Atheism vs Religion. Are they always different? This is not

They're the same if you consider atheism itself as faith to nature (Spinoza).
Different when you realize atheism basically says "we can't know anything, maybe you're right, maybe I am" while religions say "we're right and fuck you if you disagree".

>>719908187
I guess I would have to agree. They would have blind faith wrapped in their own narcissistic ways that's equally as credible the other way around. Some people just can't handle that we can't possibly know everything.

>>719908590
There's no "basically says" though. That's an opinion. Faith is a confusing word when you are putting that way, OP. Although, it's blind, which I think better represents both.

>>719909023
I take your point, but you've misquoted me.

File: 7ba05eed-cbe1-4131-91d2-2a68b9ec2a0b.jpg (517KB, 1131x1700px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1131x1700px

>>719909404
Not sure how, I quoted 2 words, but apology tits. I'm sure I just misunderstood.

>>719908187
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of any and all gods. It doesn't accept any possibility of there being any god. In short, all atheists believe there is no god. Simple. There's nothing to atheism beyond that, just stereotypes created by pissed off religious people.
The statement "I've heard no convincing fact based evidence to support that belief" doesn't describe atheism. It describes agnosticism, and it's the most reasonable belief and is the one that's used by mainstream scientific models of the universe.

>>719909825
Sorry, not that guy.

>>719908187
Why won't atheist define atheism??!!!??
WHYEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEeeeeeeeEeEeeeeeeee!!!!?!!?!?

File: 1477063481153.jpg (629KB, 1280x1707px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1280x1707px

>>719908187
First reasonable/non-troll atheism thread I've seen on here. I totally agree. You need look no further than the Wikipedia page on atheism to get this. Strong atheists assert there is no god, which they can't possibly know. Weak atheists simply don't believe in one, since they have not been given any evidence-based reason to do so.

>>719910066
Not believing in a God, defined.

File: 1480872559420.jpg (81KB, 678x1000px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 678x1000px

>>719909968
You are wrong. Simple.

>>719909968
>It doesn't accept any possibility of there being any god. In short, all atheists believe there is no god.

I'm neither religious nor pissed off.

And not all atheists agree with you. Cosmic Skeptic explains it in this video. https://youtu.be/hA6n5NFpacg

>>719910066
This is not that bro. They're trolling, I'm not.

>>719910282
Thanks

>>719909968
Agreed

>>719910393
>And not all atheists agree with you.
I don't give a bloody fuck what atheists think. The definition is overruling, and if they believe something different then they aren't atheists.

I don't understand how you people keep plummeling over this subject over and over again! It's really fucking simple!

>Religions have some good aspects to them, but in the end anyone who believes the stories written in those books is a complete MOTHERFUCKCUCKING Retard!! I'm not even an atheist and i know this.

Also, denial of something you will never even bare to witness in your living days is tiresome as well. You can't disprove the existence of a devine power, nor prove it. So what's the next logical step? Put it beside you. Some questions are not meant to be answered, even though your stupid childish fucking brain tries to work that way..

Ever had a child ask you "why" so many times you thought he was never gonna stop asking why and get the point already? You are all digging too deep into shit you will never comprehend, so don't try to. Just live your fucking live, free of any thought about this god.

>>719910282
I guess I'd be a weak atheist in your eyes then. I personally don't think there is a god, but I don't fucking know. I'm secure enough in my knowledge that I'm okay with that. I don't know for a fucking fact that there isn't. Backtracking a bit, I believe that there is no god, but if I was provided some genuine proof, fine. Does that make me Agnostic in your opinion?

>>719910890
My sides

>>719910890
sounds like you think they're heritics.

Honestly, the no-possibility-of-god crowd of atheists have more in common with the dogmatically religious than they're willing to recognize.

>>719911225
I agree with the sentiment. I'm not as angry about it, but the basic message is sound.

>>719911268
Are there powerful atheists?

>>719911339
mine too

>>719911225
Thank you, well said.

>>719911536
>>719910282
Evidently there is strong/weak Atheist. I've never heard of such a thing.

>>719908187
>I think when people take the second position they're making a faith statement.
they are

File: Question 001.jpg (255KB, 566x848px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 566x848px

>>719908187

Serious question OP:

Are you going to worship the first 4th dimensional being that appears?

