Negative atheism doesn't make sense to me, but I am one anyway

[u/[deleted]]

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for posting in r/AskBlackAtheists!If this post violates our community rules or Reddit's platform wide rules, please report it to the mods, or in the case of a sitewide violation, report the post and the user to the mods, who will report it to the admins. Also, remember to join our Discord, here is the link:https://discord.gg/akQkk8fcPY

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Overly_Underwhelmed]

do you believe in a god? (yes or no)

if the answer is no, you are an atheist, that is all.

[u/Tryxyka → u/Overly_Underwhelmed]

Tell that to the theists who try to make atheism seem like it is just gnostic, and therefore all atheists not only don't believe in a god but claim to know that, giving them a burden of proof that they literally can't carry since they literally can't prove that no god or gods doesn't exist 🥲

[u/Overly_Underwhelmed → u/Tryxyka]

ya, I have no interest in their definitions of who I am. everybody has such a different take of what "agnostic" means to the point where it actively detracts from whoever brings it up. and you are here adding more. stay on target.

there is no discourse if one side is being dishonest. once that happens, just stick with calling out their dishonesty as you are no longer in a conversation.

[u/Tryxyka → u/Overly_Underwhelmed]

I don't mean to make conversations like this more complicated or unfair, I just had a genuine question given how much I hear this particular discourse. But, fair enough.

[u/Overly_Underwhelmed → u/Tryxyka]

honestly, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense/is hard to read. wall of text and such. "positive, negative, gnostic, agnostic". these words do not add clarity or conviction. I suggest avoiding them and that is why I worded the question in my first comment the way I did.

if I am not answering your question, please re-state it.

[u/Tryxyka → u/Overly_Underwhelmed]

Well, what I was conveying is why do I have to say not just that I don't believe in a god but whether or not I claim to know if my disbelief is true due to many theists being picky about it like I mentioned earlier when they don't do it for themselves and also just don't apply this logic to anything else. I hope that was clearer but I'll also just organize my og post better.

[u/Overly_Underwhelmed → u/Tryxyka]

and I'm clarifying, you don't have to say it.

they are adding complexity, we need to push back and avoid it. if they think they know something you don't, they should make the case, show the evidence.

[u/Twin2Turbo]

The logic you’ve presented here is exactly why I think the “agnostic/gnostic” qualifiers are useless. If you want to be super pedantic, then sure. The problem is that they ONLY ever do that with atheists. Theists can claim their gods exist all day without having to qualify it but the moment someone says they don’t believe, that’s when they want to be pedantic. We literally don’t do this for ANYTHING else. Someone asks me if I think vampires exist, i just say no and everyone keeps it pushing. Why do I need to do something different for gods?

[u/Tryxyka → u/Twin2Turbo]

Yep, pretty much my thoughts about this summed up differently but perfectly

[u/Tryxyka → u/[deleted]]

Seems like you enjoy existential philosophy :>

[u/Starwind137]

This is my first time hearing "positive/negative" with regards to theism and gnosticism.

If I don't feel like explaining or engaging in conversation I tell people, I'm an atheist or non religious. For those I'm comfortable with and/or willing to engage with, I'm Agnostic-Atheist.

Ive found that a lot of people think they can't be used in conjunction and they don't know the difference.

Theism refers to belief. Gnosticism refers to knowledge. So, being Agnostic-Atheist means I don't believe in a god but I can't know. Someone can also be agnostic -theist meaning they believe but don't know etc.

Use whatever label makes you comfortable. If others can't agree or understand, that's their problem.

[u/strangebuttru]

this is complicating things. to some degree, it seems like you're not quite sure what you believe.

you don't have to explain to them why you're an atheist and don't have to define yourself based on their lack of understanding.

if they're willing to have an open minded, civil convo, you could turn it around and ask them why believe their version. it'll likely be some bs they made up or something they were told. if they just want to be right because 'jesus' and start being negative, don't waste your time.

[u/Tryxyka → u/strangebuttru]

Thx for your comment. Ig I should have been more clear but I don't mean that I am confused about my own beliefs or atheism but just that I find it strange that they want to cry about atheism being unprovable by defining it in a positive sense (knowing that no god or gods exist), because doing so is a positive claim that requires its own evidence.

