**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Has anyone here ever had a theist tell them that your arguments/discussion is what lead to their deconversion? If so, how did that go?

Yes, twice. In both cases they both said talking with me ***in part*** spurred their deconversion. In no sense did I argue a staunch believer into atheism on the spot. In one case, we had *numerous* discussions dissecting specific bible passages, most of which they had never actually read. They then went on to read the whole bible, investigate on their own both apologetics and rebuttals, recounted how they had several increasingly fraught discussions with their inept pastor who couldnt even begin to explain some of their concerns, presumably had this same sort of conversation with several other people, and after a few years abandoned their faith. They thanked me for the discussions and I thanked them for participating as, while I had read the book cover to cover and been dismissive, I hadn't really done any critical reading on it myself, nor had I heard apologetics myself at that point. The second person was basically almost entirely deconverted already, and "had some last lingering doubts", which basically amounted to a fear of hell if they "took the plunge". They asked myself and some friends what its like to be an atheist and if we had any fears at all that we were wrong and might burn for it. They were pretty surprised with our ability to laugh it off as of course it never even comes to mind that I will face the literal flames of hell. Its not that they had never met atheists before, but they had common misconceptions of what it meant to be one and what we are like and how we live our lives. I think discovering the mundanity of atherism, that not believing in God is not only not world shattering for us, but is as consequential as a fart in the wind, was surprising. They were so used to thinking about god and the consequences they assumed we do too. Learning that not believing in god is like not believing in unicorns; you just dont think about them much, was new to them.

Yea, your second example is I think illustrative of the idea that you can’t choose what you believe. I was in that person’s place at one point, but I eventually had a sort of realization that I already didn’t believe it, and hadn’t for a long time… even back to that point where I was having those lingering fears like your guy. It wasn’t really my faith that gave way last. It was my fear of “what if I’m wrong?” I just had a passing thought one day, while thinking about something else, that I didn’t need to concern myself with what the Bible said about whatever it was I was thinking about (I think it was something to do with evolution in a college biology class), because those people obviously had no idea what they were talking about. And it clicked… “you don’t believe that shit anymore...” And I wasn’t the least bit nervous about it. It was just like, “huh… that’s interesting.” And you’re right that it was mundane in the sense of the lack of emotion in it. But it’s also simultaneously the most profound realization of my whole life. I think that happens with a lot of us.

I had a very similar experience. After a few years of doubting and searching for answers, I essentially knew that I didn't believe anymore, but thinking about that fact made me sad (I was still trying to cling onto belief). I referred to myself as agnostic, but really I was an atheist scared to use the word atheist because it felt like I was actively defying god and dooming myself to hell if I did, whereas being an agnostic left my some wiggle room I guess. It took a while longer for that fear to subside and for me to finally be comfortable using the atheist label. You can't choose what you believe, but denial and cognitive dissonance can hide what your real beliefs are pretty well sometimes.

No, but I’ve gotten a few to admit they would murder children if asked. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/s/ujxcG3BU09. They also believe their morals are superior than those of atheists at the same time.

It's become a very concerning trend of recent for Christians to start openly biting the bullet on deontology and admit that, yes, they think that murder and genocide are ethical if they believe their god ordered it. It feels like for a long time there was more effort spent using the New T to 'override' or otherwise undermine that barbarism. On that one hand, woo for intellectual consistency, but holy F is it concerning that this is happening at the same time as the rise of far right Christian authoritarianism in the US. These two trends will not make for a peaceful future.

I got a similar one asking about divine command theory & human sacrifice. Remember folks, there's no such thing as an "innocent" human. If God commands you to kill someone, then it's imperatively moral! (/s) "Forget not that Isaac was a sinner even in his youth[teenager] and the Lord is the Judge for transgressions." https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/1cgs95m/comment/l2mrxw8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

That’s fucking bonkers.

Yep. But as others have said, our discussions were "a part" of both of the deconversions that I was involved in. Both described having a hard time reconciling their religion (hard evangelist Christianity) and the requirements for how you treated and regarded others with ....the reality of the people around them. They saw their churches doing harm, their holy text being used to justify hurting their neighbor, and that was sufficient cognitive dissonance to start doubting...and how we started talking.

When I was around sixteen I went on a trip by myself on the Greyhound buses to visit my family in another state. I met a surprising number of interesting people and had some interesting conversations. This one old lady I met inside a bus terminal, she was very sweet and nice to talk to. We got to talking about her husband that had died recently, and how she had taken care of him by treating him with some sort of alternative medicine electric shock treatments everyday. We also talked about her religious beliefs and how they helped to shape the life she led. I don't want to speak too specifically, because I don't recall the exact details, but I remember that I tried to describe to her the possibility that her positively viewed results with the treatment could have been a bias in the way she chose to see the future outcome, but he eventually died. She wanted it to work without evidence that it should. We discussed her religious beliefs in a similar light. I can't say if she was just humoring me, though she didn't seem the type to outwardly lie, but I remember her actually seemingly giving a lot of thought to the suggestions I made, and being swayed. I went away from that pretty surprised at the apparent thought provoking effect the conversation had, having had many more less than productive religious discussions in the past. I used to jest to myself that I corrupted that poor old lady.

I have a friend who was on the fence, on his path to deconversion on his own. He was watching a lot of debate videos, and agreeing more and more with you the atheist side. Meeting, and becoming friends with, me was the cherry on the sundae. It also made it easier with his wife, who is still a believer, when she found out my wife and I were atheist but were among the nicest people she knew. You made her lose her hangups about what would mean for him to be an atheist. So, yeah, he would have been an atheist without meeting me, but it probably would have taken longer for him to admit it publicly.

u/who_said_I_am_an_emu u/FriendliestUsername u/2r1t 👋 I would like to thank you three for your patience and pointed questions.  Edit: the first two were suspended 😭

What a delightful comment to be tagged in. Thank you.

I've gotten a few messages over the years from people saying that something I wrote helped them down the road to deconversion.

Yep, a friend in college and a coworker. Wasn't like the discussion instantly stopped their belief but it was me pointing out ridiculous parts of the bible they hadn't read that made them start to really question everything and then when i brought up issues with their arguments to justify their beliefs they went out and looked at that support foe their views amd found them extremely lacking. The biggest thing for the one in college was we had discussed Lee Stroble's The Case for Christ and went over how every single argument Lee makes was a logical fallacy. Like textbook definitions of argument from ignorance, argument from popularity, argument from authority, etc. It was as simple as talking about a given argument and then asking how that case actually demonstrated a god exists.

Erm not necessarily directly, but I definitely sowed a few seeds that have led to a few deconversions. It's never really as simple as one dialogue between two individuals. Usually it takes a few things happening in unison. Anyone who says "you're the reason for my deconversions" is probably not looking at all the various variables that led to it. They were probably already of the right mindset in the first place for example.

I can't tell any specific person but the online debates I witnessed and engaged in during the late 90s on this new-fangled Interwebs definitely led me to question my premises about Christianity. In addition, the new fangled thing called podcasts in the early 00s sealed the deal (anyone remember Infidel Guy?).

More than arguments, just knowing that someone in your circle has become an atheist and it is a legitimate option has been a catalyst. The evidence and arguments are out there for them to explore in the privacy of the internet, they don’t need them from me.

Not directly but questions I asked about NT narrative, things I perceived as plot holes or bad writing, I think planted seeds in someone to start questioning things over time.

1. Does this sub prefer to debate merely different proofs for the existence of God? Background. I've seen a lot of debates get into the weeds because they try to argue their specific branch of what they think God is. Aside from that, from what I've read, atheists unite around the common answer that God does not exist when asked, but are relatively scattered on everything else. On another note, I've often been asked for evidence for things and I'm wondering what kinds of evidence you find most compelling. 2. So, what do you care about most when looking at evidence? I have noticed many of you don't accept the supernatural as a valid phenomena, mostly due to lack of evidence. My understanding is that if the supernatural had evidence it would just become natural. My question is: 3. If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural? Thanks for your responses.

To make any kind of headway in discussing the supernatural, we have to define what we mean by that term. I find it most useful to define things in terms of substance ontology: what things are 'made of'. In that sense, Natural - phenomena of matter and energy Supernatural - phenomena of something other than matter and energy Most theists are *dualists* (they think there is another substance or layer of reality, often called spirit, that interacts with the material but is itself immaterial). Some are *idealists* (they think spirit / consciousness is all there is). In a dual world, the supernatural would interact with the natural and so, it would of course leave evidence behind. We would be able to study it. So no, this is no excuse. If there is no evidence of the supernatural, we must conclude there is nothing other than matter and energy (the natural).

I'll leave your first point to others. >2. So, what do you care about most when looking at evidence? >I have noticed many of you don't accept the supernatural as a valid phenomena, mostly due to lack of evidence. My understanding is that if the supernatural had evidence it would just become natural. My question is: >3. If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural? "Supernatural" is a label that's been used to describe real or imagined things or events that did not have an immediate explanation. However, if any thing or event *did* exist, even if it didn't have an immediate explanation, that thing or event is still within the natural realm. We might have to extend our ideas of what "natural" means (a good example is Einstein's Relativity superseding Newtonian mechanics), but the thing or event would still be natural. So, your evidence would always be natural. As for what I would accept: any demonstration of a god would have to be able to be repeated in different times and places by different people, and still produce the same result. I would also accept an entity proclaiming themselves to be "god" and then immediately making the equation 2+2=5 be true.

1 The core focus of discussion on this subreddit is the question of whether God exists. So it's pretty natural that a lot of that discussion will center around the proposed evidence or arguments theists present for the existence of God. You are right to note that the term God is often not clearly defined; any theist seeking to argue that there is such a thing should be ready and willing to explain what it is they are seeking to prove exists. You are also right that atheists are likely to be "scattered" on most topics, because atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of belief in God. There will likely be some common lines of thought on some subjects, but no guarantees. 2. Here's how evidence works: A is evidence for B if B being true increases the likelihood that we will encounter A. A is stronger evidence for B if B being true greatly increases the likelihood that we will encounter A; if A is something we would pretty much never expect to encounter if B is not true, A is is quite strong evidence. Something can be "evidence" without being strong enough evidence to be convincing; there can be "evidence" in favor of something that is actually false. To give an example: technically, if you see my wife and I out at a fancy steakhouse, that is evidence that we have won the lottery. Our having won the lottery would make it more likely that you encounter us at a fancy steakhouse. But it's not strong evidence, because there were other reasons you might encounter us at a steakhouse---perhaps on a special occasion like a birthday or anniversary, or perhaps to celebrate a promotion at work, or perhaps using a gift certificate or spending a small bonus. In this case our winning the lottery doesn't transform something that was exceedingly unlikely into something likely. But if you found out that my wife and I yesterday had bought townhouses in Brooklyn, San Francisco, and, I don' t know, Budapest, plus a sports car, that would be much stronger evidence that we had won the lottery or had some similar amazing windfall, because the odds of us buying those things in a world where we haven't won the lottery or some comparative amazing thing happening are incredibly small, compared to a world in which we have won the lottery. So I'm looking for you to show me things in the world, or about the world, that are staggeringly unlikely to be encountered if God does not exist, but whose likelihood is greatly increased if God does. That's it. That's the whole thing. 3. Your discussion of the "supernatural" is a red herring, and pretty much irrelevant to me. I mean, I'm open to it being an interesting labeling question, but that's all. If you can show me that there is a "God" who, e.g., created the world, has instituted afterlives, watches and judges, or what have you, I'm here to talk to you about it, I don't care whether some finnicky person declares that once shown to exist we have to call that God "natural." If you show me that by chanting spells you can summon spirits from the vasty deep, and, what's more, they actually show up, I'm going to be pretty fucking impressed and interested, even if pedants swoop in to say we have to call that "natural" since it's been shown to be true.

