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