In 2024 life is hard and you can’t do anything about it in most cases. Religion gives you an excuse for why it must be so, so that you can keep grinding away.
One popular answer is that sometimes people just experience things that they find scientific answers to not be able to answer adequately. We as a species are still far from knowing everything.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Because it can’t truly be proven that there either is or isn’t a god / gods.
You can laugh at people for believing in a god, but at the same time I’m willing to bet you can’t prove that there there isn’t one.
In my mind, atheism makes just as much sense as religion - they are both total assumptions based on incomplete data. Agnosticism is the only sensible way.
The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic. Actually I cannot say I have ever once heard of a gnostic atheist, i.e. someone who would want to “prove no gods exist”. You (and afaict, all atheists) agree that that would be absurd, because for all we know some god is hiding under a rock somewhere. We can’t claim certainty until we’ve checked under every rock.
Agnostic atheism is where people generally land when they realize that none of the theists have found anything, either. Why believe in something prior to the point of there being any valid reason for the belief?
To further illustrate, do you believe in unicorns? No, right? Does that mean you say you can prove there aren’t any? Also no, right? Same situation with agnostic atheists.
Sorry if I’m over-explaining, it’s a commonly misunderstood topic
Really? They’re all over this thread citing the “burden of proof” argument and likening god to a unicorn.
Requiring someone to provide evidence to back up a claim is not the same as taking a position that the claim isn’t true. This is the root component of the burden of proof and the stance many people have towards a god claim: they aren’t convinced the god exists due to a lack of evidence provided by the person claiming the god does exist. Until there’s actual evidence it’s rational and reasonable to withhold judgement.
The unicorn (or other mythological beings) are used as a similar case to illustrate to a theist that they have the same kind of attitude towards the idea of a unicorn existing as an atheist does to any gods. They’re both neat concepts, but without evidence showing they actually exist, they’re nothing more than an idea for stories and art.
I’d respect that opinion if this were a post about debating the existence of god. This is a post asking religious people why they are religious. Atheists were not under attack, nor were any religious people asserting that others should believe their faith. Actively attempting to discredit the beliefs of another is just as self-righteous as attempting to convert without request.
This is the fundamental problem that Einstein had with the arrogance of atheists. As a self-identified agnostic, this is why he was offended when he was referred to as an atheist.
“fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/07/26/128769603/the-hidden-dimensions-of-science-vs-religion
Yes, really! I endorse Azimir’s explanation fully.
To potentially address some confusion:
If you said there are no gods, that would be a claim that requires proof. You would then have the burden of proving that there are no gods. Exceptionally difficult, as one could be hiding anywhere.
If you claim there is at least one god, then you have the burden of proving that.
Where would you land if you believed neither claim could be proven? Well, it turns out, you could actually be either an atheist or a theist! All we have learned so far is that you are agnostic.
This is where the story ends for the agnostic atheist. They have no reason to believe either claim, and therefore they do not believe there is at least one god, and therefore they are an atheist.
The agnostic theist however has additional work they must perform in order to become a theist from this position. They must believe in at least one god to be a theist, but they have no evidence that would compel such a belief. So they must take it on faith.
This leads to additional questions such as: is faith a good reason to believe in things? Can’t you use faith to believe in literally anything, thereby making it useless?
This is generally why the atheist is involuntarily forced to withhold belief. I phrase it that way because often people forget how beliefs work, they are compulsions. They can’t choose to look past these thoughts and believe in a god any more than you could choose to set aside your better judgement and believe, and I mean really believe, in unicorns.
I understand if you also can’t choose not to be offended by the unicorn comparison, btw. I didn’t like hearing it the first time when I was young and involved with the church. It made me think “surely that’s a step too far, and these two concepts are incomparable. Billions of people worship, they can’t all be that wrong”. It inspired me to go look and see what all of my fellow religious people had to offer in that regard. And to be honest, I still love hearing from them, but the truth is so far nobody has any evidence whatsoever. Most religious people themselves will even admit that. So it really does just come down to faith in the end.
By definition, science has proven nothing. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Yet you believe in science, but expect religion to have proof.
I’m unconvinced by your claim that science and religion are the same. Can you prove that?
That is not my claim. I’m stating that the scientific method is not a proof. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Science is best suited for testing a hypothesis of repeatable phenomena. An untested theory is no different than religion.
