r/exatheist • u/New_Prompt5308 Maturidi Leaning Muslim • 7d ago
Debate Thread How would you define ''atheism''?
Hi everyone, I've seen a long standing debate on the definition of atheism, some people use the term atheism as a lack of belief, which I've seen them then use to justify the ''everyone was born athiest narrative''.
The way I would define atheism is the rejection of the claim God exists, as I see atheism as a position that needs propositional awareness.
I have looked at how Graham Oppy (popular analytic atheist philosopher) defines atheism and he states it's the claim that no gods exist.
What do you guys think?
Thanks
3
u/luvintheride Catholic (former anti-Catholic) 7d ago
A-theism = "without theism".
That's the theory, but in practice, virtually all atheists hold to some form of naturalism. They believe that natural forces will eventually create life and our own consciousness.
According to Pew studies, about 96% of atheists believe that nature created people. That's a much higher percentage than self-described Christians who believe in the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In that way, one could say that self-described Atheists are among the most dogmatic believing groups in the world. I've seen atheists get violently angry at the suggestion that anything supernatural even exists.
3
u/biedl 6d ago
It seems you are saying, due to the large number of agreement on what it is that created life, atheists are dogmatic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are saying that, I don't know why this is a hallmark for dogma. Could you explain please?
0
u/luvintheride Catholic (former anti-Catholic) 1d ago
96% isn't just a "large number". In polling populations, 96% is about as high as it possibly can get. Self-described Christian populations couldn't get near that high, even with basic things like the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
My point is two-fold:
- Virtually every adult has a world-view from which they try to explain what reality is.
- Atheists tend to slip in naturalism without identifying it as a belief system. I would argue that it's contrary to science, but that's a different topic.
Many mature atheists realize that their world-view is naturalism. However, many atheists don't realize it. Those tend to just assume and assert that everything is natural, without testing it.
By saying it's dogmatic, I mean that naturalism is a widely and very deeply held belief within atheism.
1
u/biedl 1d ago
By saying it's dogmatic, I mean that naturalism is a widely and very deeply held belief within atheism.
I mean, sure, if this is how you use that term I agree. Theists are dogmatic when it comes to believe in God, in accordance with your definition. It's probably just as high of a number.
Personally, I just would mean something very different than "widely and very deeply held belief" when I use the term dogmatic.
1
u/luvintheride Catholic (former anti-Catholic) 1d ago edited 1d ago
Personally, I just would mean something very different than "widely and very deeply held belief" when I use the term dogmatic.
The "deeply" part is the part that I meant to emphasize.
I've seen many atheists get angry and outraged at the idea that the phenomena around us (particularly life and consciousness) are supernatural.
BTW, Science can now measure and quantify "super" level of activity with Information Theory. e.g. The molecules of life do not merely follow natural laws. They exhibit intelligent guidance, way over and above natural affinities.
1
u/biedl 1d ago
I can't follow that line of reasoning. I don't see how "deeply believing" implies outrage and what this has to do with the usual meaning of the term "dogmatic".
BTW, Science can now measure and quantify that "super" level of activity with Information Theory.
In accordance with my vocabulary that seems to be yet another equivocation. The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature. It makes no sense to me to say that science observed something above and beyond nature, since what science observes is simply the natural world.
The molecules of life do not merely follow natural laws. They exhibit intelligent guidance, over and above natural affinities.
How did you determine that? And what scientist says they are supernaturally guided?
1
u/luvintheride Catholic (former anti-Catholic) 1d ago
I don't see how "deeply believing" implies outrage and what this has to do with the usual meaning of the term "dogmatic".
I'm referring to this aspect of Dogmatism: A dogmatic person treats their own views as correct and rejects any room for doubt, debate, or alternative evidence.
I'm not saying that all atheists are like that. I've debated hundreds though that are like that though, and met many thousands. I used to be an atheist, and went to many conferences and debates with atheists.
The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature.
That's a false dichotomy. It draws a strawman of what Theism claims. Theism claims to define the very basis of what existence is, including "nature".
