Sounds like Atheism, like all belief systems, empowered an asshole with self-righteous validation. Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn’t mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.
Atheism isn’t really a belief system by itself. It can refer to a lot of things, including positive atheism (the claim that there is not/cannot be a god/supernatural entity), negative atheism (the lack of belief in a deity due to lack of evidence), the absence of religion and many other things. Militant atheism, on the other hand, definitely counts and is susceptible to all the failings you mentioned.
It’s not called militant atheism, you’re describing anti-theism. I’ve never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either, just that since there’s no evidence the claims aren’t worth consideration and can be dismissed as nonsense.
I’ve never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either
Maybe this will help?
This definition is also found in multiple encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy. For example, in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William L. Rowe (also an atheist) writes, “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief” (2000: 62). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy recognizes multiple senses of the word “atheism”, but is clear about which is standard in philosophy:
[Atheism is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in god and is consistent with agnosticism [in the psychological sense]. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)
It’s not surprising that academic theological philosophy uses atheism as a strict position that there are no gods, inferring the claim, but even your source states the widely accepted definition is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods before choosing the previous definition for the purposes of the paper. Academic usage that acknowledges they’re not using the widely accepted usage isn’t super relevant unless you’re having academic discussions with academics in academic contexts. I understood the picture fine, it’s just wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re conflating “belief” with “faith”. One is about what you accept as true without evidence, and the other is about what you simply hold to be true.
If someone said “there is no god”, I would take that as a true statement. I believe it to be a true statement because the positive assertion that there is has not met the burden of proof.
The usage of evidence to guide belief is empiricism, and that’s not a theological philosophy, it’s the basis of the scientific method. Empiricism isn’t a prerequisite for atheism because they’re different topics. It’s entirely possible to be an atheist for reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of evidence. Asserting that atheism is about not believing things without evidence is fundamentally misrepresenting the broad meaning of the word and substituting your specific philosophy as the main interpretation.
I do not believe in anything
Okay.
There’s either evidence of a thing or there isn’t.
Can you provide me with evidence that that statement is true? Without tying a logical knot?
Empiricism is itself a belief in the sense that you meant it. You cannot have evidence for the validity of evidence without first accepting that evidence lends credence to a notion.
That being said: rewind and reread what I said but take the word belief as “agreeing with the truth of the statement”. The existence of a deity is a binary. Ignoring questions of “why” one accepts a statement, one either accepts a statement, accepts it’s opposite, or rejects the premise entirely. The conventional empirical agnostic atheist stance is to believe there is no deity because the question is not really knowable, and a claim should be disbelieved without proportional evidence. Belief that there is no god is not the blind assertion that there isn’t one. It just means that’s the state of affairs of reality as far as you know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different, but makes sense to throw into the same box.
Learning that being right doesn’t make you not an arsehole is a lesson too many of us had to learn the hard way.
The satanic temple’s 7th tenet sums it up quite well.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different
Only theists try to bring atheism down to a belief system.
By that logic: absence of being on fire is kind of being on fire. Not drowning is a specific type of drowning. Vacuum is a particular form of atmosphere. Being an idiot is just a form of wisdom.
Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.
Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.
Oh and the options “on fire” and “not on fire” obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.
Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
Interestingly, a diet poor in Omega-3 leads to inability to distinguish between belief and fact.
Please go on such a diet.
Now you’re confusing atheism - lack of belief in deities - with general knowledge of science, and then confusing general knowledge of science with belief. You are also confusing empirical evidence with faih.
I’m scientifically trained (physics specifically), I’m also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.
Interestingly, science has very few “facts”. Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.
E.g. I don’t know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year’s time. The evidence says it’s practically a certainty, but it is not a true “fact”. It’s a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.
So technically, in math we refer to the core “ideas” from which all mathematics is derived as axioms, which we hold to be true until found to be false/self-contradictory/redundant. We arrive at these by describing the world, so it’s more like - “if you agree to the following statements, then you must also agree to the entirety of mathematics”.
Continuing with the occupational pedantry, I think there is some confusion lies in conflating “fact (repeatable observation)” with “fact (tested causal mechanism)”
So, kinda not really, but kinda? This is more philosophy but i think the idea is that as long as we can ensure that “there exists a statement for which there is a piece of evidence that can prove a statement false, but no evidence exists after significant testing and experiments” IRL we can use this interchangeably with “I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables”. Statements under both are true and correct to the best of our understanding.
