Not having a belief in a system where a lot of people have beliefs is still a system of beliefs. Unless someone asks you “what’s your religion?” and you respond with “…huh, what’s a religion?” then you have already made some kind of decision. Your system is that you don’t believe - if you didn’t have a system, you would have to independently come to the conclusion that you didn’t believe every time someone asked you.
You chose the system specifically defined by its lack of belief in a higher power, and only exists as a response to that belief held by others. However, just like people’s beliefs define a part of who they are, Atheism defines a part of who you are; you think about your lack of belief enough to define yourself as Atheist, after all. Lack of beliefs doesn’t mean lack of thoughts about beliefs, and the feelings of smug superiority that come with them to allow OP to behave as they did.
It’s okay, I agree with you, but just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re justified in acting superior to others because of it. Most religious texts don’t instruct people to act like assholes, either. As I said, systems of beliefs - even systems that specifically don’t believe - give already-existing assholes the moral justification to be an asshole even more unabashedly than before.
No. The system is “claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration.” Theists claim without evidence deities exist. Atheists make no claim of their own, they submit dismiss theists’ claims since, as mentioned before, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Anti-theism on the other hand does claim that no deities can exist, and arguably is a belief system as belief systems do not require strict evidence. Atheism is just a logical framework. That’s not a belief system, and if you’re arguing it is then you could argue anything is a belief system.
You’re right that atheism and anti-theism are technically different, though they’re often used interchangeably. A framework is a system, though, so yes, anything can be a belief system. I wrote this in another comment in this post, which I think sums it up:
Technically you could form a system of beliefs around the existence of frogs if you thought about them enough. You wouldn’t even need to change your understanding of frogs at all - just the act of thinking hard enough about them to fully understand and articulate your thoughts forms the system itself.
The word “system” has many definitions, granted, but the one that applies in this scenario is that it’s an organized set of ideas. Literally organizing your thoughts on any given matter creates a system of beliefs. That’s why we have so many religions - they’re incredibly easy to form about nearly anything.
Whether people incorrectly use them interchangeably is irrelevant since they’re two distinct categories that aren’t actually all that related. Anti-theism is a belief system as much as any theism is. Atheism has nothing to do with belief, it simply disregards claims made without evidence. It’s a logical framework independent of belief.
That would be true if we weren’t specifically replying to a post about how a guy described his anti-theistic beliefs as being Atheist. We’re using the word “Atheism” in this thread because OP did, but we’re all talking about anti-theism.
With you, I’ll be sure to do that from now on. With others, I’ll continue using the language they use to avoid confusion. Words mean what we collectively decide they mean. That’s why one of the definitions of the word “literally” is now the same as the word “figuratively,” just from its common use in that way.
For better or for worse, enough people use the word “Atheism” to mean “Anti-theism” that it’s generally considered a valid use of the word, especially in situations like these where OP specifically gave context to what he means when he uses the word “Atheism.”
Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s simply the position that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Theists claim there’s a god without evidence. Atheists dismiss the claim.
If atheism can be boiled down to the singular belief that god doesn’t exist, and everything else is simply derivative of that, then religion can be boiled down to the singular belief that god does exist, and everything else is simply derivative of that. Regardless, we refer to these as systems.
It’s not boiling down. Atheism literally is just a lack of belief that any god exists. There is no other associated belief.
All the various flavors of religion cannot be boiled down to “god exists”. Each one at the very least describes the characteristics of the god(s) professed to exist, and a whole lot more.
So many people want to put atheism in the same bucket as religion, but it simply is not.
But it’s not the lack of a belief that any god exists. Not believing in something doesn’t get a name. There’s no word for not believing in dragons, or not believing in frogs. Atheism is specifically a response to the societal pressure to have a religion, including the thoughts and feelings surrounding that response.
Nobody takes their sibling’s unicorn doll just because unicorns aren’t real - OP’s actions came from their feelings of moral superiority as a result of not having a religion in a society that expects it. That’s the difference.
I like an example one of the other commenters here used - being bald is a hairstyle. If nobody had hair, it wouldn’t be, but because we do, the act of not having hair itself becomes a hairstyle.
But it’s not the lack of a belief that any god exists. Not believing in something doesn’t get a name.
It literally is. You are just straight up wrong.