Interference-based creation can be considered a hypothesis. It is a theory that a supreme being or entity created and set the masses in motion that caused the Big Bang. Science also has unsupported theories about creation prior to the Big Bang.
My point is that a truly scientific person would accept all possible theories, no matter how improbable, until data is provided to believe otherwise.
Sure, and so as an atheist and an otherwise “scientific person”, I do accept that god is a valid hypothesis. And I will remain an atheist until any evidence pops up to support that hypothesis.
At some point I think you may have gotten confused by terminology. It is indeed similar to various other scientific ideas, which are believed only after being tested. You do not accept every hypothesis as being the truth until proven otherwise. That is the essential difference between conducting science and exercising one’s imagination.
Okay but here in the real world, those making the claim have the burden of proof.
This is a classic, literally text book example of the logical fallacy of ignorance.
Invisible unicorns exist, and because you can’t disprove it, we should build unicorn fences.
The logic doesn’t follow.
I don’t disagree that religious people need to prove their beliefs. They are the ones making up insane stories that all contradict one another, and it is absolutely up to them to prove that there is a god, or miracles, or whatever.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?” That doesn’t make them correct. More correct, maybe, as they aren’t the ones making up the stories in the first place, but I’m fairly sure history and science have proven time and time again that humans know less than we think.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
Very few atheists say this. The vast majority of us say we don’t know one way or the other.
That’s being agnostic, not atheist
Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are both atheists. Assuming all atheists are gnostic atheists is like assuming all Christians are Catholics.
Gnostic atheists are rare, and if you want evidence look at this thread.
This has become a misunderstanding of language and wording.
When I agnostic, that includes “agnostic atheists”. Does that clear things up?
I swear some people (i.e. self proclaimed “atheists”) get offended at the thought that they might be associated with anyone religious by accepting the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, agnostic.
I’m tapping out of this thread, didn’t come here to argue about English. Also, please don’t take my last paragraph as an attack - it’s a general observation.
No, this was your misunderstanding:
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
The language is irrelevant, you’re claiming something that’s just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish “agnostics” from “atheists” isn’t the real issue.
You don’t need proof where science doesn’t have it either. The beginning of creation remains a mystery. There is currently no explanation for the motion of the masses that collided, or the source of the matter. If scientists can hypothesize the events leading to the Big Bang, so can religions.
That just leaves you with the conclusion that “there is no current explanation” not that you can make whatever you want up.
Making up whatever you want is exactly how science works. It’s called a hypothesis. In science, that hypothesis is tested repeatedly. This is why science is best suited for repeatable phenomena.
In this case, neither science nor religion can test said hypothesis. Why is science correct but religion is not in this situation?
Because science doesn’t assert all hypothesis are true
Who says god’s existence is true? It’s called a belief for a reason. It’s no different than a hypothesis.
be·lief

noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
“his belief in the value of hard work”
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“I’ve still got belief in myself”
Which is completely different from a hypothesis, which is that something might be true and we should test it
Science testes hypothesizes and never claims they’re true until there’s mountains of evidence to indicate so.
Religion on the other hand takes a book written by bronze age goat herders and claims it to be true, damn the evidence stacked against it and contradictions within.
You’re making large assumptions. There are more religions than you know. The way one practices also may not be familiar to you. You’re demonstrating intolerance through ignorance. Maybe you should be asking questions in this post about religion, or abstain if you’re not interested in understanding it.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the intangible connection of everything in existence.
All religion is untested made up nonsense, no exceptions.
If you make it up without evidence, it can be thrown out without evidence. Athiests make no claims, there’s nothing to throw out.
The real answer to these questions is “we have no idea”, everything else falls under russel’s teapot.
Are you this arrogant in condemning everything you don’t understand?
Atheists claim there is no god. That claim may be wrong. It’s agnostics who make no claims.
I do understand that it is something people made up without any evidence.
I am this arrogant about anything without evidence, if you present evidence, then I have a reason to believe.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
That’s basic deism but I would disagree and say it does conflict with science. Science is evidence-based, if you claim something exists you must present evidence to support it. I can’t just claim there’s a 5-ton diamond in my backyard and say “trust me bro”. Nobody would believe me, so why should anyone believe in any god without evidence?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
Atheist here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheism is merely about trusting what’s been proven, or has some evidence backing the claim that can be verified without doubt. Being agnostic is being indecisive about everything, even things that are completely made up.
