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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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