Yeah that period of time, where you believe nothing matters, so consequences don’t matter, until you realize that just because it doesn’t matter in the long run, it still sucks and you still have to deal with it, is one of the more challenging aspects of childhood atheism.
Anon learns the hard way that for most families, Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity especially when kids are involved.
What’s annoying about religious people discussing atheism(which happens every time it’s brought up) is that they invariably assume atheists also have religious thinking. Like I must go to atheist church every Sunday to convince myself there’s no god. It betrays either a lack of empathy or a lack of honesty.
Nah, I tended my garden, had some coffee, and going to have some tacos later. I only think about religion when it’s brought up, usually when I see a billboard telling me my life is worthless and magic daddy is gonna have me for barbeque after I die.
This is basivi when somebody tries to be an atheist in a dogmatic, religious way.
Being atheist, at least to me, means that you don’t care about any of that crap, you just try to be a nice person and let others be
I’m “militant” enough to wish that all religions would be prohibited as they’re nothing but tools for control, but I won’t beat someone over the head for believing in fairytales
Seems like atheist in predominantly religious societies tend to behave a bit different, and I can understand that teenagers would want to make a big deal out of it.
My parents were atheists, and so have I been my entire life. But we still celebrated Christmas because it was nice and a tradition. We didn’t go to church or do any religious stuff during Christmas, but ate a traditional Christmas meal, had a Christmas tree, presents and what not.
Religion was just not a topic at all, unless religious people did stupid stuff in the name of religion
“I have removed the chocolate from the tree. Science doesn’t allow chocolate to grow on trees”
Anon science’d so hard he because a superstitious nutcase (many such cases). This is completely zealot brained.
A belief system made me do it. Yea, sure it did bud
“You know what I hate the most about religion? Its the way they try to shove their beliefs down your throat!”
Anon blames Atheism for being a pos
Very anon of him, tbf
That’s very true, we never believed in Christmas/religion but never spoiled/ruined it for others, it was their enjoyment.
Granted when we have a kid, we don’t think we’ll be telling them that “Santa is just a famous character of Christmas, and some people have fun believing he’s real, so don’t ruin their fun either” or something like that. Still have plenty of years to think of how to word it better lol :P
Granted when we have a kid, we don’t think we’ll be telling them that “Santa is just a famous character of Christmas, and some people have fun believing he’s real, so don’t ruin their fun either”
Sorry if I’m misreading this, but personally I don’t see a problem in telling your own kids that Santa isn’t real.
You can still give gifts if you want, and having them be addressed from people you care about makes it more meaningful tbh. Plus, it’s kinda fucked up to normalize lying to your kids
I grew up very poor. My mother made it clear that Santa wasn’t real, because there’s no way she’s giving another old white man undue credit.
Yes, we also fund it very fucked up to lie to a kid about how some random ass guy is stalking your every move to determine if your a good or bad person and thats the determination if having presents or nothing at all.
However, its not our place to tell other parent’s kids that Santa isn’t real, and telling our kid its just a popular character would be not only the truth but also easier for them to explain. Like a mascot of some sort yk?
My dad beat the shit out of me
I don’t think it was so much about religion or ruining it for others.
Yeah, more than likely a very religious/abusive household.
Honestly, I think i will “lie” about Santa. Simply because it doesn’t really matter and it is fun for them.
Something to consider: do you want to normalize lying to your kid? I realize that’s an antagonistic way to phrase it, but that’s pretty much what’s happening
This is such a boring thing that people say all the time.
Lying is normal. You should be lying. Lying isn’t morally wrong if it is not done for morally wrong reasons. My child should be lying to me. I should be lying to my child.
And my children will understand the difference between lying to e.g. prevent a surprise to be ruined and lying to avoid facing consequences.
It is such a black and white thinking. It is so boring too. I will teach my children violence because 1 day, they might need it too.
And sidenote: e.g. telling your child that they can “trust” the security or the police if they get lost in a large crowd, is a lie. But one that is true enough that the child is safer with them than alone in a crowd. Telling your child that e.g. a electrical signal is travelling from the tv station through a wire to your tv, would be a lie if there is some fiber cables somewhere between them, or a satellite connection. Yes, simplifications are lying. We will lie anyway to enable them to navigate the far too complex world and slowly learn about the real underlying complexities.
And obviously, there is a difference between making them write letters to Santa and telling them Santa brings gifts for Christmas.
Yeah, its pretty obvious peoppe are lying anout Santa once you realize the North Pole has no land.
Samta clearly is from the Sputh Pole.
Pretty genius actually, getting pwople to look for him on the oppoaite side of the planet.
TIL the north pole has no land
It doesn’t have land, but it does have ice. People have walked to it from Canada.
That dad? Albert Einstein.
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)
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
empathy is a higher order law.
Anon forgot that having an asshole doesn’t mean you should regularly act like one.
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 luterally 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”
Atheism, like all belief systems
You really should educate yourself a little bit more to get to the baseline level.
Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn’t mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.
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.
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.
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?
Thats
part of?the joke. If the fauxsimilar is close enough to a real miracel, whats the difference? All jokes aside, i play on the “what if - falacy”
if we witnessed something that is indisputably an act of God
What is something that is indisputably an act of God?
Even if you bet on the right horse
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
99.9% of people are agnostic atheists, so for this argument
thus Atheism and Religion both make conclusions without evidence
No they don’t
While I support freedom of religion, given the harms religion has done over history, I prefer atheism
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 😅
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.
What are you confused about in particular?
Atheism makes no claims or beliefs
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
It’s the only definition of atheist.
someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist
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.
Not cool. I am that which I am, and chose not to say what that is
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
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.
Ok then say anti-theism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Anon the grinch
Great thing about atheism Anon, no one made ha do that shit but you, and you get to take full responsibility for your actions without the cop-out of “demonic possession”. Take that beating with pride knowing that you posses radical freedom.
He’s now a big cringe retard, as proven by his telling of the story.
he must be frightened to think about cocoa trees!
or genetically modifying trees to grow whatever you want!!! 😱😱😱😱
This is the best part lmao. This guy not knowing chocolate’s main and defining ingredient does actually grow on trees is peak reddit atheist
Man you should be charging reddit rent to be living in your head like this. Greentext is 4chan.
I know the meme arrows come from 4chan dude. But this is Reddit atheist behavior. Bro is probably the author of the “euphoric” quote
I get what you mean. Reddit Atheist is an archetype not a filing category. One can be Reddit Atheist without even making contact with a reddit
Exactly ! I was one for a brief period, so I’d know !
Still waiting on my sausage tree
chocolate doesnt grow on trees
bruh
I was gonna say, it literally does lmao
This had me thinking of why the english language uses cocoa. Obviously it is cacao, most other languages use the real name as well. One of those “too hard to pronounce” situations? Habit from referring to the beans? Though that second option doesnt really answer the question, why cocoa and not cacao 🫠
It doesn’t. This is what grows on trees.
Raw ingredients aren’t the final product. Cows don’t produce cheese.
I just pictured milking string cheese out of an udder, and so you have to suffer too.
Mmmmm straight from the tap into my mouth
If you shake the cow before milking it does!
i’m pretty sure that would make butter, not cheese
That may be the one time when a (gay and fake) parent beating the shit out of their (fake and gay) kid is justified
“Child abuse is cool if my kid doesn’t like me forcing my religion upon them”.
Good job! Great misinterpretation!
