Can you persuade me from Agnostic to Atheist?

[Silver]

At this rate, I should be referring to you as Rhythmic.

[robvalue]

There's a similar bind for what we might call an ignostic atheist.  "I don't know what we're talking about, but I don't believe in it"

This is another general problem, yes. I don't know what we're talking about. I may believe in it, if it turns out to be an apple that someone is calling God. This is why it's debatable whether I'm an atheist. But then, atheism is a pre-emptive stance to what any particular theist may pull out their arse.

I don't believe in whatever it is you're saying, as far as I know, but I may do if it turns out you're just labelling something existent as "God". However, chances are, if you can't explain what it is you're talking about, it's just your imagination. So it's probabilistic in that regard.

I'd be comfortable just saying I'm ignostic, but since very few people even understand what "atheist" means, it's not likely to be productive.

[robvalue]

I mean... we've has threads going on for tens of pages where a particular single theist is arguing about atheism, yet they are incapable of defining what the question is, despite repeated requests.

What am I supposed to do with that?

[Pat Mustard]

Can anyone here persuade or convert me from being agnostic to being atheist?

Hello and welcome. Just a quick question, do you believe in any of the gods that you've ever heard about? If no you're agnostic atheist. If yes, then you're agnostich theist (or deist).

[robvalue]

It's perfectly knowable, silly.

It's knowable if we have some sort of agreement on what does and doesn't count as a "god".

But since theists make no such agreement, and they are the ones making the claim, then we don't even know what it is any particular one is talking about.

Some of them say, "The universe is God". It's stupid, but it makes me a theist in that regard.

[Cyberman]

You do know that the principle atheist position is not that "there is not a god", right?

You've got me curious.  Could you elaborate?

Sure. The entry-level atheist position is "not a theist". Since it's a response to theistic claims of belief in one or more gods, atheism straight out of the box means not accepting those claims prima facie. It's the position of "show me what you got and I'll consider it". As such it carries no burden of proof, as the atheist isn't trying to prove anything. Everything else, from the weak/strong modifiers to the seven-point scale, is an attempt to qualify the degree to which the atheism is applied, and may carry a burden of proof depending on the level of positive claims being made.

[ignoramus]

OK, most dictionaries seem to use the same definition of God below:

1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu


Rob, anyone? Here is exactly what God is!

Option 1 can be easily dismissed since what we can read of it is so contradictory and paradoxical, and judging by the amount of times it has shown itself to anyone, can be safely dismissed as complete fiction ... It cannot exist as described.

Option 2 "superhuman being" may have had as chance at existing but again, why is being worshipped a prerequisite to be a god? Why must they have favour over human fortunes? So many squillions of planets, and they going to worry about finding our car keys? Nup!

There you go folks ...2 main definitions for the word God and god. Both as unrealistic and ridiculous as each other.

So basically, if I want to explore our possible creator as:
: the alien who had a picnic on earth and wiped his boots on a rock before he left or
: an advanced species who intentionally put us here or even altered primate dna to create a hybrid

then I basically cannot use the term God or god. It's not what it means.
God, as far as theists are concerned can only refer to the skydaddy.

So, now I'm not ignostic anymore. I know what God is. I now know our creator didn't give us our morals and I know he's not intervening in human affairs. 
So guys, is it really arrogant to say we know those only 2 options cannot exist? Why can't we be gnostic atheists?

[Ben Davis]

My source says that atheist means one who believes that there isn't a God.

Just so you know, that's not 'atheism', that's of 'antitheism' (a.k.a. strong/gnostic atheism).

As an antitheist to every type of god that's yet been proposed (but agnostic towards the deistic types of god), I could have a go at persuading you but first you'll have to define your god.

[maestroanth]

Ya, I've always took these labels pretty literal. How can you believe in a "God" you don't have knowledge (as in proof) about? Agnosticism/Atheism is kinda a packaged pair imo......

[robvalue]

OK, most dictionaries seem to use the same definition of God below:

1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu


Rob, anyone? Here is exactly what God is!

Option 1 can be easily dismissed since what we can read of it is so contradictory and paradoxical, and judging by the amount of times it has shown itself to anyone, can be safely dismissed as complete fiction ... It cannot exist as described.

Option 2 "superhuman being" may have had as chance at existing but again, why is being worshipped a prerequisite to be a god? Why must they have favour over human fortunes? So many squillions of planets, and they going to worry about finding our car keys? Nup!

There you go folks ...2 main definitions for the word God and god. Both as unrealistic and ridiculous as each other.

So basically, if I want to explore our possible creator as:
: the alien who had a picnic on earth and wiped his boots on a rock before he left or
: an advanced species who intentionally put us here or even altered primate dna to create a hybrid

then I basically cannot use the term God or god. It's not what it means.
God, as far as theists are concerned can only refer to the skydaddy.

So, now I'm not ignostic anymore. I know what God is. I now know our creator didn't give us our morals and I know he's not intervening in human affairs. 
So guys, is it really arrogant to say we know those only 2 options cannot exist? Why can't we be gnostic atheists?

Sure... But then a pantheist comes along. Either I tell him he's not allowed to use God in that way, or I agree his "God" exists.

The whole thing is fucking stupid whatever way you look at it.

It's an irrelevant concept until someone establishes something in reality that doesn't obviously already exist. Until then, it's imaginary land.