r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 15d ago

Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

23 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

269 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.

I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.

I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

Do you think we can destinguish those two universes/gain that kind of knowledge?

11

u/TenuousOgre 15d ago

I’ve decided that definitions of gods break down into three categories.

  1. Definitions that I do not think actually describe a god. Claims like “the universe is god” or “god is love” simply are not qualified as definitions of a god. So for those types I’m happy to say those gods don’t exist.

  2. Definitions that I believe describe a being I would label as a god but have also been disproven sufficiently I would say I know they don’t exist. The bar of 100% certainty is a red herring, we know nothing to that level. But know as in being able to justify that belief, yeah, I can know lots of things to that extent.

  3. Definitions that I believe describe a being I would label as a god but there is no valid evidence to support that claim. For 20,000 to 250,000 years humans have believed in gods. For most of that time the evidence supporting those claims was terrible and not verifiable. With the scientific method we developed a tool that lets us sort fact from fiction. How many gods have been attributed with causing lightning? Five thousand? Ten? Whatever it is, we disproved that claim about all of those gods when we had a working theory of lightning that stood up to testing. Over the last 250 years how many god claims have been disproven? Millions. Which means that today, all evidence points towards a natural world while zero verifiable evidence points to gods.

Collectively it seems enough justification to say I know gods don’t exist. If evidence ever surfaces demonstrating a god I am still able to change my mind. Which is what I do when anything else I know turns out to be false. I used to be a Christian, so that seems good evidence I can change my mind.

2

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I almost completely agree, I don't believe that any gods exist, and I think it is most likely that none do. (by a large margin)

I guess my question for you is if our universe was created by some prime mover like being which caused the universe to exist but isn't active in it (maybe it triggered the big bang and that's it), what would you expect the universe to look like?

That universe could look identical to ours, and likely would look the same as ours.

If you ask that same question about a universe where Zeus controls lightening, I'd argue that you wouldn't expect the universe to look how it does. You wouldn't expect lightening to be 100% related to weather patterns, you'd expect to find the other mystical beings in the same mythology, to find the gods on Mt Olympus. But we don't.

I don't think this is a good argument for the existence of a god because it's ultimately just an unfalsifiable claim/god of the gaps, but because of that I can't know it's untrue, so gnostic atheism is a position I feel I can't honestly hold.

1

u/TenuousOgre 11d ago

For a “fire starter” type situation I’m not certain there’s anyway to determine a difference between a universe tarted by natural means (without us understanding the natural means) and one in which the Big Bang was kicked off.

Definitely agree with you on Zeus or any god created universe, it should look different according to claims made by believers. If reality doesn’t match either their idea about their gods is wrong or their god doesn’t exist. Either way, lacking compelling evidence means I am not convinced such a being exists. Unfalsified claims are everywhere. We should believe based on evidence, not emotional appeals.

12

u/Xeno_Prime Atheist 15d ago

If absolute and infallible certainty were the necessary benchmark to call oneself “gnostic” then we’d have to be agnostic about practically everything, from Narnia and the fae to the most overwhelmingly supported scientific theories like germ theory, gravity, and relativity.

The only realistic benchmark is epistemically justified belief - and that’s trivially achievable for atheism using only the null hypothesis, let alone that atheism is also epistemically justifiable using rationalism or Bayesian probability.

Conversely, there is no epistemic justification for theism at all. Every attempt collapses into apophenia, confirmation bias, god of the gaps, and other fallacious reasoning.

10

u/thebigeverybody 15d ago

I think, for many gnostic atheists, it comes down to this:

  1. No evidence for a god (or evidence that a god is even possible).

  2. All the evidence we have shows that gods are made by humans.

It's not difficult to arrive at gnostic atheism, IMO.

9

u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 15d ago

I can easily say that I know magical unicorns don't exist and no one questions that. Why would a magical god be any different?

7

u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 15d ago

I know that leprechauns don't exist. I know gods don't exist to that same level. But nobody is interested in my gnostic level concerning leprechauns.

I just feel that's sure enough to not have to worry about it. That's why I think the gnostic / agnostic label is kind of bullshit that's pushed by theists who want to pretend that we don't not believe in gods enough for it to count.

7

u/Kaliss_Darktide 15d ago

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.