One can argue that agnosticism is more scientific in that what cannot be verified, however improbable, remains possible.
What set the large masses in motion to collide in the Big Bang? What created that matter to begin with? There’s still room for the possibility of interference-based creation without contradicting modern science.
I agree with your second paragraph but take issue with your first.
Atheism is not the belief that God categorically does not exist; it’s the position that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that God exists, and that therefore there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. It’s a subtle but important distinction because the first is not logically consistent whereas the latter is.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, tends to either be the view that the likelihood of God existing is more or less equal to that of God not existing, or the view that we will probably never know so we cannot come down on one side or the other.
Technically speaking, there are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Someone who calls themself agnostic believes in the possibility of a god. Self-identified atheists are typically gnostic atheists who believe with certainty that there is no god. A-theist means they denounce the existence of theism, or god. They could also just be agnostic, and unaware of the difference in terminology.
There are many gnostic atheists commenting on this post with the “burden of proof” argument, and likening god to an invisible unicorn. They are quite confident in non-existence.
Gnostic atheists are only a thing on paper; I’ve never met or heard of another atheist who ascribes to this view. As the link you provided states, this academic definition of atheism is not one ascribed to by the vast majority of self-described atheists.
Or, to quote the American Atheists organization:
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Source
On this basis, any invisible unicorn/intergalactic teapot/flying spaghetti monster argument that invokes “burden of proof” is not an gnostic atheist position. The argument is based on the idea that until evidence for an invisible unicorn exists, there is no reason for it to have any bearing on our behavior.
This is different from saying that because no evidence of an invisible unicorn exists, that we must conclude that it categorically does not exist. You cannot logically prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity.
Then why use the argument against another person’s beliefs if not to discredit them and convince them their beliefs are impossible? No one here is trying to convince others that “their god” is correct, so it’s clearly not in defense.
That’s the behavior of someone who is trying to convince another of non-existence, therefore, it is safe to consider them gnostic atheists.
It’s not so much saying that someone’s religious beliefs are logically impossible, more highly unlikely. When I typically see this rhetoric, it’s generally along the lines of “how on Earth did you weigh up all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that God exists”, or more impolite words to that effect.
I personally don’t browbeat the religious, so I’m not condoning it, but that’s why this line of argument generally isn’t gnostic atheism.
If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying that the existence of God is impossible, a priori, then they just haven’t thought things through.
I agree with you. For what it’s worth, so did Einstein.
Source?
I’m having trouble finding his “God letter” in pdf. I’ve read it before. He very clearly speaks against organized religion and dogma. However, he maintains that he himself is agnostic. This is an article about the letter, but it doesn’t contain a transcript.
He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
On another occasion, he criticised “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
He took offense to being labeled as an atheist. Not because of his Jewish roots, but because he believed that there was a possibility of a divine creator. He labeled atheists to be just as arrogant as religious zealots for their absolutist views.
Edit: Found it.
https://lettersofnote.com/2009/10/07/the-word-god-is-the-product-of-human-weakness/
Ah okay, we’re on the same page now - you were referring to their last bit, not necessarily the first when speaking of Einstein. That lines up with what I knew about his beliefs
Humans psyche is a meaning inference recursive engine, semiotically I mean, following Charles Sanders Peirce’s Theory of Signs, it generates meaning and thus needs a story to explain it, or simply to tell itself.
The story doesn’t need to hold sound logic or any objectivity true to reality, it only needs to convey the meaning that it generated so that the mind can believe it more than questioning its validity.
Long story short, humans really likes stories.
Because they’re convinced it’s true. Given that billions of people in the world ( I strongly expect it’s the majority) would claim to be religious - perhaps the better question is: “why does anyone not believe in religion?”
Simple, if any religion was true and objectively based in reality, why the fuck do they need missionaries to spread it?
If any religion was true, it would have measurable, verifiable, and predictable traits that would be discovered in isolated societies. If all of mankind’s knowledge was erased, we would eventually rebuild our understandings of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics as they are today. If all knowledge of religions were erased, we would never get the same religions back.
Education is the reason
Our tendency to perceive agency in ambiguous situations sheds light on the origins of cognitive biases like religion. Our minds, shaped by eons of natural selection, are finely tuned to err on the side of caution. Think of a group of ancient hunters traversing the savanna. A rustle in the tall grass could be merely the wind, or it could be a lurking predator. Those who instinctively assume the worst and flee are more likely to survive than those who dismiss the sound and remain vulnerable.
