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.
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.