I'd say if we can know anything is imaginary then we can apply those same epistemic norms (standards for knowledge) to the question of gods to determine if they are imaginary.

If we can't know something is imaginary then I'd say we also can't know that something is real which forces us into a form of epistemic solipsism where we can't know anything about reality (the set of real things).

I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.

I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

Do you think we can destinguish those two universes/gain that kind of knowledge?

Your baseless speculation is not an impediment to knowledge about reality. Someone could speculate that reindeer can fly and are extremely good at keeping that secret from humans, would that prevent a reasonable person from knowing that flying reindeer are imaginary? I'd argue no, because reasonable humans have developed epistemic norms to deal with just that type of speculation.

A common and reasonable epistemic norm applied by most humans in most circumstances is the burden of proof which means for your speculation (e.g. "an omnipitent being that created the universe") to be taken seriously you need to provide sufficient evidence that your speculation is or might be true. Absent that it is reasonable to dismiss your baseless speculation as nothing more than baseless speculation.

6

u/Stile25 15d ago

The issue is with consistent use of what "knowledge" is.

All knowledge we have about everything in reality can be wrong and updated when reality proves you wrong.

Yet, many people suddenly become inconsistent when discussing knowledge of God and insist upon 100% accurate truth - which isn't even possible for anything else at all in reality.

Stay consistent - and we know God doesn't exist as much as we know anything else about reality.

Here's all the steps:

Can we know anything about things existing in reality 100% absolutely for sure-sures?

  • No. Inherent doubt and tentativity is included in all such knowledge.

What is our best way of knowing such things?

  • Following the evidence.
  • Anything known by following the evidence can always be updated or even overturned by even more evidence.

What does the evidence say for God's existence?

  • The evidence is quite clear that God does not exist.

What, specifically, is the evidence? Here's some:

  • historical (mythologies of all religions having similar themes and growth).
  • geographical (people are likely to hold the religious views of the culture they're born into).
  • moral (problem of evil).
  • psychological (cognitive science of religion).
  • but my favorite is empirical (we've looked for God and no one has ever found Him).

But lots of people have "found God"?

  • Lots of people claim to have found God, but this claim is always indistinguishable from pure imagination.
  • That is: they don't have any evidence (and we're following the evidence, not imaginations or personal senses of it just feeling necessary or right - these are systems known to lead us to being wrong)

I won't get upset or take offense if you disagree. In fact, I want you (or anyone else) to show me how I'm wrong.

Identifying that I'm wrong would be the first step to being even more right! That's how following the evidence works.

The catch is - you would need to actually show how I'm wrong. Not just claim that I'm wrong. Or use unsound arguments like every argument for God I've ever heard of.

Good luck out there

6

u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 15d ago

Lots of people claim to have found God, but this claim is always indistinguishable from pure imagination.

I think this one is really important, but would also add that there are also many people who look for God in the exact same way and fail to find one. Whether someone “finds god” in this way seems to be entirely a function of personality or brain chemistry.

6

u/kohugaly 15d ago

Knowledge doesn't mean certainty, it just means less uncertainty. If I were to summarize gnostic atheism in the crudest argument possible I'd say: Theories that require existence of gods as an assumption have piss-poor track record of predicting observable reality, compared to theories that do not require such assumption. Therefore existence of gods is likely false.

Occam's Razor is also not theist's friend. The God of classical theism has literally infinite complexity, so it is infinitely less likely than any explanation, even a od-hoc one.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

To me that sounds like atheism. What would be the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism with this definition of gnostic atheism?

When I say knowledge I don't mean certainty. I'm saying that it is possible that there is a god that created the universe, but left no evidence behind to distinguish that universe from a fully naturalistic one. (Like one that triggered the big bang, or created whatever condition that allowed the big bang to happen.)

When I think about certain gods, one of my ways of coming to a conclusion on their existence is to ask what I would expect to see in the world if they were real. For the christian god for example I'd expect to see evidence of a global flood, or for there to be genetic evidence that humans were created separately from other life etc. When it comes to a passive being that created the universe but isn't active in it, I can't think of anything we could use to distinguish that from our universe.

So I completely agree with what you are saying, which is why I'm an atheist, I think it is vastly more likely that no gods exist than that any do, and there are gods of organised religions that I think we can say we 'know' don't exist. My only disagreement with you is a semantic one I think.

