So I've been reading about different terms and it seems like "Atheist" refers to someone who is DEFINITELY positive that no God or other supernatural beings exist. So I'm not sure if I would qualify as an atheist or not... Here is what I believe that could make me not be an atheist:


-I believe that nobody (including myself) is ever 100% correct in the general sense. You can be 100% certain something is true from your perspective, but never from the 'general' or 3rd person perspective.

-I believe that similar to how most animals don't have contentiousness and comprehend reality differently then we do, we are limited to the reality we can comprehend and hence we can never really understand what reality/existence really is.

-Since where we come from, meaning of life, our creator/creation/existence, etc. is not comprehend-able by us any idea is a good idea, so as long as you don't say you're 100% sure, then you are correct and should believe in whatever keeps you motivated.

-Personally speaking, I would say there is about 0.00001% god exists.


So... Would I technically be considered as an Atheist? 

Views: 748

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I didn't know anything about Theological noncognitivism, thanks! That is true, it really does relate to my way of thinking. There are really two perspectives from which you can approach this or any subject, from your personal perspective and a logical one. I see deciding on a faith (or no faith) to be a gamble. There is no way to tell what really exists or what doesn't exist, but based on their personal opinions and experiences everyone can make their own conclusion and bet on the team that makes more sense to them - I'm pretty much all-in for atheism. The only reason I feel wrong about saying i'm 100% atheist is because I do believe that nobody can be 100% sure of ANYTHING - ever.



I think it depends on which side you approach your percentage from, if you are unsure about your surety or sure about your unsurety. I'm ~100% sure there is no God, and for all intents and purposes I reject the notion. Even if I'm wrong I put as much trust in human knowledge of said deity as I do in "abductees" description of aliens. It's all too absurd and I can just as well believe in an intergalactic teacup running my life and have a crippling fear of Vogon poetry. I am therefore sure, but a bit unsure about it.

Approaching it from the other end, you might be ~0% unsure regarding the existence of God. It's essentially what underpins the existence of Pascal's Wager, and such an argument can pin you down since the door isn't shut on the subject. Doubting certainty is always an admirable trait, but what you should not doubt is accuracy, as it's throwing the bay out with the bathwater. Since there is no evidence for a God it's impossible to be certain of it's existence, and since God does not hold any explanatory power it's also an inaccurate belief. You therefore sound a bit unsure, and very sure about it.

I would say that compared to the agnostics I've met, you don't sound like one of them. Their metaphorical percentages tend to be a lot higher.

You see I personally am 100% sure there is no god - but because I believe nobody can ever be 100% sure of anything as a general rule of reality, that makes the 'idea' god existing possible no matter how impossible it may seem to me personally.

Well, I'm don't completely agree. I'm ~100% sure that there isn't a T. Rex in my basement, and I'm equally sure there is no God.

However, I do like to play with hypotheticals, i.e.: Let's assume pigs can fly, I have a T. Rex in my basement, women are smart, and God exists. Within that construct, place a bet on which team will win the Superbowl. ;) atheist doesn't believe there is a god.


I'm quite certain there isn't one.  But still, I wouldn't say 100% about anything.  I put the odds about the same as finding out Smurfs live on Jupiter.

Haha Smurfs on Jupiter. I would agree.

and that's assuming they want to be found

Sounds like agnosticism to me. An agnostic can adopt a disbelief in God but be open-minded. That sounds like a lack of belief in gods absent a positive disbelief. Videos are an irrelevant distraction. The language consists of how people in the general public use terminology in daily life. Anything else is just jargon. Anytime you're able to act or take a position based on an attitude, a belief must be involved.

Yes, you are technically an atheist.

I think the "definitley knows there's no god" definition is a straw man put about by theists to render our position as untenable as theirs (just another belief)


does make me laugh though that the best argument they have against atheism is to compare it to religion.


if you think you're an atheist (literally meaning "not a theist" and having nothing whatsoever to do with what you do or don't actually beleive) then cal yourself one and accept that to a theist you're just another sort of believer, equally if you prefer the term agnostic use that and accept that to a theist you're halfway to being a complete believer.


basically you'll be misrepresented whatever you call yourself but considering it'll be by people who think that an invisible human (WITH a penis) created everyting out of nothing by saying a word, and that such an explainaition is somehow more beleiveable than any one that relies on observed evidence so don't beat yourself up about it

"I think the 'definitley knows there's no god' definition is a straw man put about by theists to render our position as untenable as theirs (just another belief"


But rather than the mental gymnastics so many atheists engage in arguing that disbelief doesn't involve a negative belief (which gynastics seem fairly ridiculous to most people not standing on their head to avoid saying "I believe that there is no God"), how about simply recognizing that there's no comparison between a belief based on both evidence against and lack of evidence for the existence of God vs one based on arguing that a bunch of Middle Eastern tribesman were given the answer—to the exclusion of everyone else on the planet, for some reason—way more than 2000 years ago (if you go back as far as the beginnings of the old testament).


It seems clearly that if someone takes a stand on the existence of God and is willing to take a political stand against "In God We Trust" and so on, it's based on an active and engaging belief, not a passive lack of belief.



So to use this logic.

I have no way of proving 100% that Tadder Tot the Wander Gerbil is fake.... so this makes me a partial believer in Mr. Tot? Or how about Santa, Jiminy Cricket, Jesus, and we can’t forget Titus (a can of tuna fish) the current cage fighting champion.

I know this doesn’t prove anything but I feel safe saying that God isn’t real… not… so … sure… about Titus though. I have in fact laid eyes on a can of tuna.

I’m honestly not making fun… this is how I answered the question for myself at one time. If you stack up all the other things you can't prove it just becomes comical.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service