okay i don’t believe in unicorns, centaurs and fauns, so they exist too? that’s such a stupid statement, undone in a single sentence, kthxbye
Personally, I don’t believe in bunnies made of marshmallow living on the moon.
I don’t believe there is a suitcase full with money under my bed.
Edit: fuck
It was worth a shot
i hope the Artemis 2 crew takes pictures of them soon!
I’d rather they photograph the nazis on the dark side of the moon so we can track those fuckers.
They moved to the White House.
Yeah, we got lots of photos of those assholes.
But there is overwhelming evidence (read: an existing myth) for two of those three criteria
Hey Tim!
Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?
No?
So, that means it does exist for you to not believe in it, right? Or are you just some no-talent has-been who needs to stop speaking in public?
He should have stuck to cocaine. That’s dumb too but at least he wouldn’t say something like that because he couldn’t accept any gods next to himself
A more respectable profession.
Except for those who snitch on their dealers.
Mandatory relevant Douglas Adams:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,'” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.” “But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.” “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Every time I see a Douglas Adams quote, it brings me back to the joy I felt discovering him about 35 years ago. Thanks!
Athiests don’t exist.
Atheists, on the other hand…
I’m only real when I jerk off with my other hand. got it.
check mate theists.
What’s more real? One kid in your arms or 10000 on one hand? Who knows? Who’s to say?
I’m the most athiest of all!
The funniest thing about this photo is the look on his face, like he’s thinks he’s really onto something here
The incorrect assumption here is that disbelief is an active state. Denouncment and denial may be active states of thought, but disbelief is a passive state. Like the way that on and off are an active and passive state, respectively. The argument that disbelief implies the denial of something that therefore must exist to be denied at all is inherently flawed by this assumption. If I, being in a state of ignorance of subject “x”, would have neither belief nor disbelief in “x”, but total unawareness of "x"s potential existence as a subject. To then be told by an outside perspective that “x” exists and I must believe in that existence without any proof of the claimed state of “x”, I could choose to continue without further consideration of “x” and my existence would continue without belief or disbelief in “x”, only knowledge of that concept existing for outside perspectives. However, I could more easily explain this reasoning to others with the simple statement “I do not believe in “x”.” My statement would be reductive and simplistic, yes, but would do nothing to prove that “x” must exist and hold my belief because I have any knowledge of its concept.
The claim must be proven by the one making it, not the one being told of it.
I think you’re over-thinking it and giving him more credit than he deserves.
If you tell me you don’t believe there is a unicorn in the next room, that in no way shape or form implies anything about whether you believe unicorns exist at all.
If you tell me you don’t believe unicorns exist at all, that only means you agree the concept of a unicorn exists…
If you tell me Tim Allen is a bigger tool than anything Binford ever made, well you would be correct.
Not that I disagree with anything you said, but… it is the internet… and so I’d like to suggest that willful ignorance might be considered active belief. ;-)
What is “Begging the question”?
He really thinks he’s the smartest person in the room because he made a once popular tv show and several funny movies, doesn’t he. I believe he should go back to grunting and tools, at least he made sense then
I remember feeling weird about Home Improvement as a kid/teen during its original run. It had its funny moments, but then it also had stupid shit, like a debate about whether men or women were better, with Tim’s argument winning because women didn’t invent/discover as many things as men did. I remember yelling at the screen, “Of course women didn’t do those things, because men have been holding women back for thousands of years!”
Young-me was just pissed because Tim made a stupid argument that could be used by idiot boys next time they wanted to dismiss me or other girls. I thought it was a mistake. Adult-me is pissed because now I can see that he was a bigot all along. The omission of women’s plight wasn’t a mere overlook of history, but a point that Tim would’ve never addressed on his show in the first place. Suppression of inconvenient facts is probably baked into his brain by now.
Men also took credit for women’s discoveries and inventions too.
Marie Curie has entered the chat Grace Hopper has entered the chat Hedy Lamar, Ada Lovelace, Mary Shelley… You get the idea.
Baked brain is fairly observant lol! Wondering exactly what he ever invented…
Marie Curie has entered the chat Grace Hopper has entered the chat Hedy Lamar, Ada Lovelace, Mary Shelley… You get the idea.