Atheism is specifically a response to the societal pressure to have a religion
The word existing is a response to the need to commonly describe it, but fundamentally it is no different than you other examples that don’t have words. The existence of nonexistence of other words is not evidence of anything other than the frequency that they’re useful.
OP’s actions
Probably didn’t even happen, but even if they did it literally has nothing to do with the definition of atheism.
bald is a hairstyle.
This literally has nothing to do with describing belief.
The very fact that we’re having this conversation means there’s more to the story than “nothing.” You’re being obtuse. A lack of belief, while living in a society that expects it, becomes something notable, and that notability is more than nothing. Just like being bald is only notable in a world where hair is expected, being atheist in a world where beliefs are expected is notable. Being notable is a societal tangible thing, even if “not believing” would otherwise not be for any other topic. Being atheist would be as empty as you’re describing if we as a people didn’t talk about religion, but in reality we do, so it carries weight, which affects behavior.
I had to consult AI on this answer because mine was so bad, my response was: you’re mixing up belief with belief, which is easy to do because it’s a limitation of the English language, but I don’t have a system of lack of belief in a system 😅
Mistral explains it better:
Believing in a god is an active conviction—you hold the belief that a deity exists. It’s a positive claim: “I believe X is true.”
Not having a belief in a god (atheism, in its broadest sense) is simply the absence of that conviction. It’s not a claim about the non-existence of gods, but a lack of belief in their existence. Think of it like not believing in unicorns: you don’t actively disbelieve; you just don’t have a belief in them.
Maybe there is a god? Maybe we’re all in a jar on a desk of some alien and that’s god? Maybe David Copperfield is a god? he made the statue of liberty disappear once and many people saw it live in person!! who knows
To put it plainly, the system not about your beliefs themselves, it’s about the thoughts you have surrounding the concept of belief, which can become inflated by your ego to lead to asshole behavior. That’s why it’s different from things like unicorns. Nobody expects you to believe in unicorns, so you don’t, and you never have to think about that hard enough to categorize yourself as a “Unicorn denier.”
You do have to think about religion though, even if you don’t believe in it, which is why the term “Atheist” exists. And just like how a Christian can use their belief in a god to justify their asshole behavior, an Atheist can use their understanding of the validity of science to be just as much of an asshole. It’s not about whether you’re right, or whether your way of finding the truth is more justified, it’s about not being an asshole.
I’m gonna be honest, I’ve lost track, I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore
an Atheist can use their understanding of the validity of science to be just as much of an asshole
Science has nothing to do with Atheism though so I don’t know why you’ve conflated the two
I was an atheist well before I understood even basic high school science, I came to the conclusion based on the lack of evidence for a god, and quite frankly my pastor gave me a bible and I read it and thought the stories were bullshit, I’ve come to read the Quran lately it’s even more hysterical at how badly it’s written, I swear 12 year old me could have written it “anyone who doesn’t believe is stupid and dumb and will suffer and will be so sad!!! and those who do believe are awesome and will be happy and great!!!11”
Technically an atheist can use anything they want to be an asshole, including but not limited to just being an asshole for the sake of it because there’s nothing in Atheism that says you have to be this way or even anything that suggests you should be this way because there is no system as you keep saying
He could have said: I’m an atheist and I hate trees!!! and set the tree on fire, that’s nothing to do with being an atheist
Anyway this has been a fun use of a day, last post from me
Sorry, I used the example of science because that is the flavor that OP used for their particular brand of Atheism, but you’re correct - technically you can believe there’s no god and science is wrong, though most people I’ve met who don’t believe in god do so because of their trust in science and their belief that it leaves no room for religion.
Again, though, a system of beliefs is not a system of behavior. You do not need a book or anything else telling you what to do for it to be a system of beliefs. Technically you could form a system of beliefs around the existence of frogs if you thought about them enough. You wouldn’t even need to change your understanding of frogs at all - just the act of thinking hard enough about them to fully understand and articulate your thoughts forms the system itself.
If an atheist burns a tree down because they’re an atheist, then obviously it does have to do with them being an atheist. Their brain made a connection between being an atheist and burning the tree down, and that’s the connection - it doesn’t matter if there’s an established set of rules they’re meant to follow or not. Just like how Christians can be expressly told to love their neighbor, and still use Christianity to defend their act of hating their neighbor - how people’s brains justify their reactions to their beliefs is their own system.