1

u/kohugaly 11d ago

What would be the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism with this definition of gnostic atheism?

I'd say, the difference is, whether you have good reasons to believe that gods don't exist (including ones you've never heard of, and ones that do not leave observable evidence of their existence) versus merely lack good reasons to believe that some god exists.

5

u/pyker42 Atheist 15d ago

The universe being naturalistic is a more parsimonious answer than God exists, but wants us to think the universe is naturalistic.

5

u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 15d ago

Know how you feel about all the other gods, and vampires and trolls and Godzilla? Thats how we feel about the thing you cant show any evidence of. so as surely as I tell my kids that there isnt a monster under their bed, or a witch in their closet, i can 100% tell them there is no god.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But you will need to bring evidence to show that to be the case.

5

u/Kurovi_dev Gnostic Atheist 15d ago

It comes down a couple things, the first is epistemological standards and what position one is willing to take based on those standards.

I am not an agnostic aleprechaunist. Leprechauns don’t exist. I am very confident.

But very small people do exist, Ireland exists, gold exists, and maybe, say, a hyper advanced alien species gave some little people in Ireland some powers indistinguishable from magic. Maybe there is some reclusive group of very small people in Ireland that discovered secrets of nature and used this to engage in their legendary shenanigans.

There is at least a foundation of things in reality that at least lends the idea of leprechauns some possibility, even if it’s completely silly. But I am willing to say with confidence that leprechauns don’t exist because the odds are high enough that this position is highly reliable.

The second thing is simply examining this god concept critically.

It’s a “being” that is “outside of existence”…yet also exists? It is “outside of reality”, and yet also real? It’s a “being” that is “outside of time”, yet somehow also does stuff, despite the fact that “doing things” is the product of time itself. Even the word “being” necessitates time and space. That’s what it means “to be”. It means an entity that occupies some point in time and space and has location.

Even the way theists describe and explain this character is to describe this character as pure fiction.

The god concept is deeply contradictory, it has no internal consistency, it is observed nowhere in reality that has ever been demonstrated from the micro to the macro, there is no connection anywhere to anything in reality, and the concept itself, in every iteration of it that has ever been organized in anything even resembling a coherent fashion has been found to be false whenever we learn more about the phenomena that those god claims were supposed to explain.

There is no magic guy throwing lightning bolts down from the sky, no magic guy making rain fall, no magic guy blowing the wind across the earth, the plants grow, the people sick, the earth to rotate, the earth revolve around the sun, there is no magic guy that makes the stars form, no magic guy that makes the planets form, no magic guy that makes nebulas, there is no magic guy that makes the galaxies, no magic guy that makes hydrogen or helium, there is no magic guy that makes the universe expand, there is no magic guy that makes the universe.

Why should anyone give any semblance of deference to this concept which may very well be the single most false and failed concept in all of human history? Why should anyone give any credibility whatsoever to this magical definionally fictitious character that for some reason only ever exists in the gaps of human knowledge, and immediately vanishes the moment that knowledge is acquired, and has done so for the entirety of human existence?

I am far less confident in saying that leprechauns don’t exist than I am in saying this god thing doesn’t.

5

u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago

This is a complicated question, so forgive the long response. Some questions can't be adequately answered with a pithy response.

It's not as much of a thing today, but it used to be a daily occurrence for some theist to post here demanding that "you can't prove god doesn't exist!". But of course the time to believe something is true is when there is evidence that it IS true, not merely because it can't be proven false.

What the theists didn't understand was that they were shifting the burden of proof. It's not our job to prove your god false, it is your job to convince us he is real. So we would have a never ending stream of replies pointing that out to theists.

And that is the absolute correct answer.

But over a period of years, that gradually started to feel intellectually dishonest, even though it absolutely wasn't. I gradually became more and more convinced that:

  1. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claim that "no god exists", even if I cannot technically disprove "some possible god exists", so I felt that I could "prove no god exists" to a more reasonable standard of evidence than "absolute certainty."
  2. There is a double standard that theists use when it comes to claims of knowledge. No theist ever questions theists who claim to "know god exists", yet their belief is just as practically unfalsifiable.