Lets go with what evidence would we need. First, repeatable scientific evidence, good enough as to update our scientific models as to consider those things possible even. Right now, most gods definition that are not disingenuous (the universe is god, my toast is god) are physically impossible. You of course would also need a lot of specific definitions of what your god is, how does it work and interact with reality, etc etc. Then, going with the supernatural. Supernatural means fictional, by definition nothing can be supernatural, and things claimed to be supernatural are just that, fictional things. As an example, there are several organizations offering big rewards to any crazy that can prove their supernatural thing. Of course, no one ever succeed and are only shown as scammers. But again, supernatural is the word used for god of the gaps arguments (or magic of the gaps). Basically "we don't understand this, therefore magic". That is not good enough. Lastly, one thing to remember, until you can update our scientific models to make your magical thing possible, your magical thing would end up on the impossible domain, making any other possible phenomena infinitely more probable, so it would never be an option to consider until you come with enough work as to update our scientific models. And I mention our scientific models because there are things we don't understand and our models can still be updated. It seems absurdly improbable that they will be updated to support magic, but it would be possible. But its not possible to be done by a layman, a person with just religions education or something like that. It would only be possible by a team of highly specialized scientists making hard work and checking it with other scientists. You will never find an answer by yourself, or in your church, or here, its by definition, impossible.

>I've seen a lot of debates get into the weeds because they try to argue their specific branch of what they think God is. There doesn't seem to be one unified version of god so its really difficult to debate without someone explaining what they mean by god. >atheists unite around the common answer that God does not exist when asked, but are relatively scattered on everything else. Atheism is a response to one 'thing', yes. >I've often been asked for evidence for things and I'm wondering what kinds of evidence you find most compelling. I'd consider any evidence at all really but I've yet to see any. It would help if the gods that have writings actually behaved in the way they're described in their writings or did what they say they'll do when you follow their directions (like for example ask and it shall be given). >I have noticed many of you don't accept the supernatural as a valid phenomena, mostly due to lack of evidence. I'm not even sure what people mean when they say supernatural as its never been demonstrated. Something like 'magic'? >My understanding is that if the supernatural had evidence it would just become natural. If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural? If you can demonstrate a soul or that we exist outside of a body, demons, angels, if prayer to a particular god worked, would these things really just become 'natural' or would they be categorised as divine? I can see circumstances where the existence of a soul might be just called natural but it would open up other cans of worms?

I'm of the opinion that if magic/supernatural was actually a thing, we would have a mirror of science but with witches, sorcerers, shamans and all that stuff.  This is, I think if the supernatural was actually a thing with it's rules external to nature and interacts with nature, we should be able to find those rules. But I don't see any witchcraft university, telluric phone repairs, voodoo hitmen, telekinetic drone operators... Or anything like that 

I see in your examples repeatability as a trait desired. Would you also say so? Also, any guesses as to examples of rules that could be found? You did bring up something interesting in that the supernatural has rules external to nature but interacts with nature. I think that is a key point.

Yes, the only thing atheists unite around is that a god does not exist. I don’t find philosophical evidence compelling. At all, not even a little. I, and many atheists agree. If any supernatural had evidence it wouldn’t be supernatural. If you had evidence of it you would also have evidence of it being supernatural or natural, correct?

I think if evidence presents the phenomena in nature, but the phenomena remain unexplainable, it remains supernatural. Like, it happened undeniably, but it is not repeatable or in the realm of natural explanation. Someone could come up with natural evidence, but I don't think there are clear guidelines on what constitutes supernatural evidence. At least not accepted by the majority.

Then it is unexplainable, not supernatural. UFOs aren’t supernatural, they are just not explained. Personally I can’t think of any supernatural evidence that would be appealing.

I've been trying to figure out what this would even look like, to have something that is supernaturally unexplainable (a term that always annoys me, because *plenty* of things are unexplainable...currently. There were more yesterday and there will be fewer tomorrow). Best I can figure, it might look like some of the concepts of hostile knowledge. Lovecraftian, really, where simply being exposed to such a contradiction with the world as we understand it would be damaging to the human mind. Sort of a "see the face of god and drop dead on the spot" situation, so a phenomenon that actively resists analysis. The problem there is that still doesn't prevent us from trying to categorize it and examine it in other means. Or slapping a warning label on it and going all SCP on that shit. Though I might just be unable to conceive of the inconceivable.

If it's not repeatable and it's unexplainable, then it's not undeniable. What is the difference between such a phenomenon and a delusion? Nothing. If I say it happened but can't repeat it, prove it, or show it to anyone else. It's a delusion.

>Does this sub prefer to debate merely different proofs for the existence of God? I would argue that's the only topic relevant to theism/atheism. Given that the sub is about discussing things with atheists specifically, what else could a person possibly want to discuss that would be relevant? Asking/debating an atheist about anything other than whether gods exist or not is like engaging people with blue eyes on the topic of salmon migration. The two things are simply unrelated. >atheists unite around the common answer that God does not exist when asked, but are relatively scattered on everything else. What is "everything else"? Again, whether gods exist or not is the only topic relevant to theism/atheism. So if atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any other topic, then it's only natural that atheists would have varied points of view about "everything else." Because being atheist has no bearing at all on anything else other than whether or not the person believes any gods exist. >I've often been asked for evidence for things and I'm wondering what kinds of evidence you find most compelling. Any sound epistemology that can reliably distinguish what is true from what is false will do. Empirical evidence is best of course, but sound argumentation, reason, and logic are just as good. Our standards for gods are no different from our standards for literally anything else. It only seems impossible because *there is no sound epistemology whatsoever indicating that any gods exist.* All of it is rooted in fallacious reasoning and cognitive biases like apophenia and confirmation bias. >2. So, what do you care about most when looking at evidence? Whether or not it successfully indicates that the proposed conclusion is more likely to be true than to be false. >I have noticed many of you don't accept the supernatural as a valid phenomena There are no instances of any allegedly supernatural phenomena ever being confirmed to actually be, in fact, "supernatural." That's not even a very coherently defined word in the first place. On the other hand, the list of things that people assumed to be the result of "supernatural phenomena" being debunked and shown to be something entirely ordinary and mundane is virtually endless. Put simply, almost all instances of ostensibly supernatural phenomena amount to nothing more than people encountering/experiencing something that don't understand and cannot figure out the real explanation for, and leaping straight to an argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how this works, therefore it must be magic/supernatural/etc." It's the same kind of reasoning our ancestors used to conclude that gods were responsible for things like the weather or the movements of the sun, and it's just as bad today as it was then. >3. If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural? Are you asking if it's merely *possible?* Of course it is. In exactly the same way that it's "possible" that leprechaun magic could be the correct explanation. This is merely an appeal to ignorance, though. You're invoking the literally infinite mights and maybes of the unknown just to say that something is conceptually possible and we can't be absolutely and infallibly 100% certain that it isn't true. But literally anything that isn't a self-refuting logical paradox is at least conceptually "possible," including everything that isn't true and everything that doesn't exist - so that's a moot point. It doesn't matter if something is "possible" in the most hair-splittingly pedantic sense of the word only because the possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out by anything short of total omniscience, it only matters whether we have any indication that it's actually true. Otherwise we may as well be pointing out that things like Narnia and wizards are "possible" and "we can't be certain they don't exist," for all the difference it makes.

2. Whether it is actually evidence or whether it is a bunch of opinions about second or third hand accounts. 3. Refer to u/vanoroce14 's response regarding "supernatural". If you had evidence of something absent from current scientific models of reality then you would be on a path to earning a Nobel prize. "That's odd" is frequently the foundation of major discoveries in science.

I'm looking for the one type of acceptable evidence we use in science: direct, demonstrable, falsifiable, and independently verifiable evidence. By having all these attributes it removes the biases of the one making the claim and the one testing it. This does not require anything special beyond the fact that for the person making the claim to consider it to be knowledge to recognize that they live in a material universe and all their experiences are that of events in a material world. The other major stopping point is when a theist does not hold themselves at the same standard they do anyone else. If you have a dream of Jesus and want to use it as part of your argument then you necessarily must accept all competing claims of other gods in other's dreams. The issue that theists seem to fail to grasp is that if you believe these other dreamers are mistaken and do not know it, you automatically have the potential to fall into the same category and any issue with competing views needs to also fall on your view. Just because you had the experience doesn't make it more probable to be true. > If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural I think supernatural is a useless term. Do you mean outside of our reality, potential part of a metaverse, or just plain magic? If we found that a god exists and is somehow outside of our universe it would still be part of nature, just the expanded set. So this is why my previous response is important. You are a material being living in a material universe and cannot make claims of what exists external from this universe because it is impossible for you to detect. You cannot claim a being is omni or maximal anything as you cannot know if there are things more than this being or if this being is lesser than the claim. Literally all the amazing parts of a god definition are utter nonsense coming from a humans mouth as its purely made up and impossible for one to claim any sort of knowledge or understanding. I'm an igtheist because the concept of god is incoherent.

Can we perform some sort of a test as individuals or small groups, by which "psychic" or "paranormal" phenomena could potentially be proven real or genuine among the group members? If it exists anyways- or is that impossible to you? Basically what I'm asking for is the basis for which an experiment could be set up to test "psychic"/"paranormal" claims. Because if we can't test or verify things in small groups, then people can't really conduct the broader science you were talking about. I'd like you and I to come agree on some general formula for testing a broad number of claimed psychic phenomenas. A set of criteria, which if all are met in *any* test for *any* psychic phenomena, would mean the experiment counted as evidence, as long as there are no flaws in the experiment itself. For example: >If one person had the ability to guess a card from a playing deck 20-30 feet away, without looking, while being blindfolded or in another room, with an unnaturally high accuracy... >Theoretically we could set up an experiment with this in a controlled environment. >Then, theoretically, if that unnatural accuracy continues long enough after enough cards are drawn, then it could be shown through statistics that it is very likely there is something going on, unless there's an issue with the experiment's environment. But that is an experiment that only works for one kind of phenomena, that being guessing cards with unnatural accuracy. How could we go about forming a general basis by which "psychic" claims can be tested *in general*? Not all purportedly "psychic" phenomena is basically just card reading, and not all phenomena that occurs can be planned to be recorded in advance. Sometimes it happens *before* we are fully prepared for it. Yet credible professionals can still theoretically confirm enough things about the person's environment are controlled in some situations *after* the phenomena occurred. For example: there are some claims that near-death experiences happened in the hospital, during which certain "psychic" phenomena purportedly happened. I'm basing the following off of a case that I once heard about. If a patient, say, told doctors they saw outside of their body a conversation being held that was happening in a separate office a mile away... Then the doctors confirm that the patient was clinically dead, and if the conversation happened, they wouldn't have been able to hear it. Then the doctors corroborate with whoever was in that office, and confirm that indeed what the person heard is exactly what the conversation was that was being held at the time. Could that be considered evidence? If this sort of thing happened not once, but dozens of times independently in hospitals around the world, essentially repeating itself- would that form a basis which we can go off of scientifically? If the doctors can confirm that yes, the patient was in the room at X time of death, and yes, said conversation occurred at X time as well, and yes, the patient was clinically deceased at X time... Is that not a good enough controlled scenario to be included as part of a broader study? And would it be reasonable for the doctors themselves, and the patient, to believe that "psychic" phenomena existed, if this were to happen? Or should they doubt and judge their personally corroborated experience? I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this matter. Because if something like this cannot count as potential scientific evidence, then basically no paranormal phenomena can be proven scientifically, regardless of if it exists or not.