There is no evidence one way or the other for the existence of god/s, thus Atheism and Religion both make conclusions without evidence, also known as belief, or faith. Lack of belief, or waiting for evidence, is Agnosticism.
While I support freedom of religion, given the harms religion has done over history, I prefer atheism.
Surely that’s not how the burden of proof works? Isn’t it the whole point of Russell’s Teapot? The burden of proof isn’t on the atheist, so to speak. We make no claim. Theists on the other hand make the claim that there is a god, something that I would argue is by its very definition impossible to prove. That’s the whole point of “belief”.
Personally I think there are idiots everywhere, amongst atheists as well as theists. I think people should be allowed to believe what they want, as long as they don’t try to make me follow their belief system.
But the initial claim that deities exist was made without evidence. Atheism says claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Atheism makes no claims itself. Belief isn’t relevant.
Well, there’s strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism being the position akin to “I know there is no god”. Agnosticism would be the belief that you cannot draw a conclusion, that the evidence is inconclusive, or that knowledge is impossible. Weak atheism would be the position akin to “there’s no reason to believe, so I don’t”.
To flog a well beaten analogy: the teapot in orbit around the sun directly opposite the earth.
The theist says there’s definitely a teapot. The strong atheist says there definitely isn’t. The agnostic withholds judgement because we cannot know. The weak atheist says there’s no reason to believe there’s a teapot.
“Lack of belief” is specifically an atheist trait. Agnosticism is lack of knowing on the matter.
Atheism and agnosticism are compatible, which is why there’s often conflation between the two. I personally don’t think we can know, but I see no reason to believe.
There are also agnostics who believe in a deity, even though they don’t think we can really know.
Finally, for the last bit of pedantry: empirical evidence isn’t the only type of knowledge. Math, for example, is not evidence based, nor is it empirical. We don’t typically count algebra as a matter of faith however.
There are schools of atheism that would claim that you can know that God does not exist because said existence is logically contradictory in a way that can be deductively demonstrated, similar to how things can be disproven in mathematics.
I prefer to call strong atheism as anti-theism in order to not conflate it with what you call weak atheism.
I think the difference betweem an absence of belief in a god and the belief in the absence of a god is large enough to warrant separate terms.
Edit: ok apparently the vocabulary of weak and strong atheism is the established one. Still, it leaves an ambiguity into the central word of ‘atheism’ that I don’t like.
Antitheism is not about knowledge or belief. Its literally in the name, to be against theism. One can be a believer and still be against a religion for all the harm it causes.
This isn’t a “real” distinction, they’re just categories people made up, in my opinion, for the sake of arguing. It’s nearly impossible to prove that a god does not exist, but evidence keeps mounting every single time a “proof of god’s existence” gets refuted. No rational person can claim they are atheist in the sense that they are 100% positive a god doesn’t exist, as this is the same baseless belief of a theist.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is quite wishy-washy, almost apathetic, “oh I don’t know, maybe, maybe we can’t know, maybe theres a higher power”. Pff, way to hedge your bets huh.
I’m ok with whatever gets people through the day, and agnosticism is a much better alternative in that at least even an agnostic theist acknowledges there is no proof, so hopefully they’re less susceptible to the whims of those who exploit these gullible folk.
That said, the natural stance should be implicit atheism: all proof suggests there is no god, so that is the logical assumption until further evidence changes this.
they’re just categories people made up, in my opinion, for the sake of arguing
First time talking philosophy? ;)
In serious talk though, I think your comment is a perfect example of why they are real categories. You have firm opinions on all of them, and all of them are actual things that people have believed and do believe.
Most of the “can’t know” school of agnostics aren’t “can’t know therefore equal odds”, but closer to “the question cannot even be rationally considered, so any opinion at all is irrational”.
What color was space before the big bang? If you say it was purple, I would disagree with you. If you say it’s not purple I would also disagree. It’s beyond just a simple agreement about a set of facts, it’s a disbelief in the existence of that set of facts in the first place.
Thanks, always have time for well organized pedantry. So ‘weak’ atheism is basically agnosticism with Occam’s razor.
‘Agnosticism is lack of knowing on the matter.’ is a nice point, it’s right there in the word. I’m not sold on ‘“Lack of belief” is specifically an atheist trait.’ though, can easily apply to agnosticism as well (or not for those that do believe).
