25 4

I was raised in a Mormon family and I currently attend a Unitarian Universalist. I feel l can not definitively call myself an atheist because I still question the lack of evidence for or against the notion of the divines exist. I feel so continue but I am a scientific thinker at heart so I must question myself and test my ideas.

Queerskeptic13 3 Feb 21

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


A skeptic (of which an atheist is a subset) don't form beliefs that can't be substantiated. I don't disbelieve in gods, I simply don't believe because there's no basis to do so. As such ... I think we're on the same page and can both be called atheists. If there were a preponderance of evidence for god appropriate to the extraordinary nature of god-claims, then we'd be able to form a reasonable, justifiable belief, and we'd no longer be atheists.

An atheist is simply saying they have no belief, not that they have unbelief ... although, obviously, both result in about the same thing.

An agnostic is saying they have no way to know, which is, really, the other side of the coin. You can't make knowledge claims about things concerning which no knowledge is available -- and gods being unfalsifiable inherently because they're supernatural, there is no basis to state who god his, what he's like, and/or what he wants.

If you can't have knowledge, it's awfully hard to form a belief. If you don't believe, then you're an atheist. Most often, an agnostic atheist.

Nice imo 🙂 fwiw there are five diff ways to say "belief" in the Bible, and beliefs are discounted many diff ways, there is no judgement for beliefs, ppl are told not to debate beliefs, and there are even several examples of "non-believers" being accepted I guess

i think there are two types of atheist. there are those who do not believe in any deities and those who also believe there are no deities. i am the latter type. i find the nonexistence of unicorns, the tooth fairy, santa claus, leprechauns and all that jazz compelling enough, despite lack of proof that they don't exist, that i feel able to apply the same criteria by which i not only don't believe in them but believe firmly in the lack of them to any deities as well. that's me. i'm not alone so i won't say JUST me, but i won't say that every atheist feels that way along with me. thus is think there are two types. i'm not horribly worried about it.


@genessa I think there's a distinction between the practical position -- the verbal shortcuts people sometimes take -- and a defensible philosophical position. In some ways at my age I no longer give a fig, but at the same time, don't want to give place to the asshats who are always accusing atheists of being "arrogant know it alls" by staking a literal knowledge claim that there is no god. One would have to have looked everywhere and everywhen to be able to literally stake that claim, and so of course we can't. You are correct, of course, that no one demands that level of rigor in anything else, but there's actually a back-handed argument that I have to kind of grant at least the standard interventionist god-botherer (at least from their viewpoint), which is that the existence of such a deity with alleged claims on us is a sufficiently consequential matter that we must not dismiss it out of hand.

The real problem is not my unwillingness to examine the evidence and be open to god, or that I'm resistant to his "lordship" or lifestyle demands; it's that there's no evidence, and they never present any. In theory, I'd entertain actual evidence, but fully expect never to see it because it's unobtanium. You can't evidence something that's not falsifiable, that is outside of space and time and existence, ineffable and so forth. The real core argument against belief in the existence of such gods is that there's no way to prove OR disprove him, so there's no way to discuss or respond to him, and therefore most certainly no way to arrive at a defensible belief in his existence.

And so I arrive ultimately at the same place as you, I just don't state it the same way.

@mordant if we stated things alike, we'd be scary lol



You are on the right road jus keep up the study.


As others have said here, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the assertion. There is no need to prove a non-existent thing doesn't exist.


Welcome to the asylum. Enjoy your stay.
Good luck on your journey.


There is no definitive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. Should I be an agnostic about Santa Claus? There is no definitive evidence that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Should I be an agnostic about the Tooth Fairy? No. I can say that I absolutely do NOT believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, because they fit nicely into the category of fictitious characters that we know are just imaginary. For the same reason, I call myself an atheist. All other gods are known to be mythical. Why should Elohim, or Jehovah, or Jesus be different? There is no good evidence that they are any more real than Zeus or Thor.

I look at it this way: there is as much evidence for one religion as there is for another religion. And that, of course, is ZERO. If a creator were true, surely he/she would provide something.


You don't need to prove something DOES NOT exist if there is no evidence that it DOES. The burden of proof lays with the side making the claim of existence.