I used to be big on atheism but I do think it is also a belief system now. I realized that when a christian friend asked me “if we witnessed something that is indisputably an act of God, would you still believe he doesn’t exist ?”
So, anyway, I say I’m agnostic and that I really dislike organized religion now.
Like every religion, I’ve met good ones and bad ones. People just pretend there aren’t bad atheists for some reason.
I call bad atheism “The Cult of the Void”. They believe that, after you die, there is just oblivion. They have no more empirical evidence for this than any other belief system, but they’re absolutely convinced they’re correct, and will shit on everyone else’s beliefs as being “unscientific”. I’ve seen them reduce kids to tears, framing death as a terrifying and brutal thing. They seem obsessed with death, it’s the centrepoint of their religion.
They usually recruit by bullying and negging people into believing their beliefs are stupid, and framing their religion as the only logical one. In the presence of any other religion or spiritual practices, they get petulant and usually start harassing people. God forbid anyone have any other culture.
The good atheists are respectful and curious. They don’t share the belief, but they’ll participate, or politely decline. They don’t harass people or denigrate their beliefs. They probably outnumber the bad ones, but it’s the whole “vocal minority” thing that makes it seem like they’re everywhere. You don’t notice the quiet ones that are just existing happily.
I call bad atheism “The Cult of the Void”. They believe that, after you die, there is just oblivion. They have no more empirical evidence for this than any other belief system
How about that your entire world is constructed based on your brain and if that goes so does everything else? You can even temporarily change your world with drugs, some people are born with naturally damaged brains, schizophrenics believe people are chasing them even when they’re not for example
It’s a bit like saying if you lose a leg it doesn’t go to another dimension it just dies, same thing with your brain, there is no evidence to suggest the synapses that compose and construct your world suddenly transform into some angel dust and transport you to another dimension
I’ve seen them reduce kids to tears, framing death as a terrifying and brutal thing.
Why would death be scary? You get a free preview every night 😃
By your definition dreams are not death. Unless you’re one of those people that have no dreams at all, in which case my condolences.
The rest of your argument has nothing to do with anything. Schizophrenia, drugs, brain damage, none of that matters at all. You’re extrapolating an afterlife based on unrelated data. You’re trying to prove the unprovable using “science” that doesn’t make sense and grasping for straws.
The fact is, you don’t know for sure, you just have very strong faith in your own beliefs. Which is fine, it doesn’t bother me what other people choose to believe in. But it doesn’t make your beliefs “better” or “more scientific” than anyone else’s beliefs. It’s just popular right now for some reason. There was a time when Christianity was considered scientifically obvious as well, you know.
Also why are you using multiple alt accounts to post here? Seems a bit strange.
The fact is, you don’t know for sure, you just have very strong faith in your own beliefs.
This is literally just projection on your end. Every. Single. Religion. assumes an afterlife that they describe. The “afterlife” of Atheism you describe is just following the idea of the “null hypothesis” from the scientific method. Go look it up of Wikipedia and educate yourself.
People just pretend there aren’t bad atheists for some reason.
What are you talking about? >90% of the time it’s the other way around. Most of the time, people don’t think about atheism unless they’re bashing them.
I call bad atheism “The Cult of the Void”. They believe that, after you die, there is just oblivion. They have no more empirical evidence for this than any other belief system,
Just stop, you don’t understand what you’re talking about. The idea behind it is “we have no evidence for any of the claims so we must stick with the default hypothesis of ‘nothing’”. It’s basic scientific method.
They usually recruit by bullying and negging people into believing their beliefs are stupid
No, they don’t. Just the assholes, which are a minority. Meanwhile every religion tries to brainwash kids while they’re young, often threatening them with eternal hellfire if they step out of line.
The good atheists are respectful and curious.
Well this is going in a good direction at least
They don’t share the belief
So the “good” ones are the ones that only sit down and shut up? Fuck off with that. There’s a spectrum of ways to respectfully share your own opinions
You don’t notice the quiet ones that are just existing happily.