Personally, I’m happy to eclectically pick and choose wisdom from many religions (shame they so often ignore the source material in practice), but that doesn’t make me believe in god/s, merely the psychological usefulness of some ideas. I’m happy to believe in said usefulness even without evidence beyond anecdotal, people are such a mess of contradiction.
I mean, much like agnosticism is derived from “not knowledge”, “atheism” is derived from “not god”. “Lack of belief (in a diety)” is the definition of atheism.
The distinction between strong and weak, sometimes called “positive” and “negative”, is “belief that there is not” vs “no belief that there is”. Similar to how different strengths of agnosticism express “do not know” vs “cannot know”. They both lack a belief in a god.
An agnostic who does not believe is a type of atheist. Since they’re compatible philosophies there’s no contradiction or need to choose. Like liking chocolate ice cream and liking root beer.
Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know if there is a god
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god
Some atheists might assert that they know there is no god, but that is not the meaning of atheism, though some people call that “strong atheism”
On the flip side, one can be agnostic and think there is a god.
Being both atheist and agnostic (what some people call weak atheism) is the rational position given that there is no evidence for any god (or other supernatural phenomenon) existing, but that you also can’t design an experiment that the result of would let you conclude a god (or other supernatural phenomenon) does not exist.
Occam’s razor doesn’t have anything to do with it. It is simply irrational to leap to believing things for which there is no evidence.
That picture is reductive to the point of misleading. Atheism makes no claims or beliefs. Atheism simply says that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Theists claim god(s) exist. Atheism says without evidence I can disregard that claim as nonsense.
Atheism makes no claims or beliefs. Atheism simply says that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration.
You’re thinking empiricism. Atheism is most fundamentally the belief that there is not a god. There are atheist positions that are consistent with empiricism, but not all of them are, nor do they need to be.
There are gradients to it, but atheism is fundamentally about belief. The rational for that belief is a different set of philosophy.
Requiring evidence of a thing before acknowledging its existence isn’t about belief in any way, belief isn’t relevant to facts or evidence. Atheism is not believing in something that has no evidence. Lack of belief isn’t belief. Theological philosophy asserts atheism is as you say, but that’s in the context of theological philosophy. I’m an atheist and I do not believe there are no gods, I do not believe in anything. There’s either evidence of a thing or there isn’t. Theists: there’s a god! Atheists: pics or it didn’t happen.
It depends on your definition of atheist, I mean the picture is right there and right above it is someone explaining the concept further, I don’t know what you gained from vomiting out something directly addressed in my own post and right above it
It’s the only definition of atheist. Atheism makes no claims. Theists and anti-theists make claims. Atheism consists entirely and completely of the position that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. That’s it. That’s all. It’s basic logic.
thus Atheism and Religion both make conclusions without evidence
No they don’t
What, just trust you bro?
So you’re an atheist :) Welcome to the club!
Not cool. I am that which I am, and chose not to say what that is. This is like telling a Jew they’re a Christian because the old testament is heavily cribbed from Jewish texts.
This is like telling a Jew they’re a Christian because the old testament is heavily cribbed from Jewish texts.
Not quite. It’s like telling someone who says they’re Jewish, that Christ was the true savior and son of God, and that he brought a new covenant that comes before the covenant formed with moses that they’re describing Christianity.
That’s exaggerating the point, but my meaning is that while your beliefs are your’s and it’s rude to correct someone on them, the word used to describe those beliefs can be much more readily discussed.
In this context, absolutely, that’s why I dropped it (until I realized I wasn’t clearly explaining myself and the other person was confused). I thought this was the same thread as a cousin (?) thread that was focused on pedantry, so I was being pedantic as hell.
Yep got it, I don’t like it because people are literally confused and think Atheism is a belief system (as seen in the replies further down) and the wording doesn’t help that, but in terms of pedantry you win 😅
That’s not Atheism at all 🤣
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, that’s it, nothing more, nothing less.
There’s no instruction manual or bible or quran instructing him to behave this way, he has picked up what some sort of Americanism and ran with it
Not having a belief in a system where a lot of people have beliefs is still a system of beliefs. Unless someone asks you “what’s your religion?” and you respond with “…huh, what’s a religion?” then you have already made some kind of decision. Your system is that you don’t believe - if you didn’t have a system, you would have to independently come to the conclusion that you didn’t believe every time someone asked you.