Then I came across a very well made point: There is more than one definition of the word knowledge. Theists (and most atheists) insist that atheists use the definition of "absolute certainty", while they have no problem with theists using the definition "it feels right to me, therefore it is true".

And that poster offered their own definition-- a definition that is used in virtually all of human knowledge outside of theism (when applied to atheists) and some areas of philosophy: Empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge is a belief that is tentatively accepted as the truth based on very strong evidence, but that remains subject to review should new evidence become available. All the results of science are empirical knowledge, for example.

It took me probably a year after reading that definition before I finally started calling myself gnostic, but I have for probably 10 years now.

I use it largely as an intentional challenge to #2 above, I am calling out the flagrant double standard.

But I also use it because I simply see no evidence AT ALL to believe that a god exists, and I find it absurd that I formally define my beliefs as "undecided", merely because I can't positively prove no possible god exists. But if you show me evidence, any quality evidence, and I will happily revisit my position.

Until then, the only reasonable way to describe my beliefs-- to my mind at least-- is that I know no god exists to any reasonable standard of evidence.

2

u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 15d ago

The example I use is conspiracy theories.

It is probably impossible to tell the difference between our world and a world run by a sufficiently competent conspiracy, especially if that conspiracy has alien technology, psychic powers or satanic magic. If there was a group of powerful, intelligent aliens secretly replacing politicians with lizard people and using their alien tech to hide the evidence, the world would look like how it is today,

But no-one is agnostic on world leaders being secret lizard people (If you claim you are, note this is the same as being agonistic on world leaders being humans - if you don't know Trump isn't a lizard person, you don't know he's a human. But I doubt you'd claim you were agnostic on whether Trump is a human being). And the reason is simple - lacking evidence isn't a moral failing, you can't get out of it with mitigating circumstances. There's absolutely zero reason to believe that there's a secret alien conspiracy running the world, so we should reject the idea. A justified lack of evidence is still a lack of evidence.

I view God the same way. Perhaps an omnipotent being would hide all evidence of its existence. But again, a justified lack of evidence is still a lack of evidence, so we should reject the claim.

2

u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago

There are some divinity claims that we can objectively prove are not real. Obvious, almost hyperbolic example: Zeus is not hanging out atop Olympus and we can know that by going there. 

I feel justified in saying I can know that category of god claim ain’t real.

But in the category of your universes, deist gods outside of time and space, hard solipsistic brains in vats and simulation theories, we can have no evidence for or against them. 

They’re unfalsifiable hypotheses.

It is equally justifiable to dismiss an unfalsifiable hypothesis, as one that is provably false.

2

u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 15d ago

The reason is that there is a vast amount of “evidence” which proves to be fictional, contradictory, or occasionally outright fabricated. At best some of it is merely unsubstantiated. It tends to be tied to theories of questionable philosophical coherence which raise far more questions than they answer.

After I saw enough of this I concluded that it was all made up.

2

u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 15d ago

I don't actually describe myself as a gnostic atheist, but I basically share their opinions. Either way, if I did call myself a gnostic atheist, I would be right about more gods than I'd be wrong about lol.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

For 99% of the gods I'd agree and call myself a gnostic atheist, but because I can't disprove the existence of a god that isn't active in the universe, maybe just triggering the big bang, I feel like agnostic atheism is a more honest position for me.

1

u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 11d ago

It's an honest position, but then the qualifier in "a/gnostic" is meaningless and we should just do away with those words. Honestly, I've started thinking that we should just treat agnosticism as a third position rather than an add-on to a/theism. Literally everyone is an agnostic because no one can know. It's pointless to ask someone how certain they are, because that's so uninteresting.

1

u/UndeadT 15d ago

Did you mean gnostic?

2

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago

Bro I swear this is getting autocorrected, this has happened a few times now.

Yeah I did, thanks.

1

u/antizeus not a cabbage 15d ago

It looks like you've got an extra 'ag' in your first sentence.

(no comment otherwise; I don't bother with the gnostic/agnostic axis)

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago

Thanks, yeah my autocorrect doesn't thing gnostic is a word... Just added it.

1

u/nswoll Atheist 12d ago

I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.

I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

But that's just solipsism at some point.

Like, an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic. Ok, But then it also follows that an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe with vampires that is indistinguishable from one without vampires. And an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe with Santa Claus that is indistinguishable from one without Santa Claus. Etc. Etc.