You’re clearly only adding this last line in here to give yourself a façade of reason, like the religious version of “I’m not racist, but”
for point 1 that’s likely true but I think they probably meant in a certain group like some specific atheist group or in their experience idk.
2 fair enough.
3 They did mention those were “the bad ones” if I remember correctly, I think you just quite said the samr thing they said.
So the “good” ones are the ones that only sit down and shut up? Fuck off with that. There’s a spectrum of ways to respectfully share your own opinions
They said politely decline too. I mean sure you could idk discuss stuff or idk. In this specific scenario you decline or accept so like it’s just about the way you decline in this specific situation.
You’re clearly only adding this last line in here to give yourself a façade of reason, like the religious version of “I’m not racist, but”
hehe “I’m not racist butt” – “ok”
I like asdfmovie
Anyways I was saying Idk I don’t think it was in bad faith or uh, the person might’ve maybe been somewhat misinformed idk how to spell.
But yea I probably should’ve read the response to your comment before writing this to gather more info lolz. I read it says you identofy with the bad type of atheist but I think it’s just more likely you like just skimmrd the comment or something silly.
Self identifying as the asshole type with your hateful response. I don’t mind people sharing their views and beliefs. I do mind when people say theirs is the only correct / logical one. I find that almost every atheist in online spaces is insufferable like this.
Of course there’s people who will read the Bible and ignore the parts they don’t agree with and then hit their kids. That’s kind of the point of this entire thread, that being a jerk isn’t actually tied to your religion at all, people will always find a way to be unkind.
Your entire comment is full of bad faith arguments and bias.
It’s clear from your words that you think all atheists are assholes, inferior, or both, and you’re not actually looking for a discussion.
In this thread you’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you’re intellectually and morally bankrupt while trying to pretend that everyone else is the problem.
I never said all, and I never said they’re inferior. I’m pointing out a real problem where a lot of atheists act with prejudice to all religion and spiritual people. They often believe they’re morally and intellectually superior, while pretending that all religion is the problem, and use bad faith arguments (using your own words, thanks for proving my points).
Some of the smartest, kindest people I know happen to be religious, but you would condemn them. There’s nothing stopping you from being someone that respects others’ beliefs, who happens to be atheist. We don’t have to be incompatible, and it confuses me why you choose to be.
If you want me to respect you, stop attacking people when they talk about their beliefs, and don’t call them stupid or illogical or unscientific. Try reflecting on why my list of grievances upsets you so much. Do they sound familiar maybe?
Some of the smartest, kindest people I know happen to be religious, but you would condemn them.
Would I? You have no idea. You don’t know me; you’re clearly making things up because you don’t actually want address yourown biases.
If you want me to respect you, stop attacking people when they talk about their beliefs,
When did I do that? All I did was call you out ob your dishonest arguements regarding Atheism.
We don’t have to be incompatible, and it confuses me why you choose to be.
I’m arguing against you because you’re making incorrect, bad faith arguments about Atheism. If you don’t want me to argue with you, then don’t go on here acting like Tucker Carlson.
You’re the one being a villain in this thread. The adult thing to do would be for you to recognize that and shut up. But you seem incapable of considering that you can be the villain and continue talking.
If you want me to respect you, stop attacking people when they talk about their beliefs,
When did I do that? All I did was call you out ob your dishonest arguements regarding Atheism
Also here’s a list of insults you’ve leveled at me so far in this thread, since you seem to need a reminder.
list
You’re the one being a villain in this thread. The adult thing to do would be for you to recognize that and shut up. But you seem incapable of considering that you can be the villain and continue talking.
Grow up.
In this thread you’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you’re intellectually and morally bankrupt while trying to pretend that everyone else is the problem.
Get over yourself.
Fuck off with that.
You’re clearly only adding this last line in here to give yourself a façade of reason, like the religious version of “I’m not racist, *but*”
Read my original comment again. I only highlighted things you guys do that are not nice to be around.
Many times you’ve accused me of writing things I never did. Again, I never said all, you’re not all evil, but you guys often have this persecution complex where you emotionally and violently react to all spirituality in your presence. Especially online, in forums like Lemmy and Reddit. It’s like you lose your ability to read accurately and just make up things I never wrote.