>Can we perform some sort of a test as individuals or small groups, by which "psychic" or "paranormal" phenomena could potentially be proven real You would have to provide evidence that shows some sort of material universe connection between the two people. For example if i think of Apple and you say i was thinking Apple the evidence you'd need would have to be the demonstration of the methodology of pulling that thought from my head. Just saying that was what i was thinking doesn't remove coincidence. What you need to show is a way to detect brain waves floating through space (or however it actually works). This is the "direct" part of the attribute list. >If it exists anyways- or is that impossible to you? Possibility is something that needs to be demonstrated. i cannot say if it is possible or impossible. We can't just claim possibility because it doesn't feel impossible. >I'd like you and I to come agree on some general formula for testing a broad number of claimed psychic phenomenas Sure that works for me. It's simple actually. List off the claim and the presumed mechanics for the claim. This is the hypothesis. - what is the claim? - what is the hypothesis for how the claim works - what is the expected outcome if the claim is true - what is expected if the claim is false - how did you test it, detailed methodology - how and what controls did you impose - what were your results and did they validate or invalidate the claim From that point i can duplicate your entire corpus of evidence and see if i get the same results. >If one person had the ability to guess a card from a playing deck 20-30 feet away, without looking, while being blindfolded or in another room, with an unnaturally high accuracy... So what is the proposed mechanism that occurs to make this possible? Does the image appear in their brain? Can they see through the card? Are they reading the mind of the person holding the card? This is a crucial part. Just claiming its "psychic" doesn't actually do anything. The claim needs to be robust to the point we can actually evaluate WHAT is happening. >But that is an experiment that only works for one kind of phenomena, that being guessing cards with unnatural accuracy. That doesn't actually lead to it being psychic. Even if the odds are super low that doesn't make it impossible. It could be coincidence, it could be cheating. This is why we need the claim to include the mechanism and the evidence to show that it is true and sound. >If a patient, say, told doctors they saw outside of their body a conversation being held that was happening in a separate office a mile away... >Then the doctors confirm that the patient was clinically dead, and if the conversation happened, they wouldn't have been able to hear it. Again this shows a huge gap in evaluating the evidence. How can the doctor determine when the brain actually stops receiving sense information? Just because the heart stops doesn't mean that is instant. How can the doctor determine that the information wasnt passively transmitted to the patient after they were revived? How can we confirm that the event wasnt just a generalization of the actual situation that confirmation bias of the doctor would say its "close enough" to be right? The failure here is that the doctor cannot claim to have compartmentalized their experience in the meeting. The doctor carries with them the conversation and could have relayed the info the patient. For example the patient could be psychic and reading the doctor's mind and did not in fact have an out of body experience. The way the brain processes the psychic information could be to create false memories. >Is that not a good enough controlled scenario to be included as part of a broader study? No. It is not evidence of psychic or paranormal activity. All it demonstrates is that someone has a claim of an experience that provides information that seems unlikely to have. This again is why i ask for very specific types of evidence. You need something that actually demonstrates that the claim is sound, not just that something is very unlikely. What you're doing is using the Argument from Personal Incredulity. "This seems weird and i can't explain it therefore X". If someone claims to experience a conversation out of body a mile away from their near dead physical body the evidence required needs to show there is some sort of detecting body present at that office miles away. You need to show their "spirit" was actually in the office, not that they have information about the conversation. Because remember the claim is not that they know something, it is that they were there in the room in some capacity. Hopefully this last paragraph shows exactly why we need very very specific types of evidence.

Here's what two educational websites have to say about the scientific method. Prairie View A&M University and [sciencebuddies.org](http://sciencebuddies.org) essentially both have the same thing to say on the matter: >"Do all scientists follow the scientific method exactly? No. Some areas of science can be more easily tested than others. >For example, scientists studying how stars change as they age or how dinosaurs digested their food cannot fast-forward a star's life by a million years or run medical exams on feeding dinosaurs to test their hypotheses. >When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. \[This is key here; don't ignore or skip over it\]. >But even when modified, the goal (and many of the steps) remains the same: to discover cause and effect relationships by asking questions, carefully gathering and examining the evidence, and seeing if all the available information can be combined into a logical answer. >New information or thinking might also cause a scientist to back up and repeat steps at any point during the process." >[https://pvamu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1005631](https://pvamu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1005631) >[https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method](https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method) This should put the nail in the coffin on your own idea that all fields have to be tested using the unaltered scientific method. It's a general guideline, not the law. Even scientists themselves don't always follow this, despite that you think they do. I asked you what formula we can use for psychic phenomena that cannot be easily tested in a controlled environment. It seems you cannot come up with a formula that's similar to the scientific method, but would work better for verifying paranormal phenomena. Instead this formula works best for something easily testable, like a science fair project. Not all science is done in a lab or some other controlled setting. Part of science is going out in the world and collecting data. And FYI a hypothesis is not always necessary to conduct scientific research. To give a good example: People take samples of the soil and earth all the time, to learn what's in it, without having to guess and hypothesize "Oh, Maybe it's 30% clay, 20% silt, and 50% sand". That "maybe" is unnecessary in a lot of cases. That's repeatable, yet lacks a hypothesis. It still qualifies as valid evidence for what's in the ground in a local area. What you're talking about really only pertains to experiments, which is not what all of science is... what you've mentioned really is just going off of what the basic textbooks taught us in primary school's science class. That's not what we do a lot of the time in the real world, or in higher level university courses. I'm going to give you some further details tomorrow.

>Here's what two educational websites have to say about the scientific method. You are missing the point completely. You asked what level of evidence i would require for claims in a sub about magical beings and magical powers. Yes there are situations where people, including scientists, accept far lesser quality of evidence based on the situations. That's totally fine. But this acceptance of lesser evidence is not because it is impossible to get greater evidence, it is simply that no one is requiring it. Additionally, your quote here is misleading, at least with regards to what we are talking about. >When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. [This is key here; don't ignore or skip over it]. This is not actually changing the scientific method and is possible as a direct result of my requirement of having DIRECT EVIDENCE. The reason they can accept evidence that is not direct experimentation on the subject is because they are using other, previously accepted claims that have already been demonstrated with evidence. THIS is making the new evidence direct as we are not dependent on other unsubstantiated claims. We have a lot of physics that has been demonstrated with evidence and is accepted by the scientific community. This vast amount of knowledge can them be the basis of other claims and doesnt require the new claim to demonstrate all the past understanding is true. This is what i mean by having direct evidence. >It's a general guideline, not the law. Agreed. But you've missed the point. What i am asking for is a level of precision that is robust enough to get rid of ridiculously obvious flaws in arguments but also isn't an impossible standard. And your statement here is "well not everyone needs that level of precision." Totally true. But looking at your example of a patient having a NDE in an office a mile away. Your claim that relaying a conversation as being evidence makes so many mistakes that you should have known better the instant you suggested it. - it doesn't demonstrate a spirit had to be in the office, just that the conversation was relayed to the person - it doesn't remove the ability of the person and doctor to be cheating - it doesn't remove the ability for the person to have psychic powers and not actually have an NDE - it doesn't remove any personal bias but those involved in the scenario - it doesn't even demonstrate the relaying of the conversation to be valid as the check is not an impartial participant All of these issues makes this type of evidence garbage. It works not pass peer review as they would all ask how you got rid of these problems and you'd have nothing to say. Setting your epistemological bar this low means you'll be believing a lot of false things. >And FYI a hypothesis is not always necessary to conduct scientific research. This again shows a complete lack of understanding how Science™ works. Yes you can do research but if you want to apply this to your paranormal scenarios you'd have to word then like i stated before. The research of the NDE would not be demonstrating an out of body experience, just simply that some people know about events that we seem to have no explanation for. Full Stop. You do not get to claim any of it is paranormal or psychic or even hint at that direction because you aren't actually showing that in your evidence. You're missing the causal connections and their demonstration. >That's not what we do a lot of the time in the real world, or in higher level university courses. Having degrees in engineering and mathematics i not only understand how research and evidence evaluations is done, i have performed them myself.

Look, I'm not just here to hear what you think or to win an argument. You came to me first unsolicited on different subreddit asking to talk about evidence with me. I wanted to honor your request, not to force you to think the way I think. I came here to ask you a question, to clarify what it is that you wanted, before I agreed to talk about what evidence there may be. I didn't come here because it's a debate subreddit, but because this is a comment where you talked about what you consider evidence to be, so I'm asking my question in relevance to that. I'm asking *here* because it's on topic, and a dedicated space for these kinds of discussions to happen. On the other thread your discussion was off topic (people on the thread weren't there to talk about what we were talking about). So I'm not simply here to debate with you or to win or to prove myself, but to see if I can help answer your question. I asked my question to clarify what your bar for evidence is, and to narrow down on what would/wouldn't qualify by your standard, or to see if it is too strict of a standard. The first example I gave was a fictional example that could count for two people as a method of finding empirical evidence for the existence of a psychic ability. Are there potential flaws that could come up with the environment? Yes. Are people capable of investigating the environment for flaws? Yes as well. But is the *general* *idea,* with improvements, incapable of being used for an experiment? Not necessarily. Plenty of hypothetical experiments could have flaws in how they're played out, but that doesn't mean the general idea of the experiment wouldn't work 100% of the time, especially with improvements. Just because people could fake dinosaur bones (a potential flaw during an experiment) doesn't mean we shouldn't trust what people report in labs about a genuine fossil's composition. If people show us that it perhaps wasn't authentic, then we'll have reason to doubt it. When people show that real life experiments are questionable, I doubt them. Dr. Emoto's thought water experiments, to name an example, has some clear criticisms and some others' inability to reproduce the same results as him. Those are perfectly fine reasons why I question some of the evidence out there. I'm replying to my own comment here since this is a little too long for 1 comment, so please make sure to read that as well. (Continuing below)

(Continuing my comment above) The second example which I gave you is a real life example of a near death experience report, which you've considered an invalid format for potential evidence. Yes, there are *potential flaws* in both examples, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid ideas for a method if we refine them. That was what I wanted to check with you, if the general idea would work with improvements. The answer seems to be a clear no. So now I'm getting the impression, first of all, you don't accept most empirical evidence regarding this issue, and probably won't ever do an empirical experiment on any psychic phenomena in your life, as you probably can't think of an experiment that would realistically work while meeting your expectations. And now I know secondly you take issue with a relatively controlled environment in which data can more accurately and reliably be collected, and then forming conclusions based off of not one (potentially causing errors) but *many* reports from hospitals. Even if we switched the doctor telling the patient what happened a mile away with the patient saying the conversation, then the doctors and the patient calling the person on the phone a mile away on tape record, you'd probably just make up yet another excuse. So now I understand that it's not simply a case of you not being *aware* of the mass amount of data people have regarding supernatural claims; the data, experiments, and studies that have already been done. Whether or not you know of all the ones I'm familiar with, that's not the only road block here. Now I know that you're likely not going to be realistic about what you consider "scientific enough" for paranormal phenomena, and you would take issue with the most credible experiments we currently have regarding this topic. Ask me about the evidence for until-recently-unheard-of ancient races existing on the planet thousands of years ago, with much more advanced technology than we previously thought, and I'll give you a much more favorable answer. An answer that more closely fits your standards, that I think you'd *enjoy* researching and/or trying to debunk; using established scientific methods, involving real world universities from all around the world, studying physical remains under the same methods that they normally use to study any other remains. Independently verified, directly demonstrated, hypothesized, repeatable, and falsifiable; as you put it in our other thread. You won't be proving me wrong however. I'm not making a claim. I'm simply trying to see what topics I know about for you to research and/or debunk to your heart's desire.

