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.
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