I Think Self-superior Atheists Are Annoying

I really don't see how the religious could ever debate 'how we came to be, how planets were made...", as the only thing they bring to the table is 'goddit', and even that unnecessary postulation is made without a shred of evidence.

If the religious make truth claims about the universe, then they should expect to be challenged, and to be required to support those claims.

Being religious doesn't give anyone a free pass.

SuperCute, either one has gods, or one does not.
There aren’t degrees of that… it’s either/or (after all, you can’t be a little bit pregnant).

Doubting someone else’s claims isn’t atheism, because the claims made by others don’t form the basis of definition.

I have no gods. As I said earlier, there’s no proof either way, and there’s no compelling necessity to even make the proposition, so it can be ignored. Until someone shows a compelling necessity, we can continue to ignore the proposition, and any claims made around it.

Consequently, I don’t doubt the claims made by theists… such claims don’t even achieve that level of significance. They can be simply ignored.
As Wolfgang Pauli said about a student’s work:
“Not only is it not right… it isn’t even wrong”


You write “proof either way is impossible…”, but it’s not impossible to have proof either way… it just hasn’t happened yet.
As I said below:
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, gods are unnecessary, and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods
Please note that I’m not making any claims here, so there’s no burden of proof.

In like vein, gnostic and agnostic are simply adjectives that specify whether or not one claims to have specific knowledge about a topic.
On any subject, one is either gnostic or agnostic (it’s the pregnancy thing again).
In my little list above, the first two items result in the adjective ‘agnostic’, and it’s item (3) that brings me to atheism.

This should make things clearer than do these brief notes:
https://similarworlds.com/story?fid=5992149&tid=21832&name=I-Am-An-Agnostic-Atheist

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” (Voltaire).

Will Durant wrote: "How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."

In fact, much of philosophy is about the definitions of terms.

Such definitions are germane to this post.
Renoire is an atheist (so has no gods), but says that she avoids the word because of the connotations she feels that it carries.
We should therefore be clear about what 'atheist' means... and what it doesn't mean.

Once we've done that, we can establish whether or not the behaviours she describes can validly be ascribed to atheists.

SuperCute, atheism isn't the opposite of religion... nor is it a belief.

As you've made a statement about the non-existence of god, I take it that you're a gnostic atheist.
Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist, because:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, gods are unnecessary, and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods
(Note that this simply disregards religion, and lacks any statement of belief)

I, for one, would be fascinated to hear about your proof that we don't 'just die'.
Please expand on that claim.

SuperCute: Interesting :o personally I don't really care what happens when we die, I think what's important is how we live 😶

I mock religions. Honestly I don't think i'm superior to people who follow them though. In fact there are plenty of people who are better people than me who believe in a religion. I mock religion because i think it's absurd and I will openly and happily point out that absurdity when i feel it's appropriate. But rational people believe absurd things and do absurd things all the time, that is because we are animals.

You're referring to the endless debate that exists between Doubters and Dreamers. They're opposite beliefs rooted in bias. Both are false.

Those who believe we just die and that's it are now proven wrong (and also very unscientific). They're only right about God not existing.

I suppose I could explain further, but not on this post.

StrictlyLogical, no debate is needed.

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. however, there's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods

Newjan, you're objecting to things I didn't say. A Doubter is not the only class of atheist, and a Dreamer doesn't represent all religion.

Also, I'm neither gnostic nor agnostic. This is wrong.

As to the belief proof either way is impossible- this has been thoroughly falsified. I won't lecture on the topic here, as my intention is not to derail the post. Yet look to various onus systems. The Doubter will adopt an incomplete system aka burden of proof; rigging the result. The Dreamer will (informally) adopt a slightly more complete system using unreliable proof types; also rigging the result. Discover the tempered system.

SuperCute, I'm still wondering what naturalistic reason you have for postulating the existence of what you term an 'afterlife'.
Once you've established that reason, we can go on to discuss the claims you make about it.

@Renoire- You might be surprised to learn that how we choose to live affects what we can expect after death- even within an explanation for afterlife that isn't reliant on magic.

This post is getting ruined. I'm not interested in correcting misinterpretations or clarifying what the terms Doubter and Dreamer mean in philosophic circles.

God cannot be proven or disproven. The question that remains is ... was that by accident or did God make it that way? If God wanted there to be a debate, that is surely the best way to do it.

Totally agree with you, Renoire!

Agreed.