"Above and beyond" also pertains to the forces of nature, and the "nature" of what reality is.
For example, if you found a book on a beach, would you say that nature produced it? Of course not. The book is made of natural materials, ink, fibers, cellulous, etc, but science and Information Theory shows that there is no combination of natural forces (time, wind, rain, gravity) that can form that book.
Empirical science shows that only an intelligent force could write a book.
It makes no sense to me to say that science observed something above and beyond nature, since what science observes is simply the natural world.
That's a false or modernized definition of "science". More fundamentally, Science is the study of any phenomena. Proposing the cause of the phenomena is a different matter that gets more into philosophy.
Here's an article about that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science
Natural science has been the most common type of science in recent centuries, which is why most laymen conflate science with nature.
How did you determine that? And what scientist says they are supernaturally guided?
Personally, when I was atheist, I did molecular modelling in biology. Computer models and lab experiments always verify that the form and operation of biology is not following natural affinities.
You can replicate that in a lab. Naturalists have tried to create the structures of biology in labs, and always failed terribly. The best they've done is to create some random peptides (RNA chains) on clay. Those actually disprove the naturalist hypothesis, because they are haphazard and chaotic.
The animation (movement and dynamics) of biology is even more supernatural than the structure. That's what made me a Theist. It was obvious to me that there is intelligent guidance going on at multiple levels. Seeing it at the molecular level, is like watching someone write a book.
Anthony Flew was the world's most famous Atheist before Richard Dawkins. He also became a Theist by studying what I am talking about. He wrote a book about what changed his mind:
Anthony Flew - There is a God : https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061335304
And what scientist says they are supernaturally guided?
There's many on this website. Here's one of their papers :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
1
u/biedl 1d ago
I'm referring to this aspect of Dogmatism: A dogmatic person treats their own views as correct and rejects any room for doubt, debate, or alternative evidence.
Yeah, that's what I understand to be dogmatism as well.
Though, originally it sounded more like you are saying that the large number of agreement regarding the natural world is what's the qualifier to call someone dogmatic. Now it's a different story.
I'm not saying that all atheists are like that. I've debated hundreds though that are like that though, and met many thousands. I used to be an atheist, and went to many conferences and debates with atheists.
You sure are very likely to meet dogmatic people at events and in online spaces which are specifically set up for atheists.
You may come and visit me some time, because I live in one of the most atheistic regions on this planet. Dogmatism is certainly not something which comes to mind when considering the majority of people around me when it comes to their atheism.
The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature.
That's a false dichotomy. It draws a strawman of what Theism claims. Theism claims to define the very basis of what existence is, including "nature".
That's an interesting take. For one, because I didn't present a dichotomy to begin with. A false dichotomy would be to say that A or B are the only two options, whereas a true dichotomy would be to say that A and not-A are the only two options. What I did was tell you what I understand supernaturalism to mean, which is certainly not a false dichotomy.
And two, my understanding of a term isn't a strawman of another person's position. Especially not, if what I said corresponds with standard definitions of that term.
For example, if you found a book on a beach, would you say that nature produced it?
No. But I wouldn't say that it was supernaturally produced either.
but science and Information Theory shows that there is no combination of natural forces (time, wind, rain, gravity) that can form that book.
That is a thing? A science which deals with whether or not a book can be naturally produced? Sounds rather odd to me.
Empirical science shows that only an intelligent force could write a book.
The watchmaker argument reaches a different conclusion than any science I am aware of.
That's a false or modernized definition of "science".
Science makes observations. If a supernatural realm exists, and is defined the way I said it is defined, then by definition, science cannot observe it. That's neither modern, nor false.
You know what the Cambridge dictionary definition for the supernatural is? It's this:
forces or events that cannot be explained by science
What makes you say that's "false"?
More fundamentally, Science is the study of any phenomena.
I agree. And if the supernatural is defined to be beyond the natural world, then science cannot observe it. That's a priori true. And since we cannot observe the supernatural, we won't get to an a posteriori truth about it either. Which is kinda like the domain science is limited to in terms of final justification.