If my brother says there is a six foot talking plum hanging by a golden thread in the garden, but it cannot be heard, seen, smelled, felt or tasted but is definitely there.
Do I need to prove it is not there before I accuse him of delusion? And if so how?


You can't find evidence of a non existence. There can be a shy God that do not inntreffer in reality. But then, why try to please it?

Well, one reason might be that It has your best interests at heart, so a better Q might be Why try to displease It? Not that I believe God can even be pleased or displeased per se, I mean if you were manifesting a spirit of say I dunno Anger or whatever, do you think I could quiz your Anger absent yourself as to why it has manifested, or what would make it satisfied or whatever? Could your Anger be assuaged without you iow?

@bbyrd009 why would you interpret not trying to please a deity as actively trying to displease it? that is a false conflation.


@bbyrd009 but if the shy God don't act in reality, means that there is no way to even know what it wants. So it's fundamentally useless to even try, you don't know even if you are trying with the real one.

@Pedrohbds I def agree that it is impossible to please God... and the rest of that statement is broadly misunderstood imo. So, if I had any objection, which I'm not sure I do, it would be more along the lines of objecting to allowing the blind, believers iow, to dictate your opinion of the Bible, which imo is much more in line with your premise. If you always act from conviction, imo you will never owe an apology, even though you will surely always piss some ppl off, maybe even most ppl.


There can't be any evidence that God does not exist. An atheist can't know with 100% certainty that God wasn't hiding behind the next cloud all along. In other words "You can't prove a negative". So being an atheist is just the position that you don't hold the belief that a God exists. If that is an accurate description of what your set of believes contain then you could call yourself an atheist (at least here, in case there are any negative consequences in your environment).
So do you think there is any evidence that a God exists?

Dietl Level 7 Feb 21, 2019

i disagree. there is plenty of evidence that no gods exist but there is no PROOF that no gods exist. the evidence is that people have caught their parents putting presents under trees and quarters under pillows and those things are strong evidence, although not definitive proof, that there is no santa claus and there is no tooth fairy. this can be extrapolated to apply to deities as well, since every description of a deity can be busted as soon as the deity is ascribed an action, and the action doesn't happen. also, as i have said above, an atheist can simply fail to believe in deities OR actively believe that there are no deities. every atheist is not alike, and i think those are the two main types. furthermore, as isaac asimov points out, he doesn't need to waste his time being unsure when he feels so sure (and there is nothing to counter that feeling). it's just not worth it.


@genessa There are some god claims which can be disproven by evidence. But those claims always go beyond just existence. When someone says God answers their prayers those things can be investigated but for the existence claim only there is always a way out.
As for my definition of atheist, someone who has the belief that no god exists also doesn't hold the belief that he exist so I include those people aswell. I agree with you there.

@Dietl well yeah, lots of god claims can be disproven by evidence. those that cannot are usually ridiculous anyway and can apply to any nonexistent nonentity, but you can't convince a believer that way 'sigh. lol. i don't try. i don't care what people believe as long as they don't behave in ways that interfere with others because of it, including but not limited to legislating, executing or adjudicating religion into my life. i guess that means i'm not militant as far as atheism goes, but i am militant in terms of separation of church and state, as well as church and my mind and body..


@genessa I agree. If people want to believe in their invisible friends that's their problem.


it sounds like the word you're looking for is Agnostic


It's good your questioning your up bringing and decided to your journey of enlightenment. When I was younger I thought about becoming an Mormon. I thought good idea at the time, but I am so glad I voided that train wreck.


You get there one day. No hurry, at least you are thinking.


I appreciate and second everybody's comments about the burden of proof here, but I'm wondering if maybe that's not really the point.

God isn't just a scientific claim, but also a cultural and moral one. Not just "there is a supernatural being" but "there is a holy supernatural being with moral authority."

I think if you reason your way through the moral and ethical implications of the God claim, you can reach confirmation that this claim is really, really not true.


I, too, am an ex-Moron (oops, ex-Mormon), and I love the Unitarian Universalists. 😀


Does SANTA exist? - No/maybe/yes ..... Are there any evidence for SANTA? - heaps ...... Now, replace SANTA with your deity, and look at the questions again. When is it time to start believing in the existence of something? ..... I think we should believe it when the evidence is credible and verifiable.