A fourth dimensional being would be able to perform any number of "miracles" simply because of their elevated frame of reference. Would you assume they made creation, hold the seat of morality, and own your immortal soul?

>>719908187
>When most atheists say "there is no god" what they're really saying is "I've heard no convincing fact based evidence to support that belief".

This is called Agnostic Atheism. Not claiming to be 100% certain.

>But some atheists take it a step further and say "there is no god" and mean it literally. They insist there's no possibility of something divine anywhere in any spectrum of existence

This is Gnostic Atheism. It's just as absurd as theists claiming there absolutely IS a god.

>>719911798

I wouldn't characterize it as weak or strong. I'd characterize it as faith based and passive.

>>719912002
ya

>>719912148
if by "appear" you meant that it would be verifiable by our measures then it wouldn't take a suspension of disbelief to acknowledge it? Ya, something like that would probably be considered god like on our plane.

>>719912302
completely agree

File: 1485124249166.jpg (50KB, 560x840px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 560x840px

>>719912401

Of course it would be "God-Like". That's not what I asked. Would it be YOUR GOD. Would you fall upon your knees and worship it?

>>719912737
If it performed a miracle that impacted me personally, then possibly. I can't say for sure. This hypothetical situation isn't fleshed out very well.

this is such a non issue

if you are honestly on the fence about belief in a god just fucking make a choice already

nobody is going to convince you to change once you've made the decision

do you want a jolly community and worship a god that tells you how to behave

or do you want to do whatever the fuck you want for your own reasons

>>719908590
Atheism is either the lack of belief in a god and the belief that there is no god.

I don't know of any terms that separate the two, but they're very different. The former is passive, while the latter is active.

Personally, I'm actively Atheistic. I believe that there is no god or gods.

>>719912148
Great question, I've never pondered that. Not OP

>>719910392
He isn't, he has nailed it, actually.

Personally I go to church and sing in a choir.

How I always took it was that religion is way to build a sense of community and to strengthen your resolve in times of great of need.
I do consider pretty much all religion as pieces of fiction and don't like their dogmatic nature, but at the same time they're stories about humanity and inspire humanity.

When I meet people who are religious I do enjoy having discussions about the Bible and how it reflects on our current day or what specific sections mean to us, good way of making friends. I've also found priests give pretty good advice on life in general.

>>719909968
I already posted this, but Atheism describes both the lack of belief in a god AND the belief that there is no god.

One is passive and the other is active.

It's like the difference between someone who is political and someone who is non-political.

>>719908187
>I think when people take the second position they're making a faith statement.
I agree.
There can be no proof of God's existence nor non-existence.
And there doesn't need to be. The physical world is what it is, and has so far reliably been described by physics as we have it, with a nod to known unknowns.
The metaphysical world is by definition beyond our reach, and there is no possibility to use material-based science to explore it.

>>719913485

How do you feel about people calling that a faith based belief because it can't be proven?

>>719913761
So you don't believe it, but you participate? Well, you don't hear that every day.

>>719914033
agree

>>719913485
"Don't believe in God" does not require capability of reasoning. Inanimate objects don't believe in God.

"Believe there is no God" is the correct one, because atheists are thinking rational creatures who have weighed the evidence and concluded there is no God.

This also means that atheism is a religion.

File: Religion - Where is Your God Now 001.gif (788KB, 1415x2000px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1415x2000px

>>719912978

So, you'll worship any being, as long as it is "Supreme", and it affects you personally? That's it? That's your entire criteria? Maybe you should think about that a little bit.

If you can't distinguish between any life form higher than our own and "The One True God" - then what are you doing worshiping either? There are likely many such being in the universe. And it could even be that our universe was >created< by some beings. Our universe could be contained within an apparatus. Would you consider such being "Gods" simply because they figured out the science behind creating Microverse?

You can give your life to a God who will never make itself known, OR you can give your life to yourself and be your own driving force. We all have a purpose - that is to survive and procreate. Like it or not, that's the total sum of your existence. Everything >>absolutely EVERYTHING<< that can be considered "alive" has one goal in life and that is to reproduce. That's the purpose of life. Everything else is just noise.

>>719908187
i like this sentiment a lot, i also agree that they are making a statement on faith.