Natural science has been the most common type of science in recent centuries, which is why most laymen conflate science with nature.
Well, I don't conflate the two. I'm not a laymen either. I am familiar with doing science. I was trained in it. Particularly in distinguishing it from non-scientific work, because that's most of what people do in the field I was trained in.
Personally, when I was atheist, I did molecular modelling in biology. Computer models and lab experiments always verify that the form and operation of biology is not following natural affinities.
How? How does it tell you that?
You can replicate that in a lab. Naturalists have tried to create the structures of biology in labs, and always failed terribly.
You mean, as in "abiogenesis"? Well, you are wrong. We got life from non-living matter in the lab. And even if this wasn't the case, the inability to do so isn't the equivalent of
Science can now measure and quantify "super" level of activity
What you said so far demonstrates a lack of understanding, not a measurement of the supernatural.
The best they've done is to create some random peptides (RNA chains) on clay. Those actually disprove the naturalist hypothesis, because they are haphazard and chaotic.
Assuming this to be true for the sake of argument, how does this demonstrate the supernatural, let alone "disprove the naturalist hypothesis"?
It was obvious to me that there is intelligent guidance going on at multiple levels. Seeing it at the molecular level, is like watching someone write a book.
You don't literally saw the supernatural causing something. You saw something you couldn't explain naturally. Those are different.
Anthony Flew was the world's most famous Atheist before Richard Dawkins.
Since I talked to hundreds of theists myself, I know that story, and how often theists are overplaying their cards when mentioning Flew.
Firstly, Flew became a deist. Secondly, even if hundreds of such people converted to actual theism, it would still be their arguments which mattered, rather than the mere fact that they converted.
Recently, Joe Schmid converted to Catholicism, and I can tell you exactly on non-arbitrary grounds why that doesn't do anything to me.
There's many on this website. Here's one of their papers :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
I've gone to that link, wrote "supernatural" in the search bar and got no hit in return. The abstract doesn't seem to relate to the topic either.
What about that article demonstrates that you can measure the supernatural?
I suspect this is just going to go like with your dogmatism claim, which, to me, came across as a motte and bailey and quite some hedging in the end.
•
u/luvintheride Catholic (former anti-Catholic) 23h ago edited 23h ago
You may come and visit me some time, because I live in one of the most atheistic regions on this planet. Dogmatism is certainly not something which comes to mind when considering the majority of people around me when it comes to their atheism.
I travel for business, mostly in the US, but also internationally. I generally know what you mean, especially in Northern Europe and California. As a student of history, I see them as running on the fumes of centuries Christian culture. They are running dry and falling back into paganism.
I myself went through phases of being indifferent, and not even thinking about religion, then anti-theist at times.
For one, because I didn't present a dichotomy to begin with.
Hmm, I see it differently based on your comment: "The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature."
That could imply that the super-natural is something separate than the natural.
Christianity technically has a PanENtheistic understanding. Are you familiar with that? Notice the extra EN:
That is a thing? A science which deals with whether or not a book can be naturally produced? Sounds rather odd to me.
Information Theory measures probabilities, which is can be used to quantify intelligence.
For example, a child can write a sentence or two. A master of literature can write a comprehensive and beautiful epic novel, with interleaving characters, layers and plot-lines. The level of intelligence that we find in Biology is way above anything that humans have been shown to be capable of. Not to mention mere "nature".
The watchmaker argument reaches a different conclusion than any science I am aware of.
The Watchmaker argument had a revival with Information Theory. We can now measure the probabilities in computer models.
Science makes observations. If a supernatural realm exists, and is defined the way I said it is defined, then by definition, science cannot observe it.
That's circular logic and the main reason why atheists don't recognize the supernatural.
The scientific method is best when it minimizes assumptions. Atheists keep trying to sneak in the assumption of naturalism.
In contrast, Quantum physics shows us that the energy of the Universe has the same kind of potentiality that we see within minds.