Markdown has entered the chat to politely remind that you should leave two spaces at the end of each line or hit enter twice ;-)
From my perspective, the argument for the existence of a god has always had one fatal flaw: in all of our human discoveries that were once attributed to a god or gods, none of them actually required a god to make them happen.
Is it possible that there is some kind of being that created our reality? Sure. But how do we recognize that? Where are the moments that only a god could accomplish? If we want to prove that God was responsible for an event, we must first consider if the event could happen without a god. Every time I have looked at a question from that perspective, no gods were required. That is why I do not believe.
Is it possible that there is some kind of being that created our reality?
If a being created everything, what created that being?
If that being sprang into existence, then it would be simpler for the universe to have sprung into existence without that extra step.
For me, the main issue of being a believer or an atheist is the fact that we can’t even agree on what God actually is. Is it a bearded dude in the sky, is it the universe, is it an entity out of space and time, is it the friends we made along the way ?
That’s why I’m agnostic, you can’t be certain whether a God exists or not if you can’t define it. And in the end, it probably doesn’t even matter anyway, why would something like that even consider your existence.
Jfc the man played Santa Claus. He’s all about the fictional characters. Why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells give him an ounce of credibility?
He’s got a point, but somehow mucked it up.
Atheism is faith without proof that there is no god. So atheism, too, is a religious belief.
Edit: My experience with self-identifying Athiests over the decades clearly differs from that of the downvote brigade.
You can’t have faith in the non-existence of something. That is the default state of all concepts.
It has nothing to do with faith in a deity.
It’s a belief that no such thing could exist without having any actual confirmation.
No. That’s not how anything works. The maker of a claim must provide the proof.
Take the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is standing right behind you right now. You are not an anti-unicornist because you think I’m full of shit.
Is the claim not that “no god exists”?
If it weren’t, it’d just be agnosticism?
What a strange world it would be if I had to go around claiming that various things didn’t exist.
So . . . What do atheists claim?
Nothing, that’s literally the point.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists that do not accept the proposition that a god or gods exist. They make no claims.
Theist: There is a god. (claim)
Atheist : I’m not convinced. (Rejection of the claim)
Because society is so heavily influenced by god belief, there exists a term for those that reject the god claim. Most do not believe bigfoot exists, but there’s no special “abigfootist” word for the same exact position about not believing in a god. And people don’t go yelling at “abigfootists” to prove bigfoot does not exist.
There are some atheists that claim there is no god, and that would absolutely require evidence.
It’s true that all beliefs are a leap of faith to some degree. I would have difficulty stating a belief that “there is no fly in this room” simply because I have not detected it. I am fly-agnostic.
It is also however true, that we can dismiss without proof anything that is alleged without proof. If you tell me there is a fly but I cannot find it, I need not subscribe to fly-agnosticism to presume you were mistaken!
That’s like saying “not collecting stamps is my hobby”
No, it isn’t.
You’re conflating a choice to do or not do something with a choice to believe or not believe in something that cannot be proven or disproven.
Not believing IS a choice.
(sometimes it’s not, like when indigenous tribes have never been exposed to the concept of gods)
Not believing IS a choice.
(sometimes it’s not
Well, at least you have a sense of humor.
No, I’m being serious.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
🎵🎶
The lack of proof about the existence of something is very different from believing in something without proof.
I believe unicorns don’t exist because there is no proof they do. That is not a “religious” belief in the sense of “I choose to believe they don’t exist and I don’t need or want proof”. If such proof were to be provided, I will happily reconsider my position.
I personally wouldn’t even say I believed in them if they were proven to exist. I would state that I understand – or know – that they do.
Knowledge is a justified true belief
Incorrect. Knowledge is based on information that can be verified.
You can’t prove a negative my man.
It’s not about proving a negative, it’s about acknowledging that we cannot possibly know one way or the other.
The atheists I have interacted with all my life have always told me that there cannot possibly be a god. That’s a belief, by definition.
Because there’s no proof, no evidence. Every piece of ‘evidence’ has been “trust me, bro”.
Every piece of ‘evidence’ has been “trust me, bro”.
On both sides, yes.
What ‘both sides’?
One says, “gods exist, trust me (and my personal experiences without hard verifiable evidence).”
