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.
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