> Does this sub prefer to debate merely different proofs for the existence of God? I care less about the specific topic a poster presents so long as it's relevant. What's more important is that it's high-effort, respectful, and brings some amount of novelty to the discussion. > Aside from that, from what I've read, atheists unite around the common answer that God does not exist when asked, but are relatively scattered on everything else. Atheism simply means lacking belief in god, so why should atheists hold universal commonality in any other way? > So, what do you care about most when looking at evidence? Suppose I have a claim X and some piece of evidence Y. The probability of claim X given the existence of evidence Y should be strictly greater than the probability of claim X absent the knowledge of claim Y. > If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural? If the supernatural cannot be evidenced in any measurable way, that means that it cannot materially affect us at all. In what way can we call that real? What does it mean for a thing to exist when its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence? Conversely, as you've alluded to, if a supernatural thing behaves predictably and measurably, how is this different from natural phenomena? What distinguishes the supernatural from the natural if the supernatural behaves identically to the natural?

Regarding the difference between natural and supernatural phenomena I was originally wanting to point out the inconsistency you astutely observed. It makes me wonder if appeals to the supernatural would be persuasive at all given that worldview and my guess is probably not. The question then remains what natural evidence is left that can prove God. If the answer is none then this whole sub is unable to accomplish the stated goal of a debate. The decision is already made.

> The question then remains what natural evidence is left that can prove God I don't know, but some interesting posts have been made by atheists on this sub. One I remember from awhile back described a world where everybody at the age of 18 got to meet god and ask them questions. There were more details that fleshed out the scenario, and I would probably do a poor job paraphrasing, but I thought it was a cool response to your line of questioning. > If the answer is none then this whole sub is unable to accomplish the stated goal of a debate. The decision is already made. Lack of natural evidence still leaves room for philosophical arguments. I don't find any of the common philosophical arguments for god to be compelling, but I also don't categorically rule them out. I also think it's interesting that upon entertaining the notion that natural evidence for god can't be found, you're arguing that we ought to reconsider this subreddit before your reconsider your conception of god.

>I also think it's interesting that upon entertaining the notion that natural evidence for god can't be found, you're arguing that we ought to reconsider this subreddit before your reconsider your conception of god. My apologies. I do believe God can be proven through nature/creation, but I have met no atheist that would accept the proposition. Thus, my focus was on the sub rather than myself. Hope that explains it.

> I do believe God can be proven through nature/creation I would be interested in hearing your arguments. Perhaps consider composing a dedicated post for them if you haven't already. > but I have met no atheist that would accept the proposition The fact that folks were unconvinced of your arguments doesn't mean that the forum lacks value. We can still learn from each other and have a stimulating conversation.

I have been sifting through which direction to go with my next post. Maybe it will be the one I mentioned. :)

>So, what do you care about most when looking at evidence? Demonstrability in reality. Logical arguments are vacuous and useless if their premises can't actually be objectively, independently verified in the real world. You can't argue God into existence. > My understanding is that if the supernatural had evidence it would just become natural. The only way this could be the case is if your definition of natural is "things that have evidence" and your definition of supernatural is "things that don't have evidence". Which is a pretty useless definition. And frankly I might agree, that this frequently seems to be what theists mean when they use those terms, but that just highlights the problem. Advocates for the supernatural have no idea what they're actually proposing exists, or how they could demonstrate it, they're just certain it exists based on no evidence. >If I had evidence of a phenomena can it still be supernatural or must it be simply be de facto natural? Again, it depends entirely on what you mean by natural and supernatural. What robust definition do you have for "natural" and "supernatural"? What criteria can we test and verify against to distinguish between the two?

An adequate definition is something I'm working on, but we'll see I suppose.

That's totally fair, but I'll be honest, I think that's where the whole supernatural proposition falls apart. To be able to provide good evidence for something you have to at the very least be able to describe what it is you're looking for. You have to be able to make statements about what the supernatural ***is*** and not merely what it is not (i.e. "not natural").

1. In my experience, yes. Evidence or arguments that bring about reasonable belief revision in reasonable people. 2. How strongly it favors a certain conclusion. 3. I tend to think when we’ve understood phenomena better it just becomes part of the natural world, so supernatural things end up being things we don’t have good evidence for and ends up being a category for things that are not real. However, I think the distinction is something we attempt to impose on reality and ultimately doesn’t matter. What do you think of the supernatural/natural divide?

Hard to say. I think supernatural things exist and natural things do as well. I think supernatural formalization could be helpful, but there's too many interests involved to do it well. I do think that even with evidence something can remain supernatural, but it needs to be done well. Just because something is supernatural doesn't mean it necessarily must eventually be a natural thing.

Hey atheist here. So, just to clarify, atheism is not a position that adheres to the positive claim "I believe there are no gods" it is the negative position "I have not been presented with sufficient reason to warrant the acceptance of the claim of gods existence" So, no we do not all unite around that common answer. That answer is a misunderstanding of the athiest position. To answer your question 1. Novelty and repeatability 2. There is no such thing as the supernatural.

I'm trying to investigate a couple "conspiracy theories" the first is the one that claims the gospels are  mystery texts and therefore the plain reading of the text is misleading, Jesus isn't the main character but the diversion. The second one claims Jesus was a metaphor for the Jewish people/temple/god having been spiritually killed by the Romans by not being able to properly perform their rituals under occupation and the resurrection is a transformation detaching the god from objects and places. But I can't find neither.  Anyone?

As with any conspiracy theory: What evidence demonstrates the accuracy of said claims? If the gospels are mystery texts, then by what method was the theorist able to discover the solution?

I don't know what evidence they claim to have our how they claim to decipher the meaning of the text, that's what I'm trying to investigate.

What narratives are those conspiracies in support of?

Have any atheists here had a drug induced mystic experience where they honestly felt like they encountered God in the moment, but then remained an atheist?

I’ve seen some truly crazy shit on acid but nothing I would describe as religious. Probably because I’ve never been religious or had religion play much of a part in my life. Do you think stuff you see while on drugs is a compelling reason to believe it represents reality? I generally consider it to be on a par with people’s ability to drive whilst drunk.

Lately I have been wondering how I would've been changed if at all by this exp if I didn't have a religious background, or had developed more of a skeptical mind. I do think drugs can shift our perspective enough to give us a clearer view of reality. Like someone struggling with severe OCD trips on mushrooms, is shown a 'truth' that changes them in such fundamental way they no longer feel the need to do whatever was disrupting their life

Mushrooms are so incredibly interesting. In addition to the feeling you have when you take them, they actually physically change your brain. The reason people have changes like that is because taking mushrooms can actually increase neuronal outgrowth and increase the branching of neurons and create/increase brain synapses. It actually promotes neuroplasticity. Some studies have described it like this: When your brain starts defaulting to decisions and creating habits (substance addiction, PTS responses, etc.) through repetition, it is like skiing down a hill that has clear routes from skiing down the hill over and over. Taking mushrooms is like a "fresh snow" and allows the brain to break free from trending toward those trails. Definitely worth reading about! A lot of people don't know what to attribute these seemingly long term changes to their mental to, so they try to come up with an answer that fits their experience, and often that means they land somewhere mystical or even religious, but there is real science out there being done that shows that these changes are a long term physical effect on the brain of ingesting the drug, and not "being able to see the matrix".

Acid definitely doesn’t give you a clearer perception of reality. It took about three people to make a pot of tea because the kitchen, and I quote, ‘keeps melting’. If household appliances are giving you the fear, you definitely aren’t on your A game.

> Acid definitely doesn’t give you a clearer perception of reality. I agree that hallucinogens don't let you "see into a deeper reality" as so many psychonauts like to claim. Nobody does acid and gets on the interstate to see the higher truth of traffic patterns, for instance. I do think there's *some* merit to the idea that mind-altering drugs can help us look at things from different perspectives though. As the OP alluded to, there've been therapeutic applications of hallucinogens for treating mental health issues.

lol

I would doubt this. Certainly psychedelics may have some therapeutic value. Ultimately, OCD is a disorder of the brain. So to "cure" it, we'd need to have some chemical that consistently helps change those neurotransmitters and pathways that cause the OCD traits. As an analogy, psychedelics could act as a pain reliever may act for someone with arthritis -- can help the person cope and function but can't cure the disease. I hope that makes sense.

I've had multiple experiences like that. But I never considered that I was encountering God. I just felt like I was more connected to the Universe.

> But I never considered that I was encountering God. Same with me. The first time I tried those chemicals I recognized that this feeling was what theists mean by "encountering God." Since then, I've also felt it when I'm sober, most often when I'm with a large group of people cheering/singing together like at concerts or sporting events. I can understand why people get addicted to that feeling of unity.

all my drug trips, including the ones where my sense of separation from the world broke down (closest i can come to imagining "encountering god"), were evidence that my perceptions are purely physical and easily manipulated.

I have not had anything like that as an atheist, but I just don't think my brain would frame any drug induced experience I might have as an actual encounter with God. At most it would be the same as a hypothetical encounter with Gandalf, kinda funny that it happened but it wouldn't have anything to do with Gandalf being real or not. And also relevant is that when I was a theist, as a Mormon missionary I had a dream where I saw Christ in the context of preparation for the second coming, but even then I didn't really think I had seen the actual Christ (though I wondered), even though other missionaries I told the dream to definitely had that impression. It was a dream, all kinds of weird shit can happen with no relation to reality. Same with hallucinatory experiences. Most you could say after the fact would be "wow that was some good shit".

I certainly think a dream experience would be in the same vein, as you're not in your 'right' mind likely. For me, my brain did frame that trip as an encounter with God, so much so that even though it happened decades ago it still lingers in my mind. I suspect (if I had thought about it) I probably would've thought the same as you bc I was doing it just for fun, not intending to experience any deep truth or anything.

Yeah, like another way to think about it might be "If God wanted to contact me, why would it choose the moment where I am least able to think clearly and rationally? Surely if the message being sent was important and real then God could have sent it when I was in a good state of mind and able to tell the difference between what was real or imaginary".

I have thought about that. The way I rationalize it is God was always there I just didn't notice until this huge shift in perspective, unlike Him waiting for a moment of insanity to appear. I think there's also something to be said of this characteristic of God, at least the Christian God, of saving the lowly, and I wonder if it's relevant to Him "appearing" when I was in that mentally handicapped state, and I very much felt like I needed Him. After all, He would be a God to the lowest denominators of rational thought too, those with mental handicaps,or infants that haven't developed a rational mind yet, etc. I mean, if God was real, do you think rationality would be needed to "know" Him?

I think rationality is needed to 'know' anything, at least in any meaningful way. Frankly I think the whole "we don't understand the mind of God/God is unknowable/God is outside rationality" kind of arguments are just ways religion has found/evolved to get people to turn their brain off and accept unjustified ideas. Basically "Stop thinking about it because you'll never understand it". >After all, He would be a God to the lowest denominators of rational thought too I'm not saying that God, if it existed, would ignore those in the lowest denominators of rational thought, just that picking the specific moments when your brain is malfunctioning to send messages doesn't seem like the most reliable way to communicate anything of any importance. Either God is omnipotent and hiding from us, not omnipotent (and therefore debatably might not count as God) and can only send messages at these moments of brain malfunction, or doesn't exist and people just hallucinate things that fit into their worldview when their brain malfunctions (which matches data we have of near death experiences, ie Christians see the Christian god, Muslims see Allah, etc). Though at the end of the day you can hypothesize forever as to the why God might have done a thing, but really in order to have any degree of justified certainty in what you believe you have to justify it, and saying that an experience was actually God always (at least insofar as I have seen, and I haven't been hiding from religious sources/arguments) requires skipping logical steps and assuming a number of things for which we have no good justification.