Athiest doesnt mean you believe there is no god. It can mean that. but it really just means that there is not enough evidence for you to accept a god. agnostic and athiest mean the same thing


You seem to fit the agnostic category.


I know a lot of people feel this way about the word "atheist" but it's my pet peeve. If you are not an active believer in a god or gods, you are an atheist. If you think it's possible they exist, you're an agnostic atheist.

Don't let the word have power over you or anything, but by definition you're an atheist.


I'm exmo too and agnostic. I don't feel the need to prove whether God exists or not. If there is a kind, understanding God, he/she/them will understand where I'm at and accept me as is. If there's not a kind, understanding God, like if there's an asshole God, I feel no need to worship them. My change in perspective has been vital to helping me heal.


You can believe anything you want, and if it gives you comfort that is likely why you believe it. I have no comfort in the idea of gods being nonsense, it's just that I have no evidence of gods at all. I get along perfectly well without them and I refuse to bow my head, close my eyes, and start talking to myself.


So, you are saying you're Agnostic?


Show me....empirical data.

0 for you then 🙂[]


You might recognize that even in Scripture God is acknowledged as Spirit, and only anthropomorphised for convenience, to make the necessary analogies. Iow there is no "He," iow no ego, no "persons" in God,hence if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father. And regardless of any Roman notions of "God in three persons" that will not withstand the Bible either, i can dig up the Quote if you like.

Another good thought experiment is to recognize that you or for that matter anyone else can manifest whatever "spirit" you might choose, or even not choose, every time you walk into a room, hence why "you are to become elohim," and prolly even Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man." Also I guess "Unknown God" is a tacit admission, as well as all of the rhetoric @ the omnies.

Now of course ppl who are determined to conflate Eternal with Immortal so that they can believe that they might become an immortal too (Mithraists, Cult of Sol Invictus, Christians, etc) are not really even prepared mentally for this discussion, they basically need God to be a person, need to imagine that they might be able to ask God some questions or etc someday, but as you seem to be free of that I can at least suggest that you consider "God" to be strictly a convenient appellation for the Creative Spirit, or the Good One, or whatever you're comfortable with there, and trust that there is no God such as most believers require, only the Bible authors knew better than to just say that right out I guess. Let the blind debate a Literal God imo

you do not exist .

@laura5054 "there are old nihilists and bold nihilists, but there are no old bold nihilists"
which imo is sort of a shame, as imo you are correct in a sense, but unfort nihilists seem to suicide before they discover how you are not correct 😟

@bbyrd009 you are a nut

@laura5054 ah yes well that too. It's just that I've lost a couple good friends...
find some meaning in life imo


If you doubt the existence of God, you may ask "Can you prove to me that God created the earth,the sun,the stars, and all there is" ? My answer is," What in the nature of proof will you accept?". You may ask"Must I believe in God?". My answer is, " You ought to.God has given you good reason to believe!"
The proofs are not mine; they are His. He shows us His creation,speaks to our conscience ,and gives us His Word. Amen !

i do not think most of us have any problem with your being a believer and being here, but i do not think i am alone in having a problem with your preaching at us. please stop.


"God has given you good reason to believe!"
Well, he didn't give it to ME. What is this good reason you are speaking of?

@Dietl TIME. The only measure of time that really matters is how much time we have before we die.In order to make perfect use of time ,we must prepare ourselves for the life after.God has created a wonderful place of light and joy called Heaven and invites everyone.You can obtain this eternal life if you will only believe. The choice is ours, God will not violates our free will .

@laura5054 So I should believe in him for the promise of an afterlife. Okay, is there a good reason to believe that an afterlife exists?

why are you, a believer, on this site?

@coralisthree yes ,I believe God......Do You ?

@genessa you do have a problem, do I need your permission to be on this site?


I joined the Mormon church in 1980, however, I never really felt a part of it. I questioned a lot of things and they didn't like that. Over the years, I went to church on and off but just never felt accepted. Since the 2016 election, I have felt even less accepted, the church is over 90 percent conservative and I'm a flaming Liberal. I'm not an atheist, I'm a Theist and a bit of an agnostic. I believe possibilities are infinite.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:295197
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.