You chose the system specifically defined by its lack of belief in a higher power, and only exists as a response to that belief held by others. However, just like people’s beliefs define a part of who they are, Atheism defines a part of who you are; you think about your lack of belief enough to define yourself as Atheist, after all. Lack of beliefs doesn’t mean lack of thoughts about beliefs, and the feelings of smug superiority that come with them to allow OP to behave as they did.
It’s okay, I agree with you, but just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re justified in acting superior to others because of it. Most religious texts don’t instruct people to act like assholes, either. As I said, systems of beliefs - even systems that specifically don’t believe - give already-existing assholes the moral justification to be an asshole even more unabashedly than before.
No. The system is “claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration.” Theists claim without evidence deities exist. Atheists make no claim of their own, they submit dismiss theists’ claims since, as mentioned before, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Anti-theism on the other hand does claim that no deities can exist, and arguably is a belief system as belief systems do not require strict evidence. Atheism is just a logical framework. That’s not a belief system, and if you’re arguing it is then you could argue anything is a belief system.
You’re right that atheism and anti-theism are technically different, though they’re often used interchangeably. A framework is a system, though, so yes, anything can be a belief system. I wrote this in another comment in this post, which I think sums it up:
Whether people incorrectly use them interchangeably is irrelevant since they’re two distinct categories that aren’t actually all that related. Anti-theism is a belief system as much as any theism is. Atheism has nothing to do with belief, it simply disregards claims made without evidence. It’s a logical framework independent of belief.
That would be true if we weren’t specifically replying to a post about how a guy described his anti-theistic beliefs as being Atheist. We’re using the word “Atheism” in this thread because OP did, but we’re all talking about anti-theism.
Ok then say anti-theism.
With you, I’ll be sure to do that from now on. With others, I’ll continue using the language they use to avoid confusion. Words mean what we collectively decide they mean. That’s why one of the definitions of the word “literally” is now the same as the word “figuratively,” just from its common use in that way.
For better or for worse, enough people use the word “Atheism” to mean “Anti-theism” that it’s generally considered a valid use of the word, especially in situations like these where OP specifically gave context to what he means when he uses the word “Atheism.”
A single belief doesn’t constitute a system, and atheism is a single belief
Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s simply the position that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Theists claim there’s a god without evidence. Atheists dismiss the claim.
If atheism can be boiled down to the singular belief that god doesn’t exist, and everything else is simply derivative of that, then religion can be boiled down to the singular belief that god does exist, and everything else is simply derivative of that. Regardless, we refer to these as systems.
It’s not boiling down. Atheism literally is just a lack of belief that any god exists. There is no other associated belief.
All the various flavors of religion cannot be boiled down to “god exists”. Each one at the very least describes the characteristics of the god(s) professed to exist, and a whole lot more.
So many people want to put atheism in the same bucket as religion, but it simply is not.
But it’s not the lack of a belief that any god exists. Not believing in something doesn’t get a name. There’s no word for not believing in dragons, or not believing in frogs. Atheism is specifically a response to the societal pressure to have a religion, including the thoughts and feelings surrounding that response.
Nobody takes their sibling’s unicorn doll just because unicorns aren’t real - OP’s actions came from their feelings of moral superiority as a result of not having a religion in a society that expects it. That’s the difference.
I like an example one of the other commenters here used - being bald is a hairstyle. If nobody had hair, it wouldn’t be, but because we do, the act of not having hair itself becomes a hairstyle.
It literally is. You are just straight up wrong.
The word existing is a response to the need to commonly describe it, but fundamentally it is no different than you other examples that don’t have words. The existence of nonexistence of other words is not evidence of anything other than the frequency that they’re useful.
Probably didn’t even happen, but even if they did it literally has nothing to do with the definition of atheism.
This literally has nothing to do with describing belief.
The very fact that we’re having this conversation means there’s more to the story than “nothing.” You’re being obtuse. A lack of belief, while living in a society that expects it, becomes something notable, and that notability is more than nothing. Just like being bald is only notable in a world where hair is expected, being atheist in a world where beliefs are expected is notable. Being notable is a societal tangible thing, even if “not believing” would otherwise not be for any other topic. Being atheist would be as empty as you’re describing if we as a people didn’t talk about religion, but in reality we do, so it carries weight, which affects behavior.