The other side says, “I don’t believe you, prove it.”
You’re forgetting the response from the theist.
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: I don’t believe you.
Theist: How can you not believe me? You have no evidence, therefore my God exists.
Atheist: …
That’s effectively trying to prove a negative, which is nigh impossible.
Also, it’s commonplace for a believer te be unable to empathize with a nonbeliever: it’s unfathomable to them that non-belief could be possible.
It’s akin to a person with loving parents to ever consider that their parents could be unloving, their minds can’t comprehend it.
So the believer goes about life thinking everything is a belief, even atheism. Which is an incorrect assessment.
That’s a bold statement. Can you prove that we cannot possibly know one way or the other?
Most theists believe in an all-powerful god. If such a god exists, it could absolutely prove that it exists, otherwise it wouldn’t be all powerful. So far, it hasn’t done so, and no one has presented me any convincing evidence, so I don’t believe in a god.
You should meet some more atheists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists – I don’t know whether or not there is a god, but I currently do not believe in a god.
Yes, some atheists do think they know there is no god. That is a belief and requires proof, which like the theists, they don’t really have.
That sounds more anti-theist than atheist. “Atheist” just means that you’re not a theist
Prove that there does not exist a negative that can be proven
Atheism is the default state.
Do you not believe in the Easter bunny? Because there has to be an Easter bunny for you to believe in.
See how unsound that argument is?
Having faith without proof is the nuance. Atheism is everyone’s default state until they’re indoctrinated by a religion or belief system.
Incorrect. Theism is the belief. The “a” in front creates a counter, the opposite.
It’s a complete lack of faith or belief.
Atheism does not profess any such faith. The null hypothesis is always presumed correct unless evidence is presented for the alternative hypothesis. Non-existence is kind of the ontological null hypothesis for basically everything, going all the way back to “I think therefore I am.” From there we have entire branches of philosophy which deal with the nature of perception, knowledge and truth which leads us to several ideas for inferring “existence” through various combinations of observation and reasoning.
Famously though, influential modernists like Kant and Hegel and Hume all tried to reform the idea of “God” into a question of the abstract rather than the concrete, which leads into a much more interesting semantic conversation. Eg, like you can say the phenomenological unicorn exists because we understand the abstraction without needing to observe it directly. But at the same time, we can say that nobody has ever observed the material Unicorn, or “unicorn in itself.” Likewise, atheists can acknowledge God as an abstract concept which has real moral and metaphysical implications, while understanding that there is no evidence of material existence.
This you?
No.
But at this point, I get the feeling I would have had a much more productive conversation with him.
You’re seemingly not understanding what dozens of people are trying to explain to you.
The issue is you, not the people trying to explain how logic works. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic logic theory. And that’s ok. This is something that you can learn and grow beyond.
This is a moment where you have a choice to make. You can continue to do things the way you’re doing it, which is only going to be effective in the circles you’ve already chosen to spend time in; or you can listen to literally everyone in this thread telling you you’re incorrect, and consider that you might genuinely misunderstand something about how the world works, and adapt and learn and grow.
Capacity for self inflection and growth is what most theists lack. Not everyone can break out of their indoctrination cycle. It’s tough. It took years and years for me to deconvert from christianity. It will be the same journey for you, but the first step is admitting that you’re not the smartest person in this room right now, and that is understandably a difficult thing for anyone to do.
There’s no shame in that, by the by. But it is necessary to move forward and grow.
Or remain where you’re at for the rest of your life and ignore the evidence, and lack of evidence, as you continue to tap dance your way around it, thinking you’re more clever than the people you’re arguing with, until you die. There won’t be any realization that there’s no afterlife. Just nothingness. The same nothingness that you existed in before you were born. There will be nobody there to tell you that you were wrong, or they were right, or any of that nonsense. Just, nothingness.
A conversation with a cartoon character would be very helpful for you and would save the rest of us a lot of time
Here’s my take on this whole discussion. I think it’s a discussion of epistemology and a bit of butting up against the limitations of language.
You could believe you know the truth because you choose to follow what a trusted authority told you. This is faith.
You could frame it that those who shape their knowledge of the world using the scientific method, logic, and reason choose to believe they know the truth. But they don’t.