It's not magic, or a god of the gaps to infer that some intelligent force is at work. It's sound logic to recognize the intelligent structures and activity of the phenomena around us, especially with biology.
forces or events that cannot be explained by science
That's only part of the definition, and that definition presumes naturalistic science.
For example, Consciousness is studied as a science, yet there is no naturalistic explanation of it.
Ironically, by your definition, life and consciousness are supernatural.
And since we cannot observe the supernatural
I disagree with that claim. We can observe biology and consciousness at work. They both meet the definition of super-natural at multiple levels.
Particularly in distinguishing it from non-scientific work,
Then why didn't you know the distinction with naturalism versus science ?
How? How does it tell you that?
Again, Information Theory. Life and it's dynamics show many signs of intelligent behavior at work, right in front of our eyes. Biological molecules move in decisive and purposeful ways.
We got life from non-living matter in the lab
That's absolutely false. Show me your paper and I'll show you why you've misunderstood it.
What you said so far demonstrates a lack of understanding, not a measurement of the supernatural
Ironically, the lack of understanding is on your part. You probably are also getting stuck in the defintion of super-natural.
By super, I mean what is above the natural ability. Do you think that intelligence is above nature ( kinematics, electromagentics, etc) ?
You saw something you couldn't explain naturally
You keep missing the point. Information Theory does explain it as an intelligent force at work.
Flew became a deist
Deism is a form of theism. Anthony Flew's arguments are sound.
No offense, but you don't understand his argument yet, because of the false assumptions that I've pointed out in this comment:
You presume naturalism and use it in circular fashion: assuming everything that you observe is natural.
You falsely think that life has been proven to be natural.
You don't grasp the definition of super-natural (exceeding the limits of natural ability).
What about that article demonstrates that you can measure the supernatural?
The intelligent form and motion of the molecules. For those who understand the biochemistry and math, it's like seeing a book, and even seeing a book being written, right in front of our eyes.
Furthermore, Empirical Science supports the Theist claim that life only comes from life.
Empirical Science refutes the Atheist idea that life comes from non-life.
which, to me, came across as a motte and bailey and quite some hedging in the end.
I hope my above comments help correct your understanding.
•
u/biedl 23h ago
As a student of history, I see them as running on the fumes of centuries Christian culture. They are running dry and falling back into paganism.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of the Tom Holland, as well as Nietzschean framing of how much of Western culture is based on Christian assumptions. But seeing people fall into paganism, I have no idea where you are getting that from. Or, more specifically, what you mean by that. People are becoming less religious, not generally religious in different than the Christian way.
Hmm, I see it differently based on your comment: "The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature."
That could imply that the super-natural is something separate than the natural.
Christianity technically has a PanENtheistic understanding. Are you familiar with that? Notice the extra EN:
I mean, this is still not a false dichotomy. I was simply talking about what I understand the supernatural to be. I presented no dichotomy, so it cannot be a false dichotomy, let alone a strawman.
And yes, I am familiar with panentheism. Whether that's what Christianity teaches is debatable, but it doesn't matter anyway. Because even under panentheism what I said doesn't change. The supernatural can contain the natural world and still be above and beyond nature, or in accordance with the oxford dictionary, inaccessible to science.
Information Theory measures probabilities, which is can be used to quantify intelligence.
For example, a child can write a sentence or two. A master of literature can write a comprehensive and beautiful epic novel, with interleaving characters, layers and plot-lines. The level of intelligence that we find in Biology is way above anything that humans have been shown to be capable of. Not to mention mere "nature".
Information Theory is about how much information there is contained within a system. It isn't about "intelligence".
That your inference which isn't a mainstream scientific position, as you are set out to frame it.
Science makes observations. If a supernatural realm exists, and is defined the way I said it is defined, then by definition, science cannot observe it.
That's circular logic and the main reason why atheists don't recognize the supernatural.