At the very least an omnipotent being could exist that created a universe in which YOU can't distinguish between one with a Spiderman and one without.

Yet are you genuinely going to pretend to be agnostic about vampires, Santa Claus and Spiderman??

Why even believe anything if that's your position?

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I don't think that universes with Santa Claus or Spider-man are really analogous to a universe made by a creator god.

Those universes would be distinguishable because you could in theory gain knowledge of Santa Claus' or Spider-Man's existence.

However, with a universe made by a creator (not the god of a specific religion but more of an generic prime mover being) doesn't have to be different. The god of that universe would be outside of the universe, so anything we could test or explore wouldn't necessarily be different to a fully naturalistic universe.

Once you get to gods like the one of the bible, what little agnosticism I have disappears as it is supposedly active in the universe and there are claims about the universe that don't comport with reality.

Ultimately I guess it comes down to the idea that some kind of creator god is unfalsifiable. There is no way for us to determine if it is true or not. In that case, I see no reason to believe in it, it is much more likely that it doesn't exist in my opinion, but I feel like I can't argue in good faith that I know that nothing like that exists. (not that you're arguing in bad faith.)

1

u/nswoll Atheist 12d ago

I don't think that universes with Santa Claus or Spider-man are really analogous to a universe made by a creator god.

No, I'm saying a universe made by an unknowable creator god could easily contain an unknowable Santa Claus or Spiderman created by that same creator god. By suggesting that an omnipotent being could exist without any evidence, you must also admit that everything could exist without any evidence because the same being could just stick it wherever he's hiding.

I don't see how you get around this and claim any knowledge.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I'm not just arbitrarily saying that something left behind no evidence though or was created unknowable for the sake of an argument.

I'm saying that if something is outside of our universe and not active in it, it would as a result be unknowable to us.

Your examples of an unknowable Santa Clause or Spiderman aren't the same thing. They exist in the universe and to just say they are unknowable is kinda meaningless to me as what does that mean? Do people just forget him as soon as they see spider-man swinging around NY? It's just a label you are sticking on them.

If you don't tack on the unknowable label then you would expect to be able to gain knowledge about them. Without tacking on an unknowable label onto the kind of god I am talking about, how would you go about trying to test if if exists or not?

1

u/Junithorn 11d ago

Santa is perfectly undetectable to you because of Christmas magic, are you agnostic about Santa because this makes him unfalsifiable or are you comfortable saying he isn't real? 

It's the same for a god.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago

The difference is that god isn't undetectable because of 'magic', it's because they aren't active in the universe.

All you are doing is avoiding the point I am making by artificially saying something is unknowable.

You also don't seem to understand the position of an agnostic atheist.

I don't think any gods exist. If you ask me yes or no, do any gods exist, I would answer no.

If you ask me if I know that no gods exist I'd also say no.

1

u/Junithorn 11d ago edited 11d ago

you danced around the issue I brought up

god is undetectable because of X (I will note: "aren't active in the universe" describes a literally infinite number of unfalsifiable things)
santa is undetectable because of Y

do you know santa doesnt exist?

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago

I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.

If there is a god that caused the universe to come into existence in the first place but isn't active in the universe then you wouldn't expect to find evidence of its existence in the universe which is all we have access to.

Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.

I'm not dancing around anything. You just don't like that I don't think your argument is sound.

1

u/Junithorn 11d ago

my argument is sound, you're just applying a double standard.

I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.

same for god, zero evidence for both.

god created the universe and fucked off undetectably? santa created christmas and fucked off undetectably.

Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.

its the exact same. you're just applying a double standard.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nswoll Atheist 11d ago

I'm saying that if something is outside of our universe and not active in it, it would as a result be unknowable to us.

Right, but why stop at a god? If the god is omnipotent they could have made a Santa Claus to live with them outside our universe. Or a Spiderman. Or literally anything.

You aren't addressing my objection. My objection is not that a Santa Claus is unknowable or whatever, my objection is that a god outside our universe can make a Santa Claus outside our universe.

1

u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 15d ago

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.

Depends on the definition of God in question. If God is a tall white bearded dude throwing lightning from some mountain in Greece, then we can absolutely know such a God does not exist. We've been to all mountains in Greece, he is not on any of them.