I had to consult AI on this answer because mine was so bad, my response was: you’re mixing up belief with belief, which is easy to do because it’s a limitation of the English language, but I don’t have a system of lack of belief in a system 😅
Mistral explains it better:
Maybe there is a god? Maybe we’re all in a jar on a desk of some alien and that’s god? Maybe David Copperfield is a god? he made the statue of liberty disappear once and many people saw it live in person!! who knows
To put it plainly, the system not about your beliefs themselves, it’s about the thoughts you have surrounding the concept of belief, which can become inflated by your ego to lead to asshole behavior. That’s why it’s different from things like unicorns. Nobody expects you to believe in unicorns, so you don’t, and you never have to think about that hard enough to categorize yourself as a “Unicorn denier.”
You do have to think about religion though, even if you don’t believe in it, which is why the term “Atheist” exists. And just like how a Christian can use their belief in a god to justify their asshole behavior, an Atheist can use their understanding of the validity of science to be just as much of an asshole. It’s not about whether you’re right, or whether your way of finding the truth is more justified, it’s about not being an asshole.
I’m gonna be honest, I’ve lost track, I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore
Science has nothing to do with Atheism though so I don’t know why you’ve conflated the two
I was an atheist well before I understood even basic high school science, I came to the conclusion based on the lack of evidence for a god, and quite frankly my pastor gave me a bible and I read it and thought the stories were bullshit, I’ve come to read the Quran lately it’s even more hysterical at how badly it’s written, I swear 12 year old me could have written it “anyone who doesn’t believe is stupid and dumb and will suffer and will be so sad!!! and those who do believe are awesome and will be happy and great!!!11”
Technically an atheist can use anything they want to be an asshole, including but not limited to just being an asshole for the sake of it because there’s nothing in Atheism that says you have to be this way or even anything that suggests you should be this way because there is no system as you keep saying
He could have said: I’m an atheist and I hate trees!!! and set the tree on fire, that’s nothing to do with being an atheist
Anyway this has been a fun use of a day, last post from me
Sorry, I used the example of science because that is the flavor that OP used for their particular brand of Atheism, but you’re correct - technically you can believe there’s no god and science is wrong, though most people I’ve met who don’t believe in god do so because of their trust in science and their belief that it leaves no room for religion.
Again, though, a system of beliefs is not a system of behavior. You do not need a book or anything else telling you what to do for it to be a system of beliefs. Technically you could form a system of beliefs around the existence of frogs if you thought about them enough. You wouldn’t even need to change your understanding of frogs at all - just the act of thinking hard enough about them to fully understand and articulate your thoughts forms the system itself.
If an atheist burns a tree down because they’re an atheist, then obviously it does have to do with them being an atheist. Their brain made a connection between being an atheist and burning the tree down, and that’s the connection - it doesn’t matter if there’s an established set of rules they’re meant to follow or not. Just like how Christians can be expressly told to love their neighbor, and still use Christianity to defend their act of hating their neighbor - how people’s brains justify their reactions to their beliefs is their own system.
There is no evidence one way or the other for the existence of god/s, thus Atheism and Religion both make conclusions without evidence, also known as belief, or faith. Lack of belief, or waiting for evidence, is Agnosticism.
While I support freedom of religion, given the harms religion has done over history, I prefer atheism.
Surely that’s not how the burden of proof works? Isn’t it the whole point of Russell’s Teapot? The burden of proof isn’t on the atheist, so to speak. We make no claim. Theists on the other hand make the claim that there is a god, something that I would argue is by its very definition impossible to prove. That’s the whole point of “belief”.
Personally I think there are idiots everywhere, amongst atheists as well as theists. I think people should be allowed to believe what they want, as long as they don’t try to make me follow their belief system.
But the initial claim that deities exist was made without evidence. Atheism says claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Atheism makes no claims itself. Belief isn’t relevant.
Well, there’s strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism being the position akin to “I know there is no god”. Agnosticism would be the belief that you cannot draw a conclusion, that the evidence is inconclusive, or that knowledge is impossible. Weak atheism would be the position akin to “there’s no reason to believe, so I don’t”.
To flog a well beaten analogy: the teapot in orbit around the sun directly opposite the earth.
The theist says there’s definitely a teapot. The strong atheist says there definitely isn’t. The agnostic withholds judgement because we cannot know. The weak atheist says there’s no reason to believe there’s a teapot.
“Lack of belief” is specifically an atheist trait. Agnosticism is lack of knowing on the matter.