>>719908187
>I think when people take the second position they're making a faith statement.
So, by this same logic, my disbelief in Santa Clause is based on faith.

Human knowledge is finite. Science is ever expanding the limits of our knowledge; every question we answer raises even more in its wake.
Asserting that something isn't true until proven isn't a leap of faith; its a refusal to entertain unsubstantiated what-ifs.

>>719913761
I don't mind churches at all. It generally teaches good morales which is a great thing, some people need that unfortunately. I just try be a decent person while doing what the fuck I want at the same time. That's all I need.

File: consider-the-following.jpg (25KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x301px

>>719908187

I'm an atheist because I believe our universe is the result of natural physical process than can and possibly will one day be explained by science, and that no super-natural entities exist.

Atheism is to state that there is no God, hence A (without) and Theos (God) from the greek. Anyone who claims to simply not know is an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

The other side of the coin isn't religion, but Theism.

Obviously both positions, Atheism and Theism, make a claim to knowledge, and any claim to knowledge requires evidence or proof. So the burden of proof lies on both sides.

>>719914521
Yes, actually it is.

>>719914722
I think we will all day before its all answered.

File: 1484188910392.jpg (34KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x373px

>>719914843
my nigga

>>719914100
In a sense I do believe, faith isn't the same as knowing, it's more of a feeling.
I find it hard to keep it up though, I fear sometimes that if my faith is too strong I'll become blind to everything around me.

>>719914355
I said I don't know how I'd react.

And this "One True God" stuff has NOTHING to do with anything I've said. That's Abrahamic monotheism. That's not me.

Perhaps that's your framework so you see what I said as an affront to that framework. I don't know.

You know, you seem really offended at the idea that someone would worship a higher being if that higher being wasn't the very highest being on the food chain. Again, that's a monotheistic mental framework. Someone accustom to polytheism probaby would have no such resentment.

As far as purpose, that's opinion. Function isn't arguable, but purpose is more esoteric of an idea to a lot of people.

>>719914903
I disagree.

Examining evidence and building a case for the non existence of an entity isn't the same as indoctrinated belief despite massive evidence to the contrary.
My "faith" in gravity isn't comparable to a 4 year old's faith in the existence of unicorns.

>>719914843
>I've seen a unicorn farting rainbows
>No, there are no unicorns
>Okay, the burden if proof lies on both sides. Maybe there are unicorns, maybe not

>>719914355
How can I be my own driving force if my purpose is already decided. There is no drive if there is no choice is there?

>>719914380
Thanks

>>719914521
No, because humans can travel to the north pole and people can reasonably eliminate the presence of flying reindeer on radar and whatnot... we have reasonable ways of disproving Santa.

But in order to disprove divinity you'd have to map all of existence in all it's possibly dimensions.

It's kind of a strawman argument.

>>719914722
Ah, but your belief, until it is reasonably proven, isn't fact based. That's all I'm saying.

>>719915710
Yes, that's how it works.

>>719915710
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>719915671
But we're not talking about ruling out belief in a particular religion. That's already been done.

I'm saying, can you rule out the possibility that in our big, wide universe, nothing like that exists. Or what about outside our universe? What about completely outside out understanding, but nevertheless a place where something godish could exist.

>>719914722
Maybe, but I don't think humanity can advance faster than our death timer. So I don't think it will ever be proven by science.

>>719915877
No, it's not. When I go outside and tell everyone I've seen a unicorn all I get is a free ride to the mental hospital.

Look, it's like this. We haven't mapped the entire ocean. Every once in a while someone discovers some new sea creature. It happens.

If I come up to you and say "I discovered a unicorn fish that farts rainbows" but I don't supply evidence, my claim can be easily dismissed.

But who can say there are NO undiscovered fish in the ocean?

To me, that's the same as saying there can not be a diving being or beings or whatever.

>>719915671
Defines the word, none the less.

File: 1439165734407.jpg (26KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x667px

>>719910053
that's okay, i'm not that other guy either

>>719916068
True, but I don't have to proof absence, never. Science don't work this way. Unicorns may exist, but every sane person shouldn't believe in them until there's an evidence of there existence. Same with god.And people try to prove the existence of gods since thousands of years.

>>719916149
Preach!

>>719916748
Sheeeeeit. Come on Lil nigger boy get them words out.