If you understand 2+2=4, it’s not a choice to understand it is true. You see the truth.
If you underhand the scientific method, logic, and reason, you aren’t choosing to believe things about the world. You’re understanding the truth of the world.
Furthermore atheism is the lack of belief. It’s not belief against the existence of god. Absence of belief isn’t a belief.
It is not an act of faith to conclude that the requisite parameters for a claim are not met.
If a claim requires the laws of thermodynamics to be broken, then until an additional law is proven and replicated as an exception to the existing laws, then I would conclude that the aforementioned claim is false.
This is hilarious, thanks
No, it is literally the absence of faith.
There is gnostic atheism (I claim to know for sure there is no god) and agnostic atheism (I don’t believe there is a god, but I don’t claim to know for sure). Most atheists are the latter, which has no faith required.
You have accomplished more with one short paragraph than the joint thesis/manifesto everyone else in this thread wrote.
My experience has always been with the former; Atheists who proudly pronounced that there cannot be a god. That experience has made some people very upset.
Why had I only been exposed to that one kind of Atheist? I dunno. Maybe it has to do with the time period or the location, but I hadn’t encountered any other kind before this, not a topic of interest for me. And after all this, I would rather not ever again. Oh well.
- Polytheism: religious faith in the existence of N god(s), where N > 1
- Monotheism: religious faith in the existence of N god(s), where N = 1
- Atheism (or “positive atheism,” or “strong atheism”): religious faith in the existence of N god(s), where N = 0
- Agnosticism (or “negative atheism,” or “weak atheism”): lack of religious faith
Atheism can refer both to the acceptance of the claim “there are no gods,” and/or the nonacceptance of the claim “there is at least one god.” Not accepting the claim that there is at least one god is not the same as accepting the claim that there are no gods.
Many self-identified atheists are agnostic atheists, who don’t claim any knowledge one way or the other
Go look up Russel’s Teapot.
Yay!!! Santa!!!
Well, there has to be a TimAllenGrunt.mp3 for you not to believe in.
deleted by creator
I think the issue I consistently see in discussions surrounding theism and atheism is the definition of what it means to be agnostic vs atheist. The way I see it, there are generally five “buckets” of belief most people fit into; theist, agnostic theist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, and atheist.
In the most technical sense atheist means “a lack of belief.” But some people use it to mean a disbelief in a god, or in other words a belief there is no god. Other people use it in the technical sense, but rarely does someone clarify which use they actually mean.
So for clarity and ease of communication, I think it would make sense to use the fives states of belief above as follows:
Theist: believes there is a god.
Agnostic theist: does not hold a belief in a god, but lives as though there is one.
Agnostic: does not hold a belief or disbelief in a god.
Agnostic atheist: does not hold a belief in a god, and lives as though there is not one.
Atheist/antitheist: believes that there is no god.
Obviously I don’t expect others to enter a conversation already using that framework, and it will probably never become a common framework, but when I read comments online and someone says they are an atheist, the first thing I try to do is determine if they are an agnostic or antitheist atheist.
But why? It doesn’t matter how we don’t believe does it? This seems like a ridiculous need to ‘other’ for no reason.
When I was a freshman in college over a decade ago, I was given this link to a youtube video basically asserting that all agnostic people are atheist. At the time I was fairly agnostic, and being told this felt wrong, like my thoughts were being miscategorized, but I didn’t have a great way to explain that feeling at the time. The framework above is ultimately how I parsed through that feeling to better understand myself and others. That’s why I started thinking about it.
I think a person’s belief (or lack thereof) is a reflection of how they think, so adding clarity to what and how one believes or doesn’t believe something can grant a better understanding of how they think. And I like understanding other people and how they think.
I don’t really understand how this is othering, could you elaborate on that?
Well, the reasons you give are better than most. Typically people that feel your compulsion to categorize are doing it to argue others aren’t ‘unbelieving’ the right way or for the right reasons. Comedians cracking jokes that agnostics are cowards, hardcore atheists condescending any attempt at mysticism, mystics calling atheists blind immoral fools, and so on.
It’s the same with leftism and how they constantly defeat themselves by splintering into subsets of people who aren’t left enough or too centrist, etc… We live in a culture desperate to form cliques to our detriment imo.