I don’t believe I deserve this kind of treatment for just pointing out what it’s like “on the other side of the fence”. You seem perfectly happy to say all religion is evil and brain washes children, then turn around and say I’m making bad faith arguments for only pointing out ugly behaviours like you’re showcasing right now.
I don’t even know what you’re expecting me to say. Do you want me to apologise and say I’m wrong for listing factual things that have actually happened to me? That are happening literally right now?
Many times you’ve accused me of writing things I never did.
You started this comment chain going out of your way to stereotype atheism as a hostile cult with multiple examples of bad-faith arguments. Go reread your original comment yourself.
but you guys often have this persecution complex
Again, go reread your original comment. This is pure hypocrisy.
Also, accusing me of violence? You’re the one making accusations here. I’ve never threatened violence against you. Seriously, you need to go through a lot of self reflection.
You seem perfectly happy to say all religion is evil and brain washes children, then turn around and say I’m making bad faith arguments for only pointing out ugly behaviours like you’re showcasing right now.
Ah, yes. Of course calling people out for brainwashing and abusing of power is just as bad as doing those in the first place. /s
I don’t even know what you’re expecting me to say.
Rethink your arguments. As I’ve said before, they aren’t good arguments. You did not enter this thread to have a respectful discussion, given your assertions are the only good Atheists are the ones that sit down and don’t talk back, while religious people get to evangelize all they want. It’s a complete double-standard.
Do you want me to apologise and say I’m wrong for listing factual things that have actually happened to me? That are happening literally right now?
Again, this reeks of a persecution complex. You want to know what I want? I want double-standards and bad faith arguments to end. If you stopped doing that I wouldn’t bother responding. If that’s too hard for you, the block button is right there.
As if there were any other way to hold any kind of opinion about what could be beyond the bounds of reality as we know it, but to just bet on shit we don’t know the first thing about. It’s all just bets. Nobody knows and everyone is pretending that not only are they right but their rightness is of a superior quality than the claimed rightness of others. They’re still all just blind morons betting on horse races that are fixed by minds far closer to the truth and in control of it than they.
The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.
They especially have the advantage over the people standing outside who are pretending there are magical centaurs in the park that grant wishes if you’re not gay.
The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.
No, the metaphor breaks down at that point because there is no peeking over the wall, there is no listening to talk from inside the stables. We’re not even at the track. It’s all shit that is beyond observation, beyond calculation, beyond any kind of verification or validation. It is a thing nobody has any good reason to act like they know anything about in a scientific capacity.
Sounds like Atheism, like all belief systems, empowered an asshole with self-righteous validation. Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn’t mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.
Atheism isn’t really a belief system by itself. It can refer to a lot of things, including positive atheism (the claim that there is not/cannot be a god/supernatural entity), negative atheism (the lack of belief in a deity due to lack of evidence), the absence of religion and many other things. Militant atheism, on the other hand, definitely counts and is susceptible to all the failings you mentioned.
It’s not called militant atheism, you’re describing anti-theism. I’ve never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either, just that since there’s no evidence the claims aren’t worth consideration and can be dismissed as nonsense.
I believe what you are describing is Agnosticism, which questions the existence of God but doesn’t claim there isn’t one either.
Atheism afaik does claim that something like a God can’t/doesn’t exist (or Anti-theism).
Maybe this will help?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Maybe you will understand the picture I posted in the other comment as well now?
It’s not surprising that academic theological philosophy uses atheism as a strict position that there are no gods, inferring the claim, but even your source states the widely accepted definition is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods before choosing the previous definition for the purposes of the paper. Academic usage that acknowledges they’re not using the widely accepted usage isn’t super relevant unless you’re having academic discussions with academics in academic contexts. I understood the picture fine, it’s just wrong.
what’s wrong about the picture?
Did you not see the gnostic and agnostic in front of atheist and theist?
eg. you are aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Anon forgot that having an asshole doesn’t mean you should regularly act like one.
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
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.
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.
Don’t forget dystheism, the belief that even if a god exists, they’re not worthy of praise.
Edit: I guess technically that would be agnostic dystheism, a true dystheist would necessarily believe in a god I think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😅
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re conflating “belief” with “faith”. One is about what you accept as true without evidence, and the other is about what you simply hold to be true.