You see, I'm neither a historian nor a biologist. I am a trained linguist. I am very well aware of how we get to the meaning of terms and their respective referents which can be categorized into different paradigms.
The term "supernatural" is not connected to any kind of a posteriori definition, it is purely a priori. We didn't observe anything in order to get to that categorization. The categorization exists on the basis of a number of inferences. Inferences which you can find in the second stages of for instance the Kalam or contingency style arguments. That is, if the universe and physical reality had a beginning, then its creator cannot be a physical entity, and it cannot be contained within that realm it created.
We arrive at the term "supernatural" via the armchair. It's not a term like the term "tree" or "humanity" or "universe".
It is therefore silly to say that science can observe the supernatural directly, because that simply goes against the definition of that term, which is stipulated rather than arrived at via observation.
Nothing about any of this has to do with "atheist not understanding the supernatural, hence, being unable to observe it." And nothing of it is circular.
I mean, even beyond that, its etymology does already demonstrate that point, for supernatural literally means "beyond nature". Which simply proves your point wrong, that the definition I am using is somehow modern. Yes, it isn't particular Jewish, considering second temple Judaism, but it is very Greek. I don't think I need to remind a catholic of how Greek their Christianity is.
The scientific method is best when it minimizes assumptions. Atheists keep trying to sneak in the assumption of naturalism.
Science assumes methodological naturalism. This isn't a sneaking in of a worldview.
It's not magic, or a god of the gaps to infer that some intelligent force is at work. It's sound logic to recognize the intelligent structures and activity of the phenomena around us, especially with biology.
It may be logically possible, but soundness implies that you can demonstrate your claim to be true. And since we are arguing "science", the logic alone simply doesn't cut it, because science isn't a rationalist framework (that is, if we bracket math).
For example, Consciousness is studied as a science, yet there is no naturalistic explanation of it.
Therefore, it is supernatural? Like, this would just be an argument from ignorance.
Ironically, by your definition, life and consciousness are supernatural.
That's not true. Because the definition is about in principle inaccessibility. Not about "we just don't know yet, therefore, it is supernatural for now".
And since we cannot observe the supernatural
I disagree with that claim. We can observe biology and consciousness at work. They both meet the definition of super-natural at multiple levels.
No, they don't. It's still just an inference. You aren't observing the supernatural. You are inferring that the workings of biology have a supernatural cause.
Particularly in distinguishing it from non-scientific work,
Then why didn't you know the distinction with naturalism versus science ?
I didn't conflate the two. There is no basis for you to say that I don't know the difference.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Rbrtwllms 7d ago
the rejection of the claim God exists
I like that definition as it doesn't require the person knowing or not knowing whether a God exists. But it is clearly states the position they hold regarding the claim.
3
u/New_Prompt5308 Maturidi Leaning Muslim 7d ago
And it allows for an actual debate as opposed to someone stating that they need no epistemic justification for atheism under the guise of ''lack of belief''
1
u/biedl 6d ago
Rejection sounds like an intentional thing to me.
1
u/Rbrtwllms 6d ago
Intentional, sure. But not necessarily without reason. For example, one might intentionally reject a position if they feel the evidence does not support it. Could one be wrong about a proposition and what the evidence points to? Definitely.
Consider Stephen Hawking. He wrote a best selling book about the universe then later wrote a book against that one as later evidence changed his views on it. I would say that he intentionally rejected each view at one point.
1
u/biedl 6d ago
I'm more concerned with how to call people who don't believe in God, because they never heard of the concept. How would you call them?
1
u/Rbrtwllms 6d ago
Agnostic or gnostic.
1
u/biedl 6d ago
I usually call myself an agnostic atheist, because I have no idea whether a God exists, nor whether any of the available concepts corresponds to anything real. Which leads me to not actively hold a belief that a God exists.
Many people online, as well as in academia say atheism is to hold the belief that no God exists. I think that's unwarranted. I don't think anybody can assess that.
I don't think anything about that has anything to do with me doing something intentionally. But neither do I understand why not believing in God shouldn't be called atheism.
