresence of deities in the first place.

    Russel's Teapot is fun, but I prefer Starman's copy of Treasure Planet on DVD. Do you believe that I have a copy of Treasure Planet in my DVD collection? More importantly, if you answer no, is that the same as believing that I don't have a copy of Treasure Planet on DVD? I think it would be equally silly to affirmatively assert that I do in fact have a physical copy of my favorite Disney movie, as it would be to assert that I do not in fact have a copy of it. You would have to come to my house and look at my DVD collection before reasonably making such a claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    There are no proof of god, there's nothing that suggests that there is a god or gods. There's only claims from some people that they've spoken with one. It's rather like sasquatch and loch Ness monster. It's the only logical conclusion that there's no gods

    Do you believe that I have a copy of Treasure Planet in my DVD collection? More importantly, if you answer no, is that the same as believing that I don't have a copy of Treasure Planet on DVD? I think it would be equally silly to affirmatively assert that I do in fact have a physical copy of my favorite Disney movie, as it would be to assert that I do not in fact have a copy of it. You would have to come to my house and look at my DVD collection before reasonably making such a claim

    This funny exercise makes the assumption that I'm too lazy to come visit your house to see if you have that DVD. As soon as I come grab a cup of coffee and a nice piece of sweet pastry with you and check your film collection, I'll see if you were lying or not.

    However, maybe this is the time you tell me that you borrowed the film to your cousin who lives abroad rather than admitting the lie. That'd be what Christians have been doing the past 2 millennias as we have made new scientific discoveries that contradicted priests talks about their DVD collections.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    My understanding was that atheism is the belief that there is no god(s), whereas to be agnostic is the absence of belief one way or another, i.e unable to prove or disprove existence of god(s). With this interpretation it's more scientifically rational (for whatever that's worth) to be agnostic than atheist.

    The importance of such a distinction doesn't merit much fuss beyond freshman philosophy though since you get some atheists who are absolutely evil cunts and plenty of genuinely good people of almost all religions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Atheism doesn't make any positive claims. It doesn't claim to know there is no god. That's anti-theist.

    Atheism makes the negative claim of: none of your god claims has sufficient evidence, therefore I don't believe them.

    Now, individual atheists themselves can say and do whatever. That's on them.

  • source
  • parent