If someone said “there is no god”, I would take that as a true statement. I believe it to be a true statement because the positive assertion that there is has not met the burden of proof.
The usage of evidence to guide belief is empiricism, and that’s not a theological philosophy, it’s the basis of the scientific method. Empiricism isn’t a prerequisite for atheism because they’re different topics. It’s entirely possible to be an atheist for reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of evidence. Asserting that atheism is about not believing things without evidence is fundamentally misrepresenting the broad meaning of the word and substituting your specific philosophy as the main interpretation.
Okay.
Can you provide me with evidence that that statement is true? Without tying a logical knot?
Empiricism is itself a belief in the sense that you meant it. You cannot have evidence for the validity of evidence without first accepting that evidence lends credence to a notion.
That being said: rewind and reread what I said but take the word belief as “agreeing with the truth of the statement”. The existence of a deity is a binary. Ignoring questions of “why” one accepts a statement, one either accepts a statement, accepts it’s opposite, or rejects the premise entirely. The conventional empirical agnostic atheist stance is to believe there is no deity because the question is not really knowable, and a claim should be disbelieved without proportional evidence. Belief that there is no god is not the blind assertion that there isn’t one. It just means that’s the state of affairs of reality as far as you know.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You get downvoted because you need to consult AI
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.
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
You really should educate yourself a little bit more to get to the baseline level.
Oh, nevermind, you’re one of those feel-good nonsense wafflers.
Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different, but makes sense to throw into the same box.
Learning that being right doesn’t make you not an arsehole is a lesson too many of us had to learn the hard way.
The satanic temple’s 7th tenet sums it up quite well.
Only theists try to bring atheism down to a belief system.
By that logic: absence of being on fire is kind of being on fire. Not drowning is a specific type of drowning. Vacuum is a particular form of atmosphere. Being an idiot is just a form of wisdom.
Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.
Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.
Oh and the options “on fire” and “not on fire” obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.
Interestingly, a diet poor in Omega-3 leads to inability to distinguish between belief and fact.
Please go on such a diet.
Now you’re confusing atheism - lack of belief in deities - with general knowledge of science, and then confusing general knowledge of science with belief. You are also confusing empirical evidence with faih.
Go eat fish.
I’m scientifically trained (physics specifically), I’m also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.
Interestingly, science has very few “facts”. Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.
E.g. I don’t know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year’s time. The evidence says it’s practically a certainty, but it is not a true “fact”. It’s a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.
So technically, in math we refer to the core “ideas” from which all mathematics is derived as axioms, which we hold to be true until found to be false/self-contradictory/redundant. We arrive at these by describing the world, so it’s more like - “if you agree to the following statements, then you must also agree to the entirety of mathematics”.
Continuing with the occupational pedantry, I think there is some confusion lies in conflating “fact (repeatable observation)” with “fact (tested causal mechanism)”
So, kinda not really, but kinda? This is more philosophy but i think the idea is that as long as we can ensure that “there exists a statement for which there is a piece of evidence that can prove a statement false, but no evidence exists after significant testing and experiments” IRL we can use this interchangeably with “I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables”. Statements under both are true and correct to the best of our understanding.
And the “trained physicist” confuses that with “belief”.
Literally some neurologists say he can be cured of that by eating more fish.
Did you burn down your family‘s Christmas tree too?
I used to be big on atheism but I do think it is also a belief system now. I realized that when a christian friend asked me “if we witnessed something that is indisputably an act of God, would you still believe he doesn’t exist ?”
So, anyway, I say I’m agnostic and that I really dislike organized religion now.
“If you saw a pig with wings soaring trough the skies, would you still believe pigs couldn’t fly?” Impecable logic, no notes.
Do rocket propelled pigs without wings count as flying?
deleted by creator
What is something that is indisputably an act of God?
Like every religion, I’ve met good ones and bad ones. People just pretend there aren’t bad atheists for some reason.
I call bad atheism “The Cult of the Void”. They believe that, after you die, there is just oblivion. They have no more empirical evidence for this than any other belief system, but they’re absolutely convinced they’re correct, and will shit on everyone else’s beliefs as being “unscientific”. I’ve seen them reduce kids to tears, framing death as a terrifying and brutal thing. They seem obsessed with death, it’s the centrepoint of their religion.