Atheism and agnosticism are compatible, which is why there’s often conflation between the two. I personally don’t think we can know, but I see no reason to believe.
There are also agnostics who believe in a deity, even though they don’t think we can really know.
Finally, for the last bit of pedantry: empirical evidence isn’t the only type of knowledge. Math, for example, is not evidence based, nor is it empirical. We don’t typically count algebra as a matter of faith however.
There are schools of atheism that would claim that you can know that God does not exist because said existence is logically contradictory in a way that can be deductively demonstrated, similar to how things can be disproven in mathematics.
I prefer to call strong atheism as anti-theism in order to not conflate it with what you call weak atheism.
I think the difference betweem an absence of belief in a god and the belief in the absence of a god is large enough to warrant separate terms.
Edit: ok apparently the vocabulary of weak and strong atheism is the established one. Still, it leaves an ambiguity into the central word of ‘atheism’ that I don’t like.
Antitheism is not about knowledge or belief. Its literally in the name, to be against theism. One can be a believer and still be against a religion for all the harm it causes.
This isn’t a “real” distinction, they’re just categories people made up, in my opinion, for the sake of arguing. It’s nearly impossible to prove that a god does not exist, but evidence keeps mounting every single time a “proof of god’s existence” gets refuted. No rational person can claim they are atheist in the sense that they are 100% positive a god doesn’t exist, as this is the same baseless belief of a theist.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is quite wishy-washy, almost apathetic, “oh I don’t know, maybe, maybe we can’t know, maybe theres a higher power”. Pff, way to hedge your bets huh.
I’m ok with whatever gets people through the day, and agnosticism is a much better alternative in that at least even an agnostic theist acknowledges there is no proof, so hopefully they’re less susceptible to the whims of those who exploit these gullible folk.
That said, the natural stance should be implicit atheism: all proof suggests there is no god, so that is the logical assumption until further evidence changes this.
First time talking philosophy? ;)
In serious talk though, I think your comment is a perfect example of why they are real categories. You have firm opinions on all of them, and all of them are actual things that people have believed and do believe.
Most of the “can’t know” school of agnostics aren’t “can’t know therefore equal odds”, but closer to “the question cannot even be rationally considered, so any opinion at all is irrational”.
What color was space before the big bang? If you say it was purple, I would disagree with you. If you say it’s not purple I would also disagree. It’s beyond just a simple agreement about a set of facts, it’s a disbelief in the existence of that set of facts in the first place.
Thanks, always have time for well organized pedantry. So ‘weak’ atheism is basically agnosticism with Occam’s razor.
‘Agnosticism is lack of knowing on the matter.’ is a nice point, it’s right there in the word. I’m not sold on ‘“Lack of belief” is specifically an atheist trait.’ though, can easily apply to agnosticism as well (or not for those that do believe).
Personally, I’m happy to eclectically pick and choose wisdom from many religions (shame they so often ignore the source material in practice), but that doesn’t make me believe in god/s, merely the psychological usefulness of some ideas. I’m happy to believe in said usefulness even without evidence beyond anecdotal, people are such a mess of contradiction.
I mean, much like agnosticism is derived from “not knowledge”, “atheism” is derived from “not god”. “Lack of belief (in a diety)” is the definition of atheism.
The distinction between strong and weak, sometimes called “positive” and “negative”, is “belief that there is not” vs “no belief that there is”. Similar to how different strengths of agnosticism express “do not know” vs “cannot know”. They both lack a belief in a god. An agnostic who does not believe is a type of atheist. Since they’re compatible philosophies there’s no contradiction or need to choose. Like liking chocolate ice cream and liking root beer.
Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know if there is a god
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god
Some atheists might assert that they know there is no god, but that is not the meaning of atheism, though some people call that “strong atheism”
On the flip side, one can be agnostic and think there is a god.
Being both atheist and agnostic (what some people call weak atheism) is the rational position given that there is no evidence for any god (or other supernatural phenomenon) existing, but that you also can’t design an experiment that the result of would let you conclude a god (or other supernatural phenomenon) does not exist.
Occam’s razor doesn’t have anything to do with it. It is simply irrational to leap to believing things for which there is no evidence.
99.9% of people are agnostic atheists, so for this argument
No they don’t
So you’re an atheist :) Welcome to the club!