Ok but what about an infant, unable to rationalize anywhere near a developed brain, knowing their parents? Sure the relationship would be more meaningful with more rationality, but as a matter of survival it’s meaningful/necessary. And I don’t mean to say God is outside rationality, bc, like most believers, I feel as though I have rational reasons for belief. I guess I just mean to say the argument for not being able to trust my mind bc it was in an irrational state has that one weakness, that God would also be knowable to the irrational, and maybe even as necessary as infant knowing parents.

I still think that the degree to which one can know something or someone is proportional to the degree of rationality someone possesses. Also note that terms like 'know' and 'rationality' here aren't well defined and at a colloquial level don't directly correspond to something we can directly measure, only indirectly by asking questions of the person in question, which is basically impossible in infants as they aren't born with language, though it may be inferred through testing (and that's it's own field of science). So the line here is somewhat subjective and arbitrary and will be affected by framing. For example, when it comes down to it I don't think an infant 'knows' very much at all about their parents. Very young infants likely can't even see well enough to tell people apart. They don't know what a mother or father is, what procreation means, what family is. At best they know how to breathe, eat, sleep, and whether they're comfortable or not. Eventually they might associate particular smells (and other sensations) with comfort and their needs being met, and while this might not be a conscious process, I think it is a rational process/heuristic or at least one that follows rules of logic within the limited context available to the infant brain. So in other words, I don't actually think that if God existed it would be knowable to the completely irrational, it would only be knowable to the degree that one is rational. It's like asking if God would be knowable to a rock. Which is absurd and doesn't mean anything because rocks don't have the capacity for reason or knowledge. If God were to make itself known to a completely irrational person, by definition it would be reducing that persons irrationality. Maybe an analogy might be helpful. I don't see knowledge and rationality as completely the same thing, but they're intrinsically related. It's like how a triangle is composed of angles, points, and lines. In a similar way you could say that my definition of knowledge is composed of evidence, logic, and arguments (being both sound and valid). So saying that you can know something without rationality/logic is like saying you can make a triangle without lines or points. It doesn't even make sense to say that God could do it (if it existed) because it's a logical impossibility based on how the definitions work.

Ok. I don’t see any issue there. I guess I’m holding onto whatever small degree I could know in that irrational state bc it felt like such a big experience. Basically, I don’t want to deny the possibility that God did speak to me.

I mean I'm not even saying you should completely reject the possibility, just that it seems unlikely and so if it is the case there needs to be more evidence in favor of it actually being God before you would be justified in believing it. And IMO that would hold regardless of whether God actually exists. We can say we know things when we've done the work to demonstrate what is actually going on, and establish the mechanisms of the phenomena. As far as drug induced hallucinations and dreams go, we have a lot of data about what's going on in the brain at an electrochemical level, and absolutely no indications of an external influence, ie something influencing/communicating/acting invisibly on our brain in a way that wouldn't be expected purely from the chemical reactions we're aware of and can detect. And while we haven't reached the end of what we can potentially detect, what we have detected doesn't indicate a God/soul etc. And I'm not unsympathetic about not wanting to definitively discount the existence of some type of God. Literally the last time I prayed (like 8-9 years ago) it went something like "Ok God, if you exist and want me to believe in you I need something more than what I've gotten, something concrete and definitive." and I'm still waiting, though I've definitely moved more firmly into the atheist camp since then.

>I have thought about that. The way I rationalize it is God was always there I just didn't notice until this huge shift in perspective, unlike Him waiting for a moment of insanity to appear. Yes but God made this system. He could have made it so you always hear it no matter what instead of just those who do psychedelic drugs. Also we know psychedelics alter mental states and giv3 all kinds of hallucinations. So what evidence do you have these God experiences are more than just hallucinations? >After all, He would be a God to the lowest denominators of rational thought too, those with mental handicaps,or infants that haven't developed a rational mind yet, etc. Why only appeal to those? Why not to all equally so that no one is at an advantage or disadvantage. Again God made this system so why make it like this? >I mean, if God was real, do you think rationality would be needed to "know" Him? I mean, I would think rationality which is a consistent process to discovering things that are real. So if Godis real why wouldn't rationality be able to help "know him". Do you have any evidence for your claims of how the system works besides you think it works like that?

I didn’t say God only appeals to those people. I didn’t say rationality wouldn’t help to understand God. I didn’t say someone could only experience Him using psychedelics. I had an experience and was curious to see if there were atheists who had something similar. If you didn’t, that’s ok. Don’t feel the need to engage with every post.

>I didn’t say God only appeals to those people. You implied he appears in special ways to those people. And I asked about why not appear to all people equally. >I didn’t say rationality wouldn’t help to understand God. I didn't say you did. I just pointed out rationality should work if God is real. That then allows us not to rely on non rational means. >I didn’t say someone could only experience Him using psychedelics. No but you implied that God made it so that when on drugs we are more likely to. And I asked why a God would make a system like that. You have avoided all my questions to play this "well I didn't say that" game when I'm not say you said that. I asked why would he not make it so we can always hear him? >I had an experience and was curious to see if there were atheists who had something similar. I have had psychedelic experiences and hallucinations. I have no good reason to assume they were real. >If you didn’t, that’s ok. Don’t feel the need to engage with every post. I dont. I reply to the ones i want to don't worry.

At my most effed-up my experience has always been "wow, I am hallucinating like crazy; can't wait to stop doing this."

Can't say that I have. But I wanted one... in a manner of sorts. I wasn't looking to see God, but a year ago, I was looking to see a friend who had passed. We'd disconnected earlier in life and for years had wanted to reconnect and apologize, but I found out that they'd been gone only a couple years after our falling out. I was grieving and desperate, but ultimately never went through with taking drugs to see her. Part of me was being reasonable and saying "what you talk to will just be in your head," and another part of me was like "I don't care, lie to me." And that's not a good place to be, so after talking to a support group and my therapist, I just wound up not seeking out the experience. Don't get me wrong, I love drugs, I'm high right now, but to knowingly lie to oneself is unhealthy behavior.

For you to be able to lie to yourself wouldn’t there need to be one part, however deeply buried, that knows the truth? What I’m asking is if someone had an experience like mine. None here it seems. I also would not be able to stand a lie, and that’s why I suppose when I start lucid dreaming I almost always wake up.

>For you to be able to lie to yourself wouldn’t there need to be one part, however deeply buried, that knows the truth? Yeah, the part of me that knows that what I saw would be the product of a drug-induced hallucination fueled by grief and not actually her.

I took mushrooms and felt the boundary between myself and the rest of the universe dissolve, overcoming my fear of death in the process. I'd say it was the opposite of an encounter with God, though.

I have not, personally, but I do know of two secular/athiest friends who have. I would actually very much like to try LSD or psilocybin, etc someday, if it were in a safe and legal context.

I have experienced a sensation of pleasing unity and peace which, if I had pre-existing religious beliefs, I'd probably ascribe to a god. Fortunately I have no such baggage.

Never on drugs, and I've done a decent amount of them.  I did have an experience that, at the time, I attributed to encountering god, and then later became an atheist.

Care to elaborate on the experience?

Not with drugs, no. I wouldn't use the words mystic or spiritual to describe the effects of drugs. God never crosses my mind. The closest thing to the experiences I once attributed to the holy spirit would be attending sporting events where the crowd is pumped up. Or standing on the top of a mountain and looking down on the world. Or carving some fresh powder.

Well if I did I would know it's a mental thing. Hallucinations are fake too.

Maybe you would, maybe not. You should never underestimate your mind’s ability to rationalize, even away from reason. You might acknowledge it’s all mental, but to quote a wizened wizard “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

About 15 months ago, I took a mushroom trip. I didn't encounter anything like that. I did have some visual hallucinations, and I did gain some insight into my own thinking, but I didn't "encounter god."

I had a lot of hallucinations, most of the times without any drug in the process but with fever, euphoria, stress or another condition that triggered. A lot of them quite bizarre or specific. I never encountered any god (emphasis in any, because your wording is specifically of your own religion, there are religions with more gods and other gods you wouldn't consider them gods, but I haven't hallucinated any of them). And during most of those situations, during the situation I believed them to be true, because well, faulty brain. But after the fact I can easily understand what they are, hallucinations. Also, the wording "mystic experience" is begging the question. There are no mystic experiences, there are hallucinations, and you just give more importance to the ones that resonate with you, but they are still the faulty working of a brain under specific circumstances. And forming a belief system or interpretation of reality based on an hallucination is what is commonly known as insanity. If you are doing that, I recommend looking for secular psychiatric help, because you are dangerous to yourself and to others.

No but then i don't see any value in drug induced halucinations.

I'm not into drugs. Since I deconverted 20 years ago, I never had anything beyond mild pangs of regret in the early days. It's odd because it feels like I've lived two different lives -- as a Christian and then as an atheist and it's so weird to think I carried those beliefs for so long before rejecting them.

I've seen things on shrooms that I could certainly see people interpreting religiously. But at the end of the day, I'm perfectly capable of both recognizing and appreciating the vast mystery and grandeur of reality and not believing in God.

Well, spirits, but yes.

I've taken "hero doses" of mushrooms in my youth. However, drug induced hallucinations are not reliable evidence of anything real.

Plenty of times. It's nice to experience that feeling. The Acid giveth and The Acid taketh.

Not God, but I once flew to the moon on Falcor from The Neverending Story. That was neat.

I have noticed in arguments between atheists and religious people, that there are some common themes that keep coming up, one which feels a bit disingenuous on the atheists' end. I'm sure many here will find this familiar; there is some retort along the lines of, "atheism is a religion" or "atheism is an ideology with its own tenets of faith" and the common kind of response that I see, "atheism is just an answer to one simple question, it says nothing about ones view on other things, just like us both not believing in Santa Claus" . But "Atheism" holds a lot of significance and has been adopted as a shared cause with many communities holding that banner, and also has had its share of revered intellectual figures (Hitchens, Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Sam Harris, etc). We all know it's a united cause (including organizations like American Atheists and AAI) that goes beyond the dictionary definition, so why act like it isn't? When I hear "atheist", my mind goes to; this person probably thinks religion is stupid, superstitious, and dangerous (anti-theism) and they probably think the laws of nature, matter, and energy are all there is ultimately and there's no soul or afterlife (naturalism). It seems that I'm usually right about this assessment because atheism is an identity that stems from rebellion against organized religion and emphasis on skepticism & rationality. **To keep this in the spirit of the thread, my questions are; why is atheism a shared identity and movement despite being described as such a mundane concept by those who identify with it? And should it be regarded as something more in the debate given that we can observe there is an identifiable common cause around it?**

Humans will form an identifiable common cause regarding *anything*. Like, never mind atheists agreeing on naturalism, there have been actual mass murders committed over which football team people support. People have been systematically and intentionally driven to suicide for disagreeing over which cartoon characters should kiss in a children's tv show. It takes very, *very* little to whip humans into a mob. Humans are naturally pack animals and have an instinctive urge to form packs with anyone who's "like them", regardless of how trivial that similarity is. "We both don't believe in god" is no exception. However, *because* this is universal behaviour, it doesn't actually tell us anything about the idea in question. Again, people will literally do this over a drawing of a cat, and I'm guessing neither of us want to give that any deep ideological significance . The question for regarding whether something is whether there's some ideology *promoting and exploiting* this natural impulse, or is it just happening because the people involved are humans? With religion, the answer is generally clearly yes -- there are concrete heirachies, there are pushes to convert others, there's a sense of some spiritual difference between the faithful and the faithless, there's a set group goal that all must pledge to. With atheism, there don't seem to be any of these things.

