Posting the definition you choose, or should I say believe, for the word is obnoxious and meaningless, puting it in bold is just sad. Especially the way that one is written.
You think your definition is enough to change what someone believes a word to mean? I believe you are mistaken
Does the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy help?
The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.
People in China aren’t walking around pulling down angels and dragons and replacing them with bunsen burners because there is nothing in “lacking a belief in god” that compels you to do so, there’s no quran and no bible, nor will there ever be, because atheism isn’t a belief or religious system, there’s no worshipping of supernatural beings
No, it doesn’t contradict my definition at all. I’m not sure how you think it does.
A lack of belief in God(s) is a system of belief in the way the world operates, just one that denies the metaphysical.
Believing that believing in Joseph Engels style dialectual materialism, as in applying it to natural sciences, mean you have no system of beliefs is absurd on its own face.
People on China are being raised following the party line as mentioned above. That’s a philosophy they have been taught to belive. All philosophy is is a system of a beliefs.
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
Atheism is the belief in the lack of gods or God
That’s the only definition that has ever mattered
Posting the definition you choose, or should I say believe, for the word is obnoxious and meaningless, puting it in bold is just sad. Especially the way that one is written.
You think your definition is enough to change what someone believes a word to mean? I believe you are mistaken
Does the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy help?
The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
People in China aren’t walking around pulling down angels and dragons and replacing them with bunsen burners because there is nothing in “lacking a belief in god” that compels you to do so, there’s no quran and no bible, nor will there ever be, because atheism isn’t a belief or religious system, there’s no worshipping of supernatural beings
No, it doesn’t contradict my definition at all. I’m not sure how you think it does.
A lack of belief in God(s) is a system of belief in the way the world operates, just one that denies the metaphysical.
Believing that believing in Joseph Engels style dialectual materialism, as in applying it to natural sciences, mean you have no system of beliefs is absurd on its own face.
People on China are being raised following the party line as mentioned above. That’s a philosophy they have been taught to belive. All philosophy is is a system of a beliefs.