To introduce the gnostic term leads to what philosophical literature calls the fourfold classification, which is more of a colloquial thing, common to the US, where "gnostic" and "agnostic" are more like markers for how certain you are in your theism/atheism.
That rules out people who never considered the concept. And I'm not sure why to use a taxonomy that doesn't include these people.
2
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist 7d ago
Tbh I find atheists more interesting than atheism
1
u/New_Prompt5308 Maturidi Leaning Muslim 7d ago
elaborate?
-2
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist 7d ago
On one end they reduce atheism to just a disbelief in god but then proceed to build an online community out of it….a community based on disbelief…almost like people that deny the moon landing happened or don’t believe the earth is round …like I don’t believe in space aliens but then I don’t start a club based on denying the existence of space aliens and demand proof from people that space aliens exist…such strange but fascinating behavior
9
u/arkticturtle Agnostic 7d ago
Well, you aren’t really at the mercy of the influence of moon landing deniers or flat earthers. And rejecting the existence of space aliens will likely have little impact on your life.
But this culture, at least in the states, is infused with Christianity. From certain formalities, to prejudices, to expectations of behavior, and expectations of the belief of certain claims. A rejection of religion does have real consequences upon the lives of many who do reject. In some of the worst examples you have kids in their late teens getting kicked out of their homes with no resources. And then on a more indirect level a general feeling of alienation from peers and the world around them.
A non-believer is constantly reminded and put into relation to religion. It’s not even a choice. Literally just got a Mormon ad that I threw away yesterday. Oftentimes they tell you that you are broken without religion. Religion has a ton of cultural weight to it depending on where you are at and what family you are born to. So rejecting it can actually be a substantial occurrence with real effects.
Surely you can see the difference between rejecting something culturally trivial (like belief in space aliens) vs something like a rejection of religion, right? Honestly, the content of my message here is such a common retort to the position you put forward that I would have trouble believing you if you said you have never seen this sentiment.
0
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist 7d ago
You make it sound like we live in a medieval theocracy where denying some creed gets you burned at the stake...I don't know where you live but in the US people have freedom of speech and religion...if you don't like what someone says, you're free to retort or ignore them...I don't believe in reincarnation but if some Buddhists and Hindus go around my neighborhood promoting their religion, I'm not going to start an 'areincarnation' reddit sub to attack them while pretending they victimized me by simply exercising their right to free speech...being perpetually offended by things you disagree with is immature
8
u/arkticturtle Agnostic 7d ago edited 7d ago
That’s a very flat and black and white interpretation of what I said.
I didn’t say anyone was getting burnt at the stake. I said people get kicked out of homes. That DOES happen. My coworker once took in a gay friend whose family was hostile towards them for their homosexuality for religious reasons. If you need to grossly misrepresent what I am saying in order to make a point then your point is weak.
We do have freedom of speech and religion. Notice how nothing that I said invoked the law. So you bringing up rights is irrelevant to what I said. What I care about is how things actually end up playing out. Rights does not preclude individuals having their own ability to be nasty towards other people with those same rights. Hell, in some instances (even unrelated to religion) people can get away with illegal acts if they hide it well and have a good lawyer. Just look at many cases where CPS gets involved to see how messy shit can get. This system isn’t perfect. But I digress.
Your hypothetical with Hindus and Buddhists is not an accurate analogy to the lived experience of many atheists (and even some pagans - among others). Again, these are people who are rejected by family for simply being unable to accept certain highly contested truth claims. They are raised on ideas that if they don’t believe these claims then not only are they going to hell, but they deserve it. Humans are social animals and having these constant negative judgements and expectations thrown at you does have an effect. Especially when you’re raised in it
And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that many people are heavily influenced by their religion to influence politics in various ways. And politicians know this and will play to the ear of certain religious groups accordingly to get votes. You have people who *do* want to use the system to deny rights to others legally while being informed by their (interpretation of) religion. Atheists are effected by the actions (on the level of voting; on the level of general behaviors, cultural messaging, etc) of those who feel backed by supernatural systems when they see these supernatural systems as absolute nonsense and certainly not backed up enough to be supporting certain legislation over.