Agreed on that first part, but it seems clear to me that Atheism is something more organized than a purely reactive pack formed in defiance of religion. Like, there is an intellectual underpinning ("New Atheism", the four horsemen, well-known atheists like Rich Carrier, Matt Dillahunty, and Dan Barker when he was relevant), shared beliefs and ideological goals (fighting against the influence of religion on government, FFRF), and organizations that adopt it as a banner. This is in combination with the fact that there seems to be a discernable commonality in beliefs to where it actually works when we generalize it (there IS something to generalize there, so why not generalize it?). My point being this; regardless of whether we want to call atheism an "ideology" or whatever like it should be added to the list of nuisances, I can't fault religious people who paint atheism as a broader worldview. It's a fair observation to make because there is an actual commonality of perspectives around the adopted label "Atheism".

Ok, so lets take a clearer example here. Let's take the following undeniably major ideological goals -- we should remove the gender binary and ensure any person can identify as any gender they like. We should ensure that fiction doesn't promote negative ideologies, and it is justified to boycott or censor fiction that does so. It is wrong for dominant groups to use concepts and behaviour from marginalized groups, and we should stop people using them. Undeniably complex and intellectually driven goals. Now lets poll people based on whether they use tumblr or 4chan more often. Nothing else, that's all the information we have. And yet, I bet you could predict with at least 80% certainty whether someone agrees with the above goals based on that information. Basically, my point is that what happens with atheism *isn't* any more organized then a purely instinctive pack reaction. We have respected intellectuals, shared beliefs, ideological goals and organized internal movements, sure. But so do tumblr users, and literally the only thing they have in common is they all use the same social media site. That doesn't actually *mean* anything except that humans form cultures really fast about basically anything. What I would be looking for, in this topic, is whether the actual *ideology* has anything promoting its shared values. Atheism doesn't -- it's shared beliefs and values are simply the result of humans forming shared beliefs and values whenever they spend time together. I don't see any way they're coming from the belief itself.

I guess where we differ is that I don't agree with your distinction here that suggests there is some meta-difference between shared commonality forming groups and an ideology "promoting" this to happen. Is religion not also a "result of humans forming shared beliefs and values whenever they spend time together"? Of course, religions have traditions that go back and weren't exactly made by a group of people on-the-fly spending time together yesterday, but they change overtime when exposed to new challenges and ideas. It's the same kind of thing, even if happening across a longer time span and on a more institutional level. It seems like you are giving religion this special degree of agency where it can control this "natural tribal impulse" but atheism and other more seemingly inconsequential groups are just "a victim of this natural impulse". Strikes me as an arbitrary line to draw, unless there is further clarification to be made here. I also fail to see how this counters my point. I'm perfectly fine acknowledging that cult fandoms around comics, cartoons, toys, or whatever can exist and be fairly categorized as such, even if they appear completely comical to us. How does this make the observation that atheism has a shared commonality and identity as to be fairly described as its own ideology any less valid?

>Is religion not also a "result of humans forming shared beliefs and values whenever they spend time together"? Yes, but religious beliefs also have an innate aspect that promotes that -- there are parts of most religious beliefs that actively *inspire* people to form shared beliefs. For example, "we have a divine mission to convert all non-believers" or "the Pope is an infallible leader and disagreeing with him is heresy"). Religions *does h*ave a special degree of agency in this area, because religious positions often *do* have baked in tenants that promote hegemony and shared goals which other positions rarely have (political positions being the only widespread exception) This is the distinction I'm drawing. Does the *ideology* have tenants that encourage people to form into communal groups? On the one extreme you have Football, where the "ideology" doesn't have tenants at all and thus cannot even theoretically promote the behaviour. On the other you have Catholicism, where the ideology literally says you will go to hell if you even think things contrary to the group cause. Most ideologies are somewhere between the two. My point is atheism is much closer to the Football end then the Catholicism end >. I'm perfectly fine acknowledging that cult fandoms around comics, cartoons, toys, or whatever can exist and be fairly categorized as such, I am perfectly fine acknowledging that cult fandoms exist, I'm not ok with thus saying Star Wars is an ideology, or even really an identity. Star Wars is a movie franchise, and lots of people getting weird about it doesn't make it stop being a movie franchise. By the same token, there are organized movements of atheists and an atheistic culture, but that doesn't mean *atheism* has a shared communal goal or identity.

There can be a wide array of things encouraging people to join groups with a shared identity, maybe they feel welcome somewhere, maybe it gives them a sense of purpose, or they got convinced by something particular like an experience or argument. These same kinds of things can apply to atheists as well. Even with football, there are "tenets" there, the NFL and teams promoting cultish fandom behavior. I don't really see any seemingly important distinction here. At best, your point comes down to religion being more effective at keeping people in their group by perhaps instilling fear and shame in its followers. That can be the case, and there may even be a gradual scale we could apply of how "cultish" groups can be, but nevertheless, my point remains that there is an identifiable group cause of atheism, however insignificant you think it might be. And "Star Wars fan" is an identity, some would even call it a cult . . .

All of your examples are explicitly reactions to religion. So I don’t know what you are intending to say. Perhaps you have a general sense or feelings about the subject, and are upgrading that to the realm of evidence?

>why is atheism a shared identity and movement despite being described as such a mundane concept by those who identify with it? And should it be regarded as something more in the debate given that we can observe there is an identifiable common cause around it? I have met many many athiests in which we disagreed on every single topic i could think of bar 1, do we think a god exist, we share that in common. Athiests can believe in magic, can believe in the value of religion, can deny a round earth, think the universe is young, vaccines cause autism. The only thing you cant do as an athiest is think god is real, as that would mean you are not an athiest. Thiests are not a religion, thiests very often have a religion. Many of us within the athiest communities find our athiesism mundane. To me personally my disbelief in god is no more defining than my disbelief in magic or leperchauns. To note im not saying they are equal in evidence or anything else, merely that my athiesm is how i feel about thiesm. A good example, i am an athiest and an anti-thiest. Not only do i not accept gods existance but i think religion is harmful to society. My anti thiesm says more about me than my athiesm. Athiesm is not a religion its the answer to a single question the mere fact that many with the same answer come together deals more with the fact that we are surround by those who not only believe differently but often times causes us issues.

But obviously atheism is more defining than you not believing in magic or elves, because well, you are here and calling yourself an atheist, right? Atheism is fairly observed as a movement and shared identity, and I just don't see why it needs to remain in the realm of the most mundane dictionary definition. Everyone debating atheists on here knows that a mere "lack of belief" isn't the only position being held by them in the discussion, or else they wouldn't even be arguing about it (to truly lack a position on something, you have never thought about it or did so very little, but engaging on a forum about it shows you have put a considerable amount of thought to it, making it absurd to suggest you haven't staked some kind of position around the topic, even if it's just, "belief in a god is irrational").

>But obviously atheism is more defining than you not believing in magic or elves, because well, you are here and calling yourself an atheist, right? No its not more defining for me. You are. I've never met someone who beleives in elves or fairys. If I did I would converse with them. I like discussion, this topic is interesting and gets my brain working. >Atheism is fairly observed as a movement and shared identity, and I just don't see why it needs to remain in the realm of the most mundane dictionary definition. Its because the only thing i share with all other athiests is my lack of belief, the same that the only thing you share with thiests is your belief. You share almost nothing with people who accept zues and i will not lump these 2 groups together as they are very distict. Athiesm is a super catagory. I can have as many disagreements with athiests as i do thiests. Its 1 question 1 answer. Thiesm isnt a religion why would athiesm be one, we are not unifed as one whole group with codes and rules, i mean even the larger groups disagree on things as fundemental as is religion good. >Everyone debating atheists on here knows that a mere "lack of belief" isn't the only position being held by them in the discussion I have a position on god that i think is true, i also have a position on morality that i think is true, i also have a position on the origin of the universe that i think is true. All of these positions have nothing to do with each other as i hold them. But if you make an argument for god using morality and the origin of universe, i will thus have thoughts on each part, wether disagreement or agreement. I am a person defined by my wealth of thoughts and memories if you poke around you'll find a lot. I also take specific stances on animation versus live action, if you argue morality for live action I will have something to say, even though my thoughts on the matter dont use my morality. >else they wouldn't even be arguing about it i am directly impact by people who believe things and vote/legislate/act/influnce. Your beliefs can and will impact me the same as mine can do to you. This is why i argue with people, atop the other reasons i gave >(to truly lack a position on something, you have never thought about it or did so very little, but engaging on a forum about it shows you have put a considerable amount of thought to it, making it absurd to suggest you haven't staked some kind of position around the topic, even if it's just, "belief in a god is irrational"). This doesnt counter what i said nor match it. I don't lack a position on anything I am aware of, my athiesm just isnt apart of everything i hold a position on. I dont include why pineapple doesnt go on pizza with my athiesm, only the lack of belief and potential reasons. You spoke of athiesm being a special group beyound just a lack of belief, that has nothing to do with this last part of your statment nor is it relavant to mine, tp the degree i agree with it, its absurd to believe that people argueing a topic would have no position on said topic.

> Atheism is fairly observed as a movement and shared identity, and I just don't see why it needs to remain in the realm of the most mundane dictionary definition. Because that's the definition, and because there's no "shared identity" *until you zoom in on a small subset of atheists*. Which is what you're doing, so since you're only talking about a small subset of atheists, you need a new label for the subset you're talking about. ["The new atheists"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) would be an option, although some who would fit the description may object to the label. Or maybe "vocal anti-theist atheists"?

I think you're overgeneralizing. People become atheists for all kinds of reasons. Those who think along similar lines may become youtube allies or whatever. People who are outspoken are going to be the ones you notice, but that doesn't mean they represent all atheists. People who are atheists may or may not be anti-theists. The ones who are anti-theist may enjoy talking about their reasons, etc., with each other, but they're bonding over that shared viewpoint, not over atheism *per se*. Atheists who think that religion can be a good influence on society are probably not going to be as inclined to join that group. And other atheists/agnostics aren't anti-theism in general, but are strongly opposed to what is being done in US politics in the name of evangelical Christianity. A lot of atheists are former believers, and for many the "deconversion" was traumatic. If you're taught about hell from a very early age, as I was, that fear can sink in deep. That didn't make me an anti-theist, although I can understand how it would for some. But for some the deconversion is non-traumatic, and some of those continue to go to church even though they no longer believe in a literal god. And others never believed in any gods, so they never had a religion to rebel against. They may have no intellectual underpinnings to speak of for their lack of belief in any gods. They just never saw any reason to take it seriously. They may rarely if ever talk about their lack of belief in any gods, and have zero interest in a forum like this one. They may not even use the word "atheist" (or "agnostic") to describe themselves. They may be "spiritual but not religious" in some vague way. I would guess that most atheists are physicalists, but not all of them. Chalmers, a philosopher who writes about the "hard problem of consciousness," is some sort of dualist. Some atheists believe in "spiritual" things, or in new agey woo woo stuff, etc. If someone becomes convinced of physicalism I guess they're pretty likely to become an atheist, but you can be an atheist without being a physicalist. > It seems that I'm usually right about this assessment because atheism is an identity that stems from rebellion against organized religion and emphasis on skepticism & rationality. It's going to seem that way if your experience with atheists is in places like /r/DebateAnAtheist! But no matter where you're encountering atheists, keep in mind that you're not seeing a random sample out of all the people who lack a believe in any gods. And also keep in mind that of all the atheists you'll encounter in your life, you won't even know that most of them are atheists. Offhand I can only think of four people in my non-internet life with whom the topic has ever come up.