They usually recruit by bullying and negging people into believing their beliefs are stupid, and framing their religion as the only logical one. In the presence of any other religion or spiritual practices, they get petulant and usually start harassing people. God forbid anyone have any other culture.
The good atheists are respectful and curious. They don’t share the belief, but they’ll participate, or politely decline. They don’t harass people or denigrate their beliefs. They probably outnumber the bad ones, but it’s the whole “vocal minority” thing that makes it seem like they’re everywhere. You don’t notice the quiet ones that are just existing happily.
How about that your entire world is constructed based on your brain and if that goes so does everything else? You can even temporarily change your world with drugs, some people are born with naturally damaged brains, schizophrenics believe people are chasing them even when they’re not for example
It’s a bit like saying if you lose a leg it doesn’t go to another dimension it just dies, same thing with your brain, there is no evidence to suggest the synapses that compose and construct your world suddenly transform into some angel dust and transport you to another dimension
Why would death be scary? You get a free preview every night 😃
By your definition dreams are not death. Unless you’re one of those people that have no dreams at all, in which case my condolences.
The rest of your argument has nothing to do with anything. Schizophrenia, drugs, brain damage, none of that matters at all. You’re extrapolating an afterlife based on unrelated data. You’re trying to prove the unprovable using “science” that doesn’t make sense and grasping for straws.
The fact is, you don’t know for sure, you just have very strong faith in your own beliefs. Which is fine, it doesn’t bother me what other people choose to believe in. But it doesn’t make your beliefs “better” or “more scientific” than anyone else’s beliefs. It’s just popular right now for some reason. There was a time when Christianity was considered scientifically obvious as well, you know.
Also why are you using multiple alt accounts to post here? Seems a bit strange.
This is literally just projection on your end. Every. Single. Religion. assumes an afterlife that they describe. The “afterlife” of Atheism you describe is just following the idea of the “null hypothesis” from the scientific method. Go look it up of Wikipedia and educate yourself.
What are you talking about? >90% of the time it’s the other way around. Most of the time, people don’t think about atheism unless they’re bashing them.
Just stop, you don’t understand what you’re talking about. The idea behind it is “we have no evidence for any of the claims so we must stick with the default hypothesis of ‘nothing’”. It’s basic scientific method.
No, they don’t. Just the assholes, which are a minority. Meanwhile every religion tries to brainwash kids while they’re young, often threatening them with eternal hellfire if they step out of line.
Well this is going in a good direction at least
So the “good” ones are the ones that only sit down and shut up? Fuck off with that. There’s a spectrum of ways to respectfully share your own opinions
You’re clearly only adding this last line in here to give yourself a façade of reason, like the religious version of “I’m not racist, but”
also i think half of your discussion with that person is kinda funny and just full of misunderstandings and stuff like
“i like dogs.” – “OH SO YOU HATE CATS UH? I GOT YOU IN 4K AND YOU’RE CANCELED”
for point 1 that’s likely true but I think they probably meant in a certain group like some specific atheist group or in their experience idk.
2 fair enough.
3 They did mention those were “the bad ones” if I remember correctly, I think you just quite said the samr thing they said.
They said politely decline too. I mean sure you could idk discuss stuff or idk. In this specific scenario you decline or accept so like it’s just about the way you decline in this specific situation.
hehe “I’m not racist butt” – “ok”
I like asdfmovie
Anyways I was saying Idk I don’t think it was in bad faith or uh, the person might’ve maybe been somewhat misinformed idk how to spell. But yea I probably should’ve read the response to your comment before writing this to gather more info lolz. I read it says you identofy with the bad type of atheist but I think it’s just more likely you like just skimmrd the comment or something silly.
Self identifying as the asshole type with your hateful response. I don’t mind people sharing their views and beliefs. I do mind when people say theirs is the only correct / logical one. I find that almost every atheist in online spaces is insufferable like this.
Of course there’s people who will read the Bible and ignore the parts they don’t agree with and then hit their kids. That’s kind of the point of this entire thread, that being a jerk isn’t actually tied to your religion at all, people will always find a way to be unkind.
Your entire comment is full of bad faith arguments and bias.
It’s clear from your words that you think all atheists are assholes, inferior, or both, and you’re not actually looking for a discussion.