Over time, this survival advantage has led to the evolution of cognitive models that favor the perception of agency, even when there is none. We are prone to seeing patterns, faces, and intentions in random events because the cost of mistakenly attributing agency is far less than the cost of failing to detect a real threat. This explains why we might see a face in the clouds or feel a presence in a dark room. Religion is a direct byproduct of this phenomenon.
Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind that every contemporary belief system stems from an uninterrupted chain of development, tracing back to the earliest human societies. This implies that every ideology has enjoyed a measure of success, having endured the test of time. This makes it difficult to definitively assert that one set of beliefs is fundamentally “more correct” than another, as truth is often subjective and dependent on context. After all, the effectiveness of a belief system in enabling a culture to thrive and grow is perhaps the most relevant measure of its “truthfulness.”
If somebody grows up in a religious environment, then religion becomes central to their world model. It’s not an isolated concept, it’s an integral part of the tapestry of their mind. Our brains, like all physical systems, operate within the constraints of energy efficiency. Assimilating a new idea requires mental effort, as it necessitates restructuring our existing cognitive framework to accommodate the newcomer. This, in turn, translates to expending energy to rebalance the connections within the neural networks of our brain. If a novel concept clashes significantly with our established beliefs, the energetic cost of integration can be substantial. Radical ideas that demand a significant restructuring of our mental models, such as challenging deeply held religious beliefs or political ideologies, may be discarded, deemed “too expensive” from an energetic standpoint.
This principle helps explain why it’s often so difficult to change the views of others, regardless of the soundness of your argument. The strength of the argument alone may not be enough to overcome the inherent inertia of our entrenched belief systems.
Because they keep having experiences they can’t or have no interest in explaining.
The social aspect might be underappreciated. My guess is people are mainly introduced by family and friends and it becomes a big part of their identity. It becomes difficult to separate the individual elements.
Religion dissolves uncertainty. Why does….? Because the sky man said so. How does….? Because the sky man made it that way. What should I do with my life and how should I live it? Here’s a book written by the sky man and it has all the answers. No more thinking… I suppose it’s probably of great comfort to many.
Because religion evolved to thrive in us.
It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.
Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.
Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.
This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.
This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.
“Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and the tiger had him for dinner. And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations - and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there were`t any tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do. And from those humble beginnings we learn to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favours the paranoid. Even here in the 21st century we can make people more honest just by scribbling a pair of eyes on the wall with a Sharpie. Even now we are wired to believe that unseen things are watching us.”
― Peter Watts, Echopraxia
Cause a lot of people care more about feeling comfortable than feeling statistically probable.
Lol wut
Been religious since I was born, still makes sense to me.
I thought the edgy athiests stayed on reddit, sad to know y’all are here too.
It isn’t really about edginess. People tend to continue believing in whatever religious preference (or none) they have unless something convinces them otherwise in whatever direction.
To an atheist’s point of view, it legitimately doesn’t make sense why someone would be religious when what they see is nonsense. It is a genuine confusion and not necessarily meant to be rude.
This isn’t just an atheist thing that happens, religious people can often not understand why someone would ever choose anything other than their religion. It doesn’t make sense to them either.
Sure, but most answers here boil down to “they’re not as smart as le enlightened atheist”
Then study theology and prove them wrong.
No, thank you. Not here to prove anything to anyone.
There is a common circle jerk for sure. Humans gonna human, it happens everywhere. However the question was honest if a bit rude sounding.
The question is completely okay, that’s why I answered it. The second part is only about other comments.
I suppose it’s better than following a standard of evidence that enables homophobes/transphobes, and opens the door to preachers feeding their politics to you.
Objective reality doesn’t matter to you if you close your eyes, cover your ears and insist on living in a fantasy world.
Let’s put it this way, if I went around basing my entire understanding of reality on Greek gods, people would rightly think I was fucking nuts.
Do it with the bible though…
Or Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other major religion.
But no, suddenly I am the maniac for believing that – in reality – we are pink elephants, hopping on the moon and imagining life as we believe it to be true. No one can prove I am wrong. But uh oh, sky grandpa mad.
(/s I don’t believe anything. Just making a sarcastic point.)