>>719916748

Right. But on general divinity, science says it's unproven, not unprovable.

>>719908187
Both are shit being agnostic is the only good choice

>>719915844
that is wrong though you fucking retard.

File: WendysShitIcecream.png (187KB, 510x685px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 510x685px

>>719908187
This is a troll thread.

>>719917265
because you say so, without explaining why?

>>719917298
some of us are having an interesting discussion

>>719908187
I'm agnostic, so i guess that makes me a pussy for not decide to believe or not

>>719917696
What? Where did I say that?

File: animated dog bored what the fuck am i reading.gif (2MB, 430x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 430x300px

>>719914843
>Anyone who claims to simply not know is an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

No, they are an agnostic atheist.

There are four possibilities, arising from the combinations of agnostic/gnostic and atheistic/theistic.

You can:

Claim you think there is a god, and that you can prove it, making you a gnostic theist.
Claim you think there is a god, but admit you can't prove it, making you an agnostic theist.
Claim you think there is no god, but admit you can't prove it, making you an agnostic atheist.
Claim you think there is no god, and that you can prove it, making you a gnostic atheist.

You can't be "just" an agnostic. You either explicitly believe there is a god or you don't. Unless you outright can state "I believe in (a) God" and mean it, you are an atheist. Theistic/atheistic has no bearing on whether or not you think you can prove it or if it's possible to know at all, it refers ONLY whether you believe in a god in the first place.


Though this is all just an exercise in semantics. I just get irritated at the fucking obnoxious "holier than thou" attitude a lot of professed "agnostics" have, when they're too stupid to realize that they're being asked a 2-part question and they're both "yes/no", not "yes/no/maybe".

>>719908187
Sort of, my issue is with burden of proof.

God is just a concept, it has the same amount of existence as a fairy tale. If you are not a child or stupid, beliving in god is just a excuse for ignorance.

>>719918120
OP here. Why don't I fit into any one of those 4 boxes?

I don't have an opinion on whether there is or isn't a god. You present it like a binary choice is the only possibility but that's not true. There are so many more possibilities than that.

Honestly, the google definition of agnostic fits me better than your binary choices.

>a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

>>719918130
Feel like explaining it?

>>719918157
I would put it like this: every concept of divinity we have is a fairy tale.

>>719915844
When they found no evidence of a North Pole or flying reindeers they'd just move the goalposts.
>implying religion hasn't done this since fucking forever
You're just Arguing for the Existence of God: 2017 Edition™. You people rely on what man does not yet know because it's all theyve got.

I am so tired of all those /b/tards trying to identify themselves in context of religion

atheism is simple, really. Forget all fuckin things you heard and hear me now, because what I am saying will be simple enough for your small fuckin brains:

saying 'i'm an atheist' is equal to 'i know that there is no god'

There is, obviously, no proof, but WHAT'S MORE, there is not even a slighest thing you could grab on to at least ASSUME that there might be a god

All you dumb fucks who go with "well, you can't disprove existence of god, so fuck you, what you're saying is also based on faith" - GO FUCK YOURSELF

I also can't disprove that there is no invisible naked Emma Watson masturbating to my glorious body, but I can assure you that actually she is not fuckin here.

If you go with "you can't disprove something, so it might actually exist" opens a way to say all kind of weird shit
> unicorns exist
> non-faggot OP exists
> asian child born from trump-hillary affair

So how about you stop with your fuckin high school level of discussion, it is literally so tiring

also, from george carlin. if you believe in God:

> do you also believe in goblins

tbh if someone believe in god, fine, fuck this person, he is still better and less anyoing than someone who tries to pose as a smartass by saying this fuckin "You can't disprove something with absolute certainty, so therefore, it might exists; what you are saying is based on faith"

Fuck you
and your eyebrows

>>719908187
Agnostic is superior to both Atheism and Religion because it allows common ground between both which is far more useful to society. But try arguing to both sides, both faggots will cry because deep down they know you're right.

>>719920014
it is simply a way of saying "I am too smart to be religious and too dumb to be an atheist"

>>719919529
I'm really not. I don't believe in god.

