I have a question for Atheists. How can you believe with 100%

An emotional argument would be something like "Why don't you go fuck yourself, faggot?"
You'll usually find arguments from real atheists much more reasonable.

>>733394116
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

File: IMG_0527.jpg (7KB, 113x105px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 113x105px

Atheism isn't a active disbelief of a god its lack of belief in the first place. An atheist isn't some place be who claims to know there is no god, the word you're looking for is "faggot"

Burden of proof is on the believers since it is their claim there is one. The conversation is pretty much this:

Believer: "There is a god."
Atheist: "You'll need to fork over some proof for me to go along with that."
...
...
...
Atheist: "Still waiting..."
...
...
...
...
Atheist: "And we're waiting... This is like a game of D&D with a really shitty DM..."

>>733394116
Its entirely scientific.
If I tried to present a new theory about the origins of the universe without any form of evidence then it would be completely dismissed.

File: montypyhton.jpg (485KB, 1272x719px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1272x719px

>>733394116
The answer is that your copypasta question is flawed. Most atheists don't believe with 100% certainty that there is no God, especially since God is such a poorly defined term.

>>733394116
How can you believe with 100% certainty that there are no invisible Unicorns when there is no proof that they don't exist?

>>733394515
>muh teapot argument

Typical atheist answer and a deflection because they know that atheism is just as retarded as theism.

>>733397400
>it is just as retarded to not believe in unicorns as it is to believe in unicorns
If atheism and theism are equally retarded, then everyone is retarded.

File: article-2339669-1A435C45000005DC-366_964x641[1].jpg (113KB, 964x641px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 964x641px

>>733396349
what you mean is an agnostic. I agree that many people calling themselves atheists are actually agnostic.
An atheist, by definition, believes with 100% certainty that there is no gawd.

File: 1444098863060.gif (449KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 500x301px

>>733394116
>demanding answers for an unfalsifiable
sick bait thread bro

>>733397625
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.

An atheist, by definition, does not believe in gods.
An agnostic, by definition, does not know whether or not there are gods.

File: 1459236679467.gif (154KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 120x120px

>>733397553
>everyone
You do realize there are people who just don't have an answer, right?

>>733397626
This. Idk why people still respond to these threads anymore.

>>733397553
We're not talking about unicorns, we're talking about two ambiguous concepts that people will defend to the death. It's not believing or disbelieving that makes a person retarded. It's when that person begins to try to push that their side is "better" that they become a fucktard.

File: 1280px-Kampfstiefel-Bundeswehr[1].jpg (221KB, 1280x1113px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1280x1113px

>>733397714

wrong.

>does not believe in gods
>does not know whether or not there are gods

read that out loud. It's the same thing phrased differently.

for the atheist it should be
>believes there are no gods
It's a subtle difference, but it's there.

>>733397400
If theism is just as retarded as atheism, then what is the correct belief?

Like all religious arguments, this fucking thread is retarded. Atheism and theism isn't about who's right or not. They are beliefs, and beliefs aren't theories. They're matters of personal opinion. It's stupid when people preach their unfalsifiable bullshit with vapor arguments and it's even worse when they get angry because people don't agree.

do you believe in unicorns? you didn't see them, right? so they don't exist

therefore, god doesn't exist as you didn't see any, fucking cuckold

>>733394116
Theists are are 99% atheist. They easily dismiss all other gods as false and yet fool themselves into keeping the one(s) they were raised with. Atheists simply realize that your god is just as false as all the others. Its called consistancy.

>>733397625
All agnostics are, by definition, atheists.

"Theist" and "Atheist" are, by definition, binary positions with no gray area.

People who claim to be agnostics are, again by definition, agnostic atheists.

If you don't actively believe in a god, whether you admit the possibility exists, you are an atheist.

>>733397814
Yeah. Those people are atheists.

If you do not believe in a god, you are an atheist.

File: images[1].png (1KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 120x120px

>>733397997
*consitEncy

File: images[1].jpg (4KB, 120x90px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 120x90px

>>733398092
Shit missed an s. Now I feel like pic related

>>733397968
Nope.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. You could not believe in gods AND know there are no gods, in which case you would be an atheist but not an agnostic. Similarly, you could believe in gods AND not know there are gods, in which case you would be a theist and an agnostic.

>>733394116

Retard: "Hurr Durr, the world is flat, vaccines cause autism, there's no such thing as gravity."

Smart person: "You're an idiot. There is no evidence to support your theories. All signs point away from what you're saying."

Retard: "That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world."

>>733398055
This. There is no such thing as "an agnostic". If you identify as agnostic, then you're just an atheist who doesn't like that word.

>>733398217
Agnostic theists are extremely rare.

Rightfully so, because that's probably the dumbest position of the four.