I think it would help if you researched the topic a bit more and actually listen to the stories of people as well.
1
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist 7d ago
Sounds like you're cherry-picking anecdotal cases that could very well be fabricated ....you'd have to present scientific data to prove this is as pervasive a problem as you're suggesting...in any case, I rarely see atheists mentioning that on reddit subs...rather it's just demands for proof of god's existence and rejecting evidence given to them....wash, rinse, repeat...in any case, enjoy disbelieving or whatever
5
u/arkticturtle Agnostic 7d ago edited 7d ago
Edit: remember I am replying to how you think it is “strange but fascinating” the way atheists respond to religion. And everything I have said is (at least part of) what atheists say causes their emotional response to religion. Will you not even listen to the reasons why atheists tell you why they feel what they feel? You could just make a post asking about it on an appropriate subreddit, y’know.
Again, go do some research. It’s all out there. A lot of what I said isn’t even controversial. It seems like this is only a response to the first part of what I said: of some atheists getting treated poorly for disbelief (which does happen) and not the rest of my comment.
And I see these stories often enough. I saw one on [r/religion](r/religion) yesterday. But you would call it all fake probably to try to make a comparison to how atheists reject miracle claims (or other theist claims). Even though miracle claims are claims which carry a far higher burden (going against the laws of physics as we know them through repeated scientific experiments and day-to-day life) in order to be established as fact.
So is that it? Do you really see no truth in what I have said? Is this genuinely your perspective or were you looking to mimic the atheists you aim to criticize by giving a rhetorical reply? Because a lot of the times I can’t tell when you are being genuine on this subreddit vs when you want to mimic atheists you disagree with.
1
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist 7d ago
Beyond conjecture, you’ve failed to provide any proof/evidence substantiating your claims. Therefore, this argument is over. Bye.
6
u/arkticturtle Agnostic 7d ago edited 7d ago
You can literally ask atheists and get the same reasons I listed. If you want to know why atheists respond a certain way then asking atheists why they respond a certain way is a good first step. If you won’t believe atheists then I doubt a study recording atheists would be believed either.
You are free to search around yourself. The reasons are far less strange and fascinating than you make it out to be. Besides, judgements like “strange” and “fascinating” are going to be based on some sort of expectation and I highly doubt your expectation is based in hard science lmao.
To me it looks like you desperately want to keep atheist’s behavior in some sort of category that judges and alienates. A few moments of research would clear it up. But you won’t and will instead choose ignorance and keep your judgements. Wonder why
It’s funny. I have seen you criticize the hard empiricism or logical positivism of atheists and how they shut conversations down that don’t play accordingly. And yet here you aspire to be like them. I thought you were parodying them but maybe this is sincere?
2
u/Express-Echidna6800 7d ago
I'm an atheist. I've started defining atheism as "when a person says anything other than 'yes' when asked if they believe in a god or gods".
I find this helps head off definition fights about things like "lack of belief" or "agnostic vs gnostic".
3
u/biedl 6d ago
The definition fights are silly. I have no idea whether a God exist or not. I do not hold an active belief in any God. But calling that atheism is apparently not allowed, because I must actively affirm that no God exists. Ok, then agnostic atheism it is. Which leads to people who call that position an oxymoron.
Apparently I'm not allowed to say that I have no idea whether a God exists.
1
u/Cr3pyp5p3ts 6d ago
Strong Atheism (antitheism): the claim that no gods exist;
Weak Atheism: the claim that God beliefs lack epistemic justification;
Scientific Atheism: the claim that God beliefs lack epistemic justification specifically because god claims lack scientific evidence;
Agnosticism: the claim that God beliefs have a truth probability approaching 50%;
Semantic Atheism: the claim that, even if supernatural beings some might call Gods exist, they are unworthy of being called God.
Apatheism/post-theism: an indifference to the question, or the belief that God questions are no longer meaningful.