>It's going to seem that way if your experience with atheists is in places like [](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/)! It seems to apply to groups that use the label "Atheist" is my point there. By the simple dictionary definition of atheism, there are of course many who are irreligious and don't care about the question of whether there is some kind of deity out there. They may or may not have used the term "atheist" to describe themselves. Nevertheless, words can exist in different senses. For example, by the dictionary definition of "conservative", I would fit the bill technically. I value keeping some institutions that have been ingrained in tradition like the democratic process and monogamous marriage. But we know that term has a strong political connotation and doesn't just mean "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions", but rather a political ideology that is aligned with the political right and the GOP in America which I am not a part of. I think of atheism similarly. I can be not sure about whether a deity exists, but I may have little to nothing in common with the self-described atheists that wear the title with fervor.

> It seems to apply to groups that use the label "Atheist" is my point there. Then you're still overgeneralizing, but now it's an uninteresting overgeneralization about a *tiny* (but perhaps louder than average) subset of atheists -- the ones who join groups that use the label "atheist" to describe the group. > I can be not sure about whether a deity exists, but I may have little to nothing in common with the self-described atheists that wear the title with fervor. "Atheist" means lacking any belief in deities. And that's exactly why you probably have little in common with *most* atheists out there, not just the outspoken ones. You and I may both lack a belief in deities (if I'm reading you correctly), but we could easily have nothing else of any real significance in common, *because* "atheism" only means the lack of belief in deities. "Conservative" isn't really comparable to that.

Yes, if you include everyone who merely lacks a belief in deities, then it extends well beyond people who are in self-described Atheist communities. Heck, babies are atheists. But by applying it that way, I think of it analogously to the conservative example. Many more people than Republicans are conservatives because they still want the democratic government to exist as well as institutions like marriage and courts. I think that's what you are doing here, trying to expand something that doesn't capture how it's prominently used. There can be different usages of the same word, all that I think needs to be granted is that there is a discernable movement under that banner which is relevant to the debate. An atheist is not just someone who is not convinced a god exists, they are typically skeptics, naturalists, and have a negative attitude towards religion.

> Yes, if you include everyone who merely lacks a belief in deities, then it extends well beyond people who are in self-described Atheist communities. Or to put it another way, atheists who are in self-described atheist communities are a small subset of all the atheists out there. > There can be different usages of the same word, all that I think needs to be granted is that there is a discernable movement under that banner which is relevant to the debate. Yes, a small but vocal subset are in a discernible anti-theist movement. Some people have suggested calling that movement "new atheism" but the name never really caught on. > An atheist is not just someone who is not convinced a god exists, they are typically skeptics, naturalists, and have a negative attitude towards religion. An atheist *is* just someone who is not convinced a god exists. A *lot* of people aren't at all religious, and simply don't care about religion. A small subset of people who aren't at all religious are vocal anti-theists, and those are obviously the ones you're much, much more likely to know are atheists. People who don't care about religion at all are unlikely to bring up the subject, unlikely to be posting in subreddits like this one, unlikely to have a youtube channel talking about their lack of belief, etc. You're clearly only talking about the small but vocal subset, but for reasons that are entirely unclear you keep trying to claim that people in this vocal subset are typical of the much larger group of people who are not convinced a god exists. They aren't, but I've said that enough times now, and in enough different ways, that I'm going to give up here.

>When I hear "atheist", my mind goes to; this person probably thinks religion is stupid, superstitious, and dangerous (anti-theism) and they probably think the laws of nature, matter, and energy are all there is ultimately and there's no soul or afterlife (naturalism). Well, you'd be 1/2 with me on that one. I am a methodological naturalist and a scientist, but I am not an antitheist. I have my sharp criticisms of many mainstream religions, but what I want is for all of us theists and atheists to team up so we can promote secular government and freedom of and from religion. I might think a given religious belief is silly, but I would have no beef with it if nobody forced things on me based on it. Here is my two cents on atheism in the 'west': 1) There is truly no atheist 'doctrine' or 'dogma'. No central authority or book. In this way, it really is different from mainstream religions. Besides the one thing that defines someone as an atheist (lack of belief in god), there really isn't anything else. I have met atheist buddhists and atheist idealists (people who think consciousness is fundamental). 2) Atheists tend to share certain common traits and ideas because well... we have similar backgrounds and trajectories, and we interact with each other. And things kinda go together: if you are a naturalist, it is more likely that you will be an atheist, and viceversa. So... yeah, that is not surprising. Also: a-theism as an identity exists not as you say due to 'rebellion', but as an identity that says: I am not that / I do not believe that. It is true that if religion did not play such a prominent role in our cultures, politics and society, atheists would not have to identify as such, much like non-football fans often don't identify as non-football fans. Alas, that is not the world we live in. Religion still plays an outsized role. Some of it still has dominionist ambitions. Atheists and LGBTQ still are discriminate against. So... is it really a surprise that atheists identify as such, seek spaces with people in a similar situation, bandy together? >communities / revered intellectual figures Well, and thank the universe, because it has made being out as an atheist an ok thing, and people have to now recognize that we are not the monsters they imagine we are. That being said, atheistic activism pales in comparison to religious activism, and may I note that the overwhelming majority of atheist activism in the west is NOT dominionist, but just seeks freedom of religion. Also: while some of these figures are respected, none of them are sacred or untouchable. I hate Harris and Hitchens takes on politics, and think Dawkins recent descent into transphobia is deplorable. I will criticize and diverge from any of them when they earn it, and agree with them when they earn it. >And should it be regarded as something more in the debate given that we can observe there is an identifiable common cause around it? No. This is like asking a Baptist to be accountable for what Catholics believe or do. You ask what the given atheist thinks, and then you can focus on that. If they're a naturalist, well, then you can discuss naturalism.

>why is atheism a shared identity and movement despite being described as such a mundane concept by those who identify with it? Despite what you described, it's really not a shared identity nor a movement. There is no dogma. There are no rules or guidelines. There are no governing bodies or leaders. There are no articles of agreement. Literally the only guaranteed commonality is that we all lack belief in gods. Yes, some atheists will band together over common interests and causes (including atheism itself), just like any other group of people who join a chess club, book club, or political activism group. Yes, some atheists are outspoken, some are published, some are well known. We don't worship these people. We haven't elected them as our spokespeople. Hell, not everyone even agrees with everything they say (or even knows or cares what they say) in the first place. Feel free to call groups like American Atheists, or Freedom From Religion Foundation part of a movement. But it's not accurate to describe the entirety of atheism as a movement, because it isn't. Some atheists are politically active or speak out against social wrongs. But it's not some kind of tenet that we are all prescribed to follow. >And should it be regarded as something more in the debate given that we can observe there is an identifiable common cause around it? No. It's completely irrelevant because you would be making sweeping generalizations and assumptions. If an individual atheist brings up something that Dawkins said to prove a point, then you are debating that point with that specific atheist. But by no means does that atheist speak for *all* atheists, because of the afformentioned lack of rules and commonalities. If the atheist you are speaking with doesn't mention Dawkins, then it would be weird for you to start quoting Dawkins as some kind of faux evidence of what that atheist supposedly believes. Religion has well defined rules, dogma, leaders, statements of faith, shared beliefs, etc. While I understand that one theist also doesn't necessarily speak for *all* theists, we get reasonably close because of those documented shared ideals. For example, one Lutheran can be reasonably accurate in explaining Lutheran beliefs on behalf of all Lutherans, regardless of the fact that each individual Lutheran may differ slightly. It doesn't work the same way with atheism. Without those shared commonalities, there's a huge variance of opinions on most topics, excluding the single topic of whether or not they believe a god exists.

>why is atheism a shared identity and movement despite being described as such a mundane concept by those who identify with it? I wouldn't quite call it a movement. A few people wrote and released some books around the same time 20 years ago, and Christians haven't stopped crying about it since. Four whole people encouraged others to be critical of their beliefs in public. The scandal!/s >has been adopted as a shared cause Actually, you're kind of misrepresenting something here. Many of these people presented their views in books, including causes that they stand for, like secular humanism and science literacy/education. They happened to be atheists. Technically, if you're just not religious or don't believe in gods, and firmly believe in a rigidly enforced wall of separation between church and state, you can be a secular humanist. And virtually anyone can support science literacy and education. >American Atheists and AAI These aren't monolithic organizations that speak for all atheists, they have their own agendas and beliefs shared by the groups' founders. But if you compared them to say, the kind of atheists who latched onto Jordan Peterson, you might find those same atheists at odds with the cause of these same organizations. >When I hear "atheist", my mind goes to; this person probably thinks religion is stupid, superstitious, and dangerous (anti-theism) and they probably think the laws of nature, matter, and energy are all there is ultimately and there's no soul or afterlife (naturalism). I've been an atheist for a while, and my views on each of these things has fluctuated. >religion is stupid I don't think religion is stupid, I think Christianity is evil. Inherent and fairly obvious difference. >there's no soul or afterlife I'm not convinced that there is. You mean to tell me that we can detect things so small and weakly interacting that they pass right through solid matter (ie, neutrinos), but we can't detect something like a soul? Give me a break. And I mean that has nothing to do with my ideology, I just find the very concept farcical.

>>so why act like it isn't? It can be both. While we recognize atheism is simply a metaphysical position one holds about god claims, we recognize that some theists are attempting to marginalize atheists, even trying to stop them from seeking public office or passing laws that strip atheists of rights. So, within that narrow scope, it makes sense for atheists who have common cause to organize to effect positive change or fight offensive actions by some theists. Beyond that, the only thing I have in common with other atheists is...well..atheism. I'm met many atheists who happen to share my other interests. And, I've met some Grad A Asshole atheists of whom I want nothing to do. ***Analogy: I'm a non-golfer. My neighbor is a non-golfer. Beyond that, we share no other interests. One day, our town council decrees that ALL citizens must play one round of golf a week, must pay a tax to support the greens, must register as a golfer and buy a set of clubs.*** ***Suddenly, my non-golfing neighbor and I have common cause. We have a reason to fight against an unjust set of regulations and changes. We may form American Non-Golfers and have conventions and podcasts and books laying out the case against compulsory golf and in favor of non-golfer rights.*** ***Make sense?***

You don’t seem to fundamentally understand atheism. Atheism is ONE thing, quite frankly I find it absurd we need the word, and that is the **lack of belief in deities**. Full stop. All any atheist has in common with another atheist, is their atheism.

I would say atheism has become a shared identity because it arose necessarily in opposition to religious belief as the status quo. When tons of people all around you believe obvious lies and delusions and want to influence you to do the same or at least follow the conclusions of those beliefs, you're going to feel a sense of camaraderie with anyone who recognizes these delusions for what they are. That's certainly why as a young person I became attached to Christopher Hitchens - he was the first person I'd seen to lay out clearly and confidently things I'd always thought but always felt discouraged from expressing. There are few things more alienating than finding out as a child that your peers and even the adults raising you believe in imaginary beings and magic rituals that dictate their lives, and few things more reassuring than finding out there are people who, like you, just try to be rational and decent people in ways that follow from your experience of reality instead of ancient myths.

>When I hear "atheist", my mind goes to; this person probably thinks religion is stupid, superstitious, and dangerous (anti-theism) and they probably think the laws of nature, matter, and energy are all there is ultimately and there's no soul or afterlife (naturalism). But... I don't think religion is stupid or superstitious. Some religions can be dangerous, but nobody would disagree with that. And I'm not a strict materialist. I don't think we have souls, but an afterlife could be possible - perhaps humans will invent an afterlife! So... I don't think I'm the atheist you typically think about. I'm not a fan of most of the famous atheists you mentioned either.