>>733394116
>How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist?


I don't believe anything, I take the facts that I see on a daily basis and form a conclusion.

>>733398460
It's a logically possible position, so I include it for completeness.

>>733398543
>I don't believe anything
>I take the facts
Then you believe that those things are indeed facts.

>>733394116
Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, 'nuff said.

Fo guck yourself OP

File: dont-know-man-small[2].jpg (7KB, 353x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 353x200px

>>733398217
Well put.

On the other hand, your argument raises the question if "belief" entails "knowledge of existence" or not. If it does, agnostic theist would be ruled out.

>>733394116
>How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist?
Nobody believes this. Go away.

Theist: There's a god.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: ...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

This is what atheism is.

>>733394116
Nobody cares about your gay beliefs Anon.

>>733394116
I don't claim to know with 100% certainty, but I consider myself a gnostic atheist, which is more commonly known as a strong atheist.

The reason I incline towards this position is that while I can't disprove any god, the "evidence" for scriptural depictions of gods is laughable at best. Once you reject them, what purpose or sense does it even make to consider god real?

>>733398832
I would say not. Belief is just the acceptance of a proposition.

>>733398460

The dumbest of the four are the gnostic anythings, since they are asserting something that is unprovable and unknowable as fact.

They are the dumbest assholes of the bunch. An agnostic theist believes in something, but at least recognizes that it can't be known whether their belief is true

File: 1486126292868.jpg (28KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 413x395px

>>733394116
>atheist
>believe

>>733399232
I agree in general, though for some definitions of god you can actually justifiably believe that they don't exist (internally inconsistent or mutually exclusive with well established facts).

A big issue with the whole discussion is that "god" doesn't have a single definition, or even a small range of definitions.

Not believing in God =/= Believing that there is no God

There is a difference between the two. An atheist will tell you that they don't believe in god and leave it at that. An antitheist will tell you with complete confidence that there is no god, and they'll even ridicule you for believing in one.

Then there are apatheists, people who don't care whether god exists or not and believe if god does exist, there would be zero relevancy of his existence in his or her life, the same if he doesn't exist. This is the more reasonable way of living. Life is too short to care about questions that will remain unanswered. The only way youre going to find out if god is real or not is after you die. It's pointless to worry now.

>>733399232
In practice, no.

Every religion involving a god requires gnostic belief as a part of the religion.

Dogma is inextricably linked to the discussion.

>>733399521
>A big issue with the whole discussion is that "god" doesn't have a single definition
This is why, when someone claims to believe in a god, the first question you must ask them is "which god?".

>>733398832
A. Athiest or theist - belief
B. Agnostic or gnostic - knowledge.

You need to pick one from a and one from b to properly describe your position. Belief doesnt incorporate knowledge of exists, almost by definition. Belief is acceptance on faith, without evidence.

>>733399800
>Belief is acceptance on faith, without evidence.
I believe in gravity. I believe it's Monday. I believe your definition of belief is incorrect.

File: Rofl_1d7eed_334934[1].jpg (40KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x432px

>>733399548
>apatheist

>>733399800
Belief is merely acceptance, regardless of your reasoning or lack thereof. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

>>733399625
No, what? What are you talking about.

>>733399935
Im talking belief in the context of religion, dipshit

>>733399625
Not true. Most of them require faith, not absolute knowledge.

>>733400315
Okay then. I believe Christians are wrong because of inconsistencies in the Bible.

>>733399232
Agnostic atheism is a rational stance for someone who doesn't feel he's got enough knowledge of the subject so he doesn't want to rush to a conclusion.

Atheism is for people who need proof and don't feel good in the limbo of poor info and blind belief.

Theism is for people who value belief over empiric knowledge. These people don't recognize scientific method as a tool for creating narratives about the (ultimate) Truth. They are incompatible with atheists in the sense that they simply don't use the same tools and they don't speak the same language.

Agnostic theism sounds grotesque as fuck. Agnostic theists are either New Age morons, brain damaged hippies, high school philosophers or people who live their lives without religion, but they make the sign of the cross every time they step into church and they secretly make fake promises to God in the time of need.

tl;dr Agnostic means you are either not interested in the subject or you don't know enough about it to make a definitive stance. Agnostics of all kinds should not engage in these discussions as they have literally nothing to contribute.
>I don't believe, but maybe I do...
GTFO with this useless kind of opinion.

>>733400915
So you are a gnostic atheist?

>>733401175
Well, kinda. But I am interested in the level at which I believe theists and atheists should communicate: philosophy and metaphysics.

Personally I believe that there is either no God or that there is a God that is completely stripped of all anthropomorphic attributes. There isn't much difference between my God or there being no God at all. I mean, with theists I tend to speak like there is a God, but I question his nature.