>>719919881
cool story bro

>>719920014
interesting

>>719920400
and people say atheists have a superiority complex

>>719920400
>atheist
>smart
>"LMAO religion AKA Christians are so fucking stupid, they're so ignorant "
>"Religion aka Christianity has held humanity back it needs to be destroyed "
>"Christianity cannot criticize Muslims because Christianity is worst"
>"Religion is so stupid, Christians don't have a heart because they HATE homosexuality and want to ban evolution n school"
*Christianity takes atheist criticisms to heart*
>atheist are shocked westerners aren't becoming rocket scientist in the boatloads
>nerdy atheist are bullied more when good Christians boys throw morals down the toilet and become jocks and hipsters
>nobody gives a fuck about the progress or the sciences but instead self indulged in instinctual pleasures
>Muslims invade as the backbone of the west aka Christianity is destroyed
>whites are being out bred by non-whites
>again atheist are shocked that minorities give zero fucks about exploring space and Muslims aren't nearly as open minded as Christians are
>"maybe Christianity wasn't as bad as i thought it was"
>the handful of scientific minded individual huddle in a corner trying hard to get the new ruling brown / black generations interested in science
>almost all of them integrated liberal ideologies for survival as they need publicity

Fucking makes me rage how much of a faggot i and some atheist were. Not saying atheism is a bad thing its only the faggots that want to specifically criticize and attack the safe, nice, open minded christian religion but refugees to deal with the more troublesome and aggressive muslims who give zero fucks at logic. We're in a war of ideologies and we're in such a fucking shitty position. Muslims have all the time in the world because their lives are meaningless thanks to jihad. God help us.

>>719920715
>that grammer
fuck you i''m buzzed fag

>>719920715
> safe, nice, open minded christian religion

either a bait or you are The Biggest Retard of All Times, congratz

>>719920949
You live in a society with christian ethics. If you disagree that Christians are civil then look at the cultures in the middle east, Asia or India. You think the soviet union or China believe in a god? Without a god indivulaity is weaken and men worship / submit to more powerful men, not science and reasoning. Fucking dope.

>>719920949
You live in a society with christian ethics. If you disagree that Christians are civil then look at the cultures in the middle east, Asia or India. You think the soviet union or China believe in a god? Without a god individuality is weaken and men worship / submit to more powerful men, not science and reasoning. Fucking dope.

>>719921322
That's not true, at all.

Slavery, child labor, gender oppression, racism, destruction of native culture, these were all christian ethics, fear mongering, gay hating, molesting priests, war mongering, etc...

We should be fortunate we've evolved away from Christian ethics.

>>719917170
But there is no "both". The first atheist model is in fact agnostic. OP is as retarded as faggot

File: animated sheep eating.gif (2MB, 260x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x192px

>>719918983
>OP here. Why don't I fit into any one of those 4 boxes?
>I don't have an opinion on whether there is or isn't a god

Yes, you do. In not explicitly believing in a god, you are an atheist.

A claim to belief in god is exclusive. You either do, or you do not. "Not knowing" is an implicit disbelief, which is atheistic.

>I don't have an opinion on whether there is or isn't a god.

Then you do not believe there is one. "Not having an opinion" is implicitly an atheistic viewpoint, because it doesn't claim a belief. You HAVE to claim belief in order to be theistic; everything else, by default, is not theistic, which, you'll notice, is the literal definition of atheistic when broken down etymologically.


>a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Key word being "claims neither", which, again, is atheistic, as it does not claim belief. It may not claim disbelief, but that's the catch most don't seem to notice.

Atheism, properly, is not belief vs disbelief.

It's belief vs. LACK of belief. There is no room for in-between there. An analogy would be "I have money" against "I have no money". You can complicate the argument all you want, with things that could be analogous to money, or money you owe/are owed, or assets that are worth money but are not money, or what constitutes money, or any number of other things, but, fundamentally, you can only give one, truthful answer.
Again, I fully understand what "agnostic" means in a colloquial sense, but the colloquial definition DOES describe an atheistic person, whether they know it or not. Similarly the colloquial definition of "atheist" is not complete; while most take it to refer to one who expresses explicit disbelief, you can be an agnostic atheist, carrying the implicit lack of belief (note, again, that this is not the same as disbelief) that comes with not knowing.

>>719908590
so in the first case you described an agnostic and in the second one a fanatic in general

also, i find the opinion of you on religion disturbing, but i can't change it, so i'll let you know that an anon out there thinks your opinion is disturbing
do pls think it over