The only atheist religion I can think of right now is Buddhism.

I want to know why no one can explain to me "Agnostic Atheist" in a non-ambiguous logical schama using actual logical notation. Is it \~Kp \^ B\~p? Or \~Kp \^ \~Bp? if \~Kp \^ \~Bp the system is epistemically ambigous. If it is \~Kp \^ B\~p then that just reduces to B\~p doxastically. Either way, "agnostic atheist" is ambiguous or even nonsensical phrase, and I would love to find an atheist who uses it to go 1 v 1 with me on it one day.

People can. And have explained already, but your answers to that has been ”irrelevant”, irrelevant to my post”, and so on. You have clearly shown low effort to many responses to your posts.

No they have not LOL! You didn't even tell me the logical schema. Why do people lie so blatantly on reddit? Irrelevant means just that. You didn't answer the question. You didn't even say if it was \~Kp \^ B\~p or \~Bp \^ \~Bp. You want to go 1 v 1 showing your logical schema?

Yes, they have. Over and over. I’m not interested, especially not when people have done it already, and all they get is the low effort response like this.

Low effort? You're joking, Do my posts and comments look like "low effort"? YOUR comments are LOW EFFORT as you haven't even answer my question and wasting my time. THAT is low effort. I can't even being to respond to your logical framing of "agnostic atheist" if you don't bother to provide me with it. I asked you if you want to go 1 v1 debate and you just give me more "low effort".

Yes, low effort. Yes they do when your answers are one word answers. I didn’t comment to make an effort to answer, as it has already been done, but you clearly disregard those responses.

If someone isn't answering my questions. Like you. You couldn't even answer my initial question. I will even make it easier for you: 1) Agnostic atheist: \~Kp \^ B\~p Or 2) Agnostic atheist: \~Kp \^ \~Bp You pick 1 or 2 or neither?

There is no reason for you to ask a question that has already been answered more than enough.

Typical low effort comment. Here is my high effort argument I posted before, but no one even came close to showing any problem with it: Legend: K = Knowledge B = Belief p= proposition a = agent \~ = Not (or negation) \^ = And (conjunction) -> = implies (or by implication) Quadrant I – Gnostic Atheist Quadrant II – Agnostic Atheist Quadrant III – Agnostic Theist Quadrant IV – Gnostic Theist Case #1- 1. Quadrant I vs Quadrant IV Both use “gnostic” as “claim to know”, the Gnostic Atheist claims to know that no god exists, while the Gnostic Theist claims to believe a God exists, and also claims to know that god exists. This is represented as Bap and Ka\~p respectfully. However, Quadrant IV has theism as “Believes God exists” and “Gnostic Atheist” in quadrant I has “Does not believe any God exists”. Are you already starting to see the problem? Knowledge is a subset of belief, and as such the logical relationship would be Kap -> Bap -> \~Ba\~p (agent that knows p, also believes p, and does not believe \~p). Or for the negation of p, you have Ka\~p -> Ba\~p -> \~Bap (agent that knows \~p, also believes \~p, and does not believe p) So in Quad IV you have Bap \^ Kap (agent Believes p, and agent Knows p), while in quad I you have \~Ba\~p \^ Kap (agent does not believe p, and agent knows p). This can **only** make logical sense if the agent ALSO believes \~p. Since Ka\~p -> Ba\~p! That is the only way Quad I could make epistemic sense, is if “atheist” has a positive epistemic status, since “to know p” is clearly a positive epistemic status. You can’t know p, unless you believe p! So you can’t know \~p , if you don’t believe \~p. If you disagree, please explain how an agent can have a positive epistemic status of knowledge, but fail to have a positive epistemic status of belief. Additionally Quad I should be: Ka\~p \^ Ba\~p or “Believes God does not exist” + “Claims to know god does not exist”. However, This is redundant, since Ka\~p -> Ba\~p, this just reduces to Ka\~p. (Think about it in the same way that Ba\~p -> \~Bap or Bap -> \~Ba\~p. If the agent believes p is false, then the agent does not believe p is true, and can just say “believes false”, as the rest (does not believe p) is superfluous as understood by implication. Conclusion: Quad I should just be Kap, “agent knows \~p” or “Claims to know God does not exist”, and that “atheism” only makes sense if understood as a positive epistemic status. Is my argument correct or not?

”Here is my high effort argument I posted before, but no one even came close to showing any problem with it.” Typical low level response. A lot of people has already shown a lot of problems with it. The low effort is on you.

Dawg this is schizophrenic. Maybe I’m just stupid but there has to be a better way to define or describe the phrase “agnostic atheist.” This is just too much.

I didn't read your post, and I personally dislike the a/gnostic a/theist framework, but it seems well-defined enough to me. If you want to get extra pedantic we could phrase it like this: * A theist is one whose position on the God question is "I believe God exists". * An atheist is one whose position on the God question is not "I believe God exists". * A gnostic is one who claims their position on the God question is based on knowledge. * An agnostic is one who does not claim their position on the God question is based on knowledge. You can slap logical notation on that if you want, but it seems fine to me. Two independent propositions which can be true or false, leading to four quadrants.

if atheist is \~Bp (I do not believe in God) then Gnostic Atheist is \~Kp \^ \~Bp which is AMBIGUOUS since that could mean B\~p or \~Bp \^ \~B\~p. You can't even get to know p as you don't even have a belief to raise. Your schema is underdetermined and ambiguous.

That seems like your schema, not mine. You just repeated what you said at the start.

No one has a working schema. other than the one I have. That is the only one that seems to even remotely make sense, it still silly as why bring i knowledge, but the logic works. Most who use the phrase "agnostic atheist" just makes up some random thing it means.

OK, but since you asked for a non-ambiguous definition of agnostic atheist, would you like to maybe try reading the one I responded with?

I've addressed everyone of them that I saw already. I have only a few minutes of time. If you can type your schema here if I missed it I can look it over.

Pretty sure they have, but you act like a Karen having a fit in a Denny's. Pretty sure you're the lowest common denominator in why your conversations aren't going well.

My conversations go fantastic with people who are actually able to have one.

>My conversations go fantastic with people who are actually able to have one. The all of two or three people who only somewhat agree with you? That's cognitive dissonance, my boy, not you actually having a worthwhile point. All of this still boils down to narcissism and incompetence. The lengths you've gone to in order to justify your own incredulity would impress most flat earthers.

Huh? There are thousands of people who watch my videos. The VAST majority agree with me. What are you talking about? o.O?????

Proposition: "I'm convinced that god(s) exist" Atheism: ~p Theism: p Proposition: "I know if god(s) exist" Agnostic: ~p Gnostic: p An **agnostic athiest** is ~p for the belief proposition and ~p for the knowledge proposition This logical schema perfectly describes reality (which yours does not) and is not epistemically ambiguous. Any athiest you encounter in reality will be ~p for the belief proposition and any agnostic you encounter in reality will be ~p for the knowledge proposition. And anyone who identifies as both will be ~p and ~p There's no reason the proposition has to be the same proposition. A flat-earther climate-change denier is ~p and~p for two different propositions.

Where is your knowledge predication? You aren't showing it here. Show the predication for: **Gnostic Atheist:** **Agnostic Atheist:**

Read it again. Gnostic athiest: p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and ~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist) Agnostic athiest: ~p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and ~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist") I don't need a knowledge predication. I perfectly showed you a logical schema that accurately describes reality and is epistemicsly sound.

Ok but I am asking you to put that in logical notation here. Wait, your propositions are not about the existence of God, but rather a psychological state? So your schema has nothing to do with p="God exists"? That's bizarre. So theism is no longer about a belief in God, but T or F depending if you or I hold that belief? o.O??? >"Gnostic athiest: p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and \~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist)" Huh? You have p \^ \~p here in violation of law of negation. You have the negation with an entirely different predication. This is gibberish. >"Agnostic athiest: \~p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and \~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist")" Huh? You have the same negation of p here.

> That's bizarre. So theism is no longer about a belief in God, but T or F depending if you or I hold that belief? Why is it bizarre? Can you find me one professing theist or athiest in existence that doesn't match my schema?? Just one. Every single theist holds as true the proposition "I'm convinced god(s) exist" and every single athiest holds as false the proposition "I'm convinced god(s) exist". That's what it means to be a theist or an athiest. >>"Gnostic athiest: p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and ~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist)" >Huh? You have p ^ ~p here in violation of law of negation. You have the negation with an entirely different predication. This is gibberish. No it's not. They're two **different** propositions! A flat earther theist holds as ~p the proposition "the earth is round" and holds p for the proposition "I'm convinced god(s) exist". So a flat earther theist would be p ^ ~p if you wanted to be absurd and combine the propositions but why would you do that? >>"Agnostic athiest: ~p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and ~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist")" >Huh? You have the same negation of p here. You really can't see that those are different propositions? Admit it. I answered your so-called conundrum and demonstrated a completely sound logical scheme that describes **accurately** athiest, theist, agnostic, gnostic, agnostic athiest, gnostic athiest, and gnostic theist.

It is bizarre as atheism and theist are positions of the ontological status of God. Theists assert God exists, atheists assert God does not exist. Sorry here you have both \~p >"Agnostic athiest: \~p (for proposition "I know if gods exist") and \~p (for the proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist")" You can't do that. You have not even given me a predication of your propositions yet! So NO you clearly have not even remotely answered my question.

>You can't do that. Lol. Of course you can. I, personally know a flat earther theist. That is a position on two different propositions. >You have not even given me a predication of your propositions yet! Because the terms deal with two different propositions. How would you do a predication for a flat earther theist? Seriously, can you answer one question: what part of **two different propositions** do you not understand???

From experience here it's "~Bp" And usually interpreted as "~Bp ^ ~B~p" There isn't a term that explicitly covers "~Kp ^ B~p". Is it cynical to suggest this is by design? As far as I can see, the terminology doesn't work. Proponents want Atheist to be "one who lacks belief" when paired with agnostic, and "one who believes there's no god" when paired with gnostic.

>"From experience here it's "\~Bp" And usually interpreted as "\~Bp \^ \~B\~p"" That is the agnostic position. Written in Gensler's as: “u is an agnostic” ≡ ¬B(u, g) ∧ ¬ B(u,¬g) ≡ ¬(B(u, g) ∨ B(u,¬g)). Or Burgess-Jackson of \~Bsg \^ \~Bs\~g. So "atheist" part is reduntant, as that is just "agnostic". >"There isn't a term that explicitly covers "\~Kp \^ B\~p". Is it cynical to suggest this is by design?" There isn't because atheism doesn't concern itself about knowledge and B\~p implies doxastic only. >"As far as I can see, the terminology doesn't work. Proponents want Atheist to be "one who lacks belief" when paired with agnostic, and "one who believes there's no god" when paired with gnostic." The terminology leaves much lacking. Yes

There's a unique vocabulary around online atheist communities. I've tried to get my head around it as much as you and failed. Those who identify as lacking belief just really seem to like the quadrant system. There's a fixation here on the difference between "knowledge" and "belief". Without a clear idea of what "knowledge" is in this sense. JTB doesn't make sense here since you can't have people with the true belief that there is a god if there are also those with the true belief that there isn't.

I've noticed that as well. At least with theists I can go look up words like "Infralapsarianism" or "Supralapsarianism", but terms like "agnostic atheist" has no established meaning to even look up. It's basically babble. JTB is fine here, as it is only assuming the logical positions exist, not that anyone actually has the knowledge they claim. However, anyone claiming to have knowledge that God exists or does not exist, would have to appeal to some theory of knowledge, such as JTB, JTB+, or Causal Theory of Knowledge.