In this thread you’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you’re intellectually and morally bankrupt while trying to pretend that everyone else is the problem.
Get over yourself.
I never said all, and I never said they’re inferior. I’m pointing out a real problem where a lot of atheists act with prejudice to all religion and spiritual people. They often believe they’re morally and intellectually superior, while pretending that all religion is the problem, and use bad faith arguments (using your own words, thanks for proving my points).
Some of the smartest, kindest people I know happen to be religious, but you would condemn them. There’s nothing stopping you from being someone that respects others’ beliefs, who happens to be atheist. We don’t have to be incompatible, and it confuses me why you choose to be.
If you want me to respect you, stop attacking people when they talk about their beliefs, and don’t call them stupid or illogical or unscientific. Try reflecting on why my list of grievances upsets you so much. Do they sound familiar maybe?
Would I? You have no idea. You don’t know me; you’re clearly making things up because you don’t actually want address yourown biases.
When did I do that? All I did was call you out ob your dishonest arguements regarding Atheism.
I’m arguing against you because you’re making incorrect, bad faith arguments about Atheism. If you don’t want me to argue with you, then don’t go on here acting like Tucker Carlson.
You’re the one being a villain in this thread. The adult thing to do would be for you to recognize that and shut up. But you seem incapable of considering that you can be the villain and continue talking.
Grow up.
Also here’s a list of insults you’ve leveled at me so far in this thread, since you seem to need a reminder.
list
And how is that an attack on your beliefs in the slightest? I’m attacking your arguments and behavior, not your religion.
The fact that you can’t conflate the two is very telling.
You started this comment chain with attacks, and now you play the victim as soon as you get pushback. Again, grow up.
Read my original comment again. I only highlighted things you guys do that are not nice to be around.
Many times you’ve accused me of writing things I never did. Again, I never said all, you’re not all evil, but you guys often have this persecution complex where you emotionally and violently react to all spirituality in your presence. Especially online, in forums like Lemmy and Reddit. It’s like you lose your ability to read accurately and just make up things I never wrote.
I don’t believe I deserve this kind of treatment for just pointing out what it’s like “on the other side of the fence”. You seem perfectly happy to say all religion is evil and brain washes children, then turn around and say I’m making bad faith arguments for only pointing out ugly behaviours like you’re showcasing right now.
I don’t even know what you’re expecting me to say. Do you want me to apologise and say I’m wrong for listing factual things that have actually happened to me? That are happening literally right now?
You started this comment chain going out of your way to stereotype atheism as a hostile cult with multiple examples of bad-faith arguments. Go reread your original comment yourself.
Again, go reread your original comment. This is pure hypocrisy.
Also, accusing me of violence? You’re the one making accusations here. I’ve never threatened violence against you. Seriously, you need to go through a lot of self reflection.
Ah, yes. Of course calling people out for brainwashing and abusing of power is just as bad as doing those in the first place. /s
Rethink your arguments. As I’ve said before, they aren’t good arguments. You did not enter this thread to have a respectful discussion, given your assertions are the only good Atheists are the ones that sit down and don’t talk back, while religious people get to evangelize all they want. It’s a complete double-standard.
Again, this reeks of a persecution complex. You want to know what I want? I want double-standards and bad faith arguments to end. If you stopped doing that I wouldn’t bother responding. If that’s too hard for you, the block button is right there.
As if there were any other way to hold any kind of opinion about what could be beyond the bounds of reality as we know it, but to just bet on shit we don’t know the first thing about. It’s all just bets. Nobody knows and everyone is pretending that not only are they right but their rightness is of a superior quality than the claimed rightness of others. They’re still all just blind morons betting on horse races that are fixed by minds far closer to the truth and in control of it than they.
The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.
They especially have the advantage over the people standing outside who are pretending there are magical centaurs in the park that grant wishes if you’re not gay.
No, the metaphor breaks down at that point because there is no peeking over the wall, there is no listening to talk from inside the stables. We’re not even at the track. It’s all shit that is beyond observation, beyond calculation, beyond any kind of verification or validation. It is a thing nobody has any good reason to act like they know anything about in a scientific capacity.
You must be one of the people outside the track afraid to look because you can’t bear the thought of not having your very own wish-granting centaur.
Superstitious nonsense.