Sadly you’ll now have to find a tree with an angel on it and replace it with a bunsen burner, those are the rules of the atheism belief system 😅
That picture is reductive to the point of misleading. Atheism makes no claims or beliefs. Atheism simply says that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. Theists claim god(s) exist. Atheism says without evidence I can disregard that claim as nonsense.
You’re thinking empiricism. Atheism is most fundamentally the belief that there is not a god. There are atheist positions that are consistent with empiricism, but not all of them are, nor do they need to be.
There are gradients to it, but atheism is fundamentally about belief. The rational for that belief is a different set of philosophy.
Requiring evidence of a thing before acknowledging its existence isn’t about belief in any way, belief isn’t relevant to facts or evidence. Atheism is not believing in something that has no evidence. Lack of belief isn’t belief. Theological philosophy asserts atheism is as you say, but that’s in the context of theological philosophy. I’m an atheist and I do not believe there are no gods, I do not believe in anything. There’s either evidence of a thing or there isn’t. Theists: there’s a god! Atheists: pics or it didn’t happen.
What are you confused about in particular?
It depends on your definition of atheist, I mean the picture is right there and right above it is someone explaining the concept further, I don’t know what you gained from vomiting out something directly addressed in my own post and right above it
It’s the only definition of atheist. Atheism makes no claims. Theists and anti-theists make claims. Atheism consists entirely and completely of the position that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. That’s it. That’s all. It’s basic logic.
yeah i think maybe you’ve reduced atheist down to such a simple premise that you don’t understand knowledge vs belief
anyway all good, have a nice day
someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
What, just trust you bro?
Not cool. I am that which I am, and chose not to say what that is. This is like telling a Jew they’re a Christian because the old testament is heavily cribbed from Jewish texts.
Not quite. It’s like telling someone who says they’re Jewish, that Christ was the true savior and son of God, and that he brought a new covenant that comes before the covenant formed with moses that they’re describing Christianity.
That’s exaggerating the point, but my meaning is that while your beliefs are your’s and it’s rude to correct someone on them, the word used to describe those beliefs can be much more readily discussed.
If you do not believe in a god, you are an atheist, I’m sorry that offends you but that is literally the definition
Didn’t say I don’t believe in god, said there is no evidence.
deleted by creator
Does not mean I do or do not believe, just that I’m not made to, as said.
deleted by creator
Like all belief systems ≠ like all other belief systems
“Pigs, like all felines, are chordates,” is a perfectly valid sentence that doesn’t imply that pigs are felines.
Pragmatically, it does
In this context, absolutely, that’s why I dropped it (until I realized I wasn’t clearly explaining myself and the other person was confused). I thought this was the same thread as a cousin (?) thread that was focused on pedantry, so I was being pedantic as hell.
It’s pretty clear what he means
Wasn’t this the pedantry chain?
I mean calling atheism a belief system of any kind is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby, it doesn’t make sense
But they didn’t do that, just like I didn’t call a pig a feline.
It’s not important though, and this isn’t the pedantry thread, so I’ll drop it.
thanks, I’ll consult NOT AI, I USED YOUR FAVOURITE MORALLY CORRECT WAY to see the error in my ways because I’m now more confused 🥲
edit: ok I understand now, you win this round!
Thanks to @cryptiod137@lemmy.world for the downvote, ya weirdo
You took that personally I guess but I’m the weirdo?
Atheism is any sense is a belief system, the above poster fell deeply into a particular variety of it
I don’t know if your comment about AI was sarcasm but I assure you it’s not going to help
Atheism is not a belief system because it has no beliefs
> Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, that’s it, nothing more, nothing less.
Replacing angels with bunsen burners and some sort of weird hyperactive form of rationalism is not atheism
Oh, sorry. I can explain what I meant.
-doesn’t imply Earth is a star, it’s just comparing it to all stars. If I said “like all other stars,” I would be calling earth a fellow star.
Yep got it, I don’t like it because people are literally confused and think Atheism is a belief system (as seen in the replies further down) and the wording doesn’t help that, but in terms of pedantry you win 😅
You get downvoted because you need to consult AI
Ahhhh I forgot where I was for a second
No it wouldn’t? How can a web search cover a conversation I’m having with OP?
But anyway I’ve updated it now
Sorry bro, that’s the stereotype and you wont be able to change it. Its our cross to bear
🥲 what a struggle for us
I’m off to get some doughnuts, want some?
Nah. I’m already a neckbeard. Might as well be a neckbeard with abs