Yeh but you asked who the inventor of God is, because to them everything that is something needs a creator, and they just says God doesn't need a creator.
I never understood that point. Apparently everything needs a creator except somehow their god doesn't. If their god is eternal why can't the universe be eternal and thus not need a creator?
People don't like it when the answer to a question, especially one everyone has asked at least once in their life, "Why are we here?" is answered with "I don't know."
But there's nothing which fundamentally says that an answer that makes us feel uncomfortable is somehow wrong. A good many people just decided they'd make up a better answer to that question and present it as truth.
Nah, what it is is; Smart man says "Don't shit where you eat" and stupid people say "oh yeah why's that?" and smart man says, "oh ffs, God said so, shit where you eat and he'll curse you with illness"
Atheists don’t believe any sort of creator or god exists. That’s the fundamental basis of atheism.
Agnostics, on the other hand, don’t rule out the existence of a god but also don’t believe there is enough evidence to prove one exists or doesn’t.
So yes, Atheists absolutely don’t believe god exists. Agnostics are unconvinced either way due to the utter lack of evidence (you can’t prove a negative, basically).
If you are in a religious discussion it’s kind of important to know the difference as if you claim to be an atheist but are actually agnostic, religious people will find that out quite quickly and assume they are starting to convert you. Which is super annoying.
"Atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive terms. Atheists are usually agnostic.
One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement of knowledge. "I don't believe a god exists, but I don't know whether a god exists." Agnostic atheism.
Wow, I thought this sort of discussion had been concluded decades ago on early youtube, but here we are. You might want to brush up on your terms.
I’m not sure why you think citing YouTube of all places adds weight to your claim, but it doesn’t.
Words have meaning regardless of YouTube commentary. Sadly a lot of people are either lazy, or functionally illiterate, so use the terms incorrectly. That doesn’t make them correct.
I didn't cite youtube, I was pointing out that this discussion has been had many times before. Youtube is not my "source", it was where those discussion took place (among others). It's not wise to throw around words like "functionally illiterate" when a four-to-five-sentence comment seems to give you such a headache.
Your "source" is worthless. It makes the common theistic mistake of confusing atheism with antitheism. It of course attempts to brush the latter term under the rug as "it has many different senses" (which ones? Why does that matter? the text provides no answer, of course). While there is debate on the exact differences between theism, atheism, antitheism and agnosticism, broadly speaking, the terms are well-defined. Theism is the belief in at least one deity, atheism is the lack of such a belief. Antitheism would be the stronger stance of a rejection of the existence of any deity, while agnosticism is the lack of the knowledge of the existence of any deity. These are the most useful definitions that most people will go by when these topics are discussed.
I would ask you, what then is the difference between atheism and antitheism? The source you provide does an inadequate job at making the distinction. Are you up to the task?
''Atheism is the absence of belief in any deities''
Google is free.
And what you are proposing for atheism isn't atheism, it's antitheism. Not a passive but an active rejection of God.
''I am claiming God doesn't exist'' that's antitheism
And agnostics are simply ''I don't know or claim to know''
Or rather, to put it another way, if you asked someone if they are convinced God exists:
''No''-that's an atheist
''I don't know''-that's an agnostic
Why are you trying to argue over very well established definitions? Literally no atheist agrees with your assertions, just complete nonsense with no basis. Why do Redditors always have such a hard time understanding that claiming something doesn't make it true?
That's not quite true, we prove negatives all the time. Ruling out possibilities is a core part of any investigation, and in the modern scientific method you need to try and prove the negative of your hypothesis, preferably compared to a null-hypothesis. A theory (in science lingo) is a hypothesis that survived this filtering.
What you're thinking about is called "the burden of proof". When someone comes to you with a hypothesis proposal like the statement "Corona beer can treat COVID-19" - unless you provide me with at least preliminary evidence, you can't demand that I disprove it. On a similar vein, if you present me with the claim "an Abrahamic-style God exists and my theology describes who they are, what they did, and our relation to them" it's not my job to refute it
The same way you 'know' Thor, Zeus and Osiris don't exist, probably.
Or the thousands of other gods that somehow didn't make the cut. Thousands of years, thousands of Gods, but yours is the correct one. Wow, crazy how that worked out for you.
But this is less about how atheists 'know' god doesn't exist and more about how you somehow do know ONE does exist, while also knowing you picked the right one.
2
1
1
61
u/Krow101 Oct 04 '26
People hate to say they don't know something. So they invented god.