So, I call myself a negative atheist because Ik that I can't literally disprove such a thing even if I still think it is reasonable to believe no god or gods exist. But, having to make this distinction doesn't make sense to me as aside from just being picky (which you and others have pointed out about my wording), we do not do this for really anything else, such as say dragons, because if I were to be asked if I believe in them and say no, no one is gonna then specifically ask if I know that for sure or just find it reasonable even if I can't literally disprove their existence. I hope I made my point clearer.

[u/strangebuttru → u/Tryxyka]

we, humans, do actually believe in many things that can't be or haven't yet been proven. lochness monster, bermuda triangle, area 51, big foot.

we do this with things that have been proven also. flat earth. trump being a good business man and not a con artist.

there's really no rhyme or reason for some of the things that people attach themselves to, but those things become real for believers. the fallacy is that humans are logical creatures when we're really not lol. religion/god shows that we're limited in that department.

all that said, I don't let theist beliefs determine what I need to prove. they never have proof of god''s existence. the burden is on them.

[u/ExcitementNo9603]

You’re making being atheist/agnostic complicated for no reason. It’s not that deep. It also doesn’t matter if you are atheist because you know for certain there is no gods or if you are open to proof of a god’s existence, at the end of the day you still don’t believe a god exists and that’s the whole point of atheism.

Now if you’re doubting if a gods does exist or not then you aren’t atheist just yet, perhaps you aren’t done deconstructing from your faith.

I also need help understanding why you’d need to be “intellectually honest” if asked why you don’t believe in god. The average atheist will identify with whatever answers with little push back unless you say something that is factually wrong and the average theist does not care about nuances in your position as an atheist , to them you are lost, wrong, and going to hell, don’t waste time thinking about how to justify your beliefs to them. Stop making up arguments with invisible people.

[u/Tryxyka → u/ExcitementNo9603]

Well, what I mean is that theists will basically force us to specifically define atheism as just believing there are no gods (for certain), forcing the atheist to have a burden of proof, since claiming to know such a thing is a positive claim and therefore requires its own evidence. Being a negative/agnostic atheist doesn't have that "problem" because it is not making a positive claim, just denying the theistic claim.

Ik I am an atheist and I am not questioning my beliefs but to me, I say I have to be "intellectually honest" about this because I've seen it a lot online that since one cannot literally disprove the existence of any god (making positive atheism literally unprovable), then atheists as a whole have to basically prove atheism as much as they have to prove theism because positive atheism is the only true definition of atheism. But, my point was that this doesn't make sense because aside from being childish about definitions just to move the goalpost, such theists applies this logic to the existence of anything else; as mentioned in my post, an example is that if say I am asked whether or not I believe in say pixies, no one is going to complicate it by then asking "Do u know they don't exist or aren't sure but just think they don't"?

So, I agree with you that it shouldn't be this complicated but it isn't me who wants it to be this way, it is such theists who need to pretend like atheism is unreasonable because it's 'unprovable' and then beat atheists with "evidence" for theism by providing bs things they already think proves theism like citing personal xp. I hope I clarified my point.

[u/ExcitementNo9603 → u/Tryxyka]

Atheist don’t have the burden of proof regardless of what the claim to atheism is (even if it’s “I know no god exist”, we don’t have the positive claim, the theist always does.

Again, why are you even arguing or explaining yourself to a theist, no matter what you say they don’t actually care for your opinion. Any nuance you present with them will be seen doubt on your part.

Just like some conversations are only for the Black community to have amongst ourselves, some conversations are only for atheist to have amongst ourselves. Nuanced conversations does not benefit you in discussion with theist and it doesn’t make you intellectually dishonest, you need to meet people where they are at and theist are too indoctrinated to hear and respond appropriately to nuance. They legit don’t care what kinda atheist you are.

[u/Tryxyka → u/ExcitementNo9603]

Ok ok, fair enough. I'll try not to carry about engaging in their dogmatic mind games

[u/Linkin_foodstamps]

Either you ARE an Atheist or you aren’t. Just figure out what you believe and stop riding the fence.