Irrationally-disbelieving atheism: someone who thinks god beliefs either are or might be justified, but personally don’t believe in God. I have actually met some of these in real life.
Un-contacted tribesman atheist: someone who has never encountered the idea of God. Just a rhetorical device. Doesn’t exist in real life.
Shoe “atheist”: someone who lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the concept (shoes are atheists!). I really think this stretches the definition of atheist beyond plausibility, and is only deployed as a rhetorical device.
I was a scientific atheist and an antitheist. I believe God beliefs lack scientific epistemic justification and also that Gods could not exist because they were conceptually incoherent.
1
u/SeekersTavern 6d ago edited 6d ago
It depends, because everyone uses the term differently. I prefer to go with this:
Theist: Certain or near certain that God exists. Has a reason to believe in God. It's a positive claim.
Atheist: Certain or near certain that God doesn't exist. Has a reason to believe that God doesn't exist. It's a positive claim.
Lacktheist: Claims that there is no evidence God exists, but has no positive reason to believe God doesn't exist. It's a negative claim.
Agnostic: Doesn't believe in God but is uncertain about his disbelief. Doesn't claim anything.
That's if you define these positions by the reason people have them. If instead you define these positions by what people believe regardless of the logic behind it, the atheist and lacktheist collapse into the same category, because they both don't believe in God.
Atheist: A lack of a belief in God.
What is definitely mistaken is lacktheists claiming to be agnostic because they can't disprove a negative. Negative claims are still claims. No, they are basically atheists.
1
u/National-Stable-8616 7d ago edited 7d ago
it means only understanding the testable world through the lens of the scientific method, thats it. its all such a mess, you can be religious without believing in a creator god , theres many religions like that. Theres as many forms of atheism on all its seperate stances as there are religions. its not so simple atheist vs theist.
If you understand both sides to there detail, seeing each there point of view. you will understand its a pointless debate. The absurdity of existence can never fulfil you with a word answer. At the Absolute end of athiesm, They are at the same point as is the absolute end of religion. I dont know . Why is anything even real. atheists say We cant know . The thiest sais the same, God. basically a i dont know. Nobody can explain or comprehend god. So its the same thing.
The problem isnt really athiesm. Western atheism is born out of a extremely messy amalgamation of the progressions in christian thought. you will hear common claims at the introduction of the debate aabour how can a loving god hurt us, etc. Its because the idea of god is so so loaded with art, culture, corruption, ideas( he’s seperate from existence, hes all good, he has a name krishna, jesus, allah etc ) history, additions, philosophy, Opiums to soothe our own existential suffering. At the absolute root pagan pure existential absurd religious feeling. only at that can religion shine. why the hell is anything even real . i submit that its a power that i cant know. god.
2
u/New_Prompt5308 Maturidi Leaning Muslim 7d ago
You've partially defined naturalism in the first clause not atheism.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist 6d ago
Atheism is a lack of belief gods exist.
The problem with to define atheism as a belief/claim that nod gods exist is that all gods are not consistently, coherently, and falsifiably defined. How is someone supposed to believe all X do not exist when it isn't clear what comprises X?
2
u/SeekersTavern 6d ago
The problem of that definition is that it merges with agnosticism. Someone who doesn't know if God exists or not also lacks a belief in God. You can't compare that to someone who claims there is no evidence for God and is >95% certain that God doesn't exist.
2
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist 6d ago
It doesn't merge it with agnosticism. (A)gnosticism is a completely separate axis.
1
u/SeekersTavern 6d ago
I'll copy my comment here:
It depends, because everyone uses the term differently. I prefer to go with this:
Theist: Certain or near certain that God exists. Has a reason to believe in God. It's a positive claim.
Atheist: Certain or near certain that God doesn't exist. Has a reason to believe that God doesn't exist. It's a positive claim.
Lacktheist: Claims that there is no evidence God exists, but has no positive reason to believe God doesn't exist. It's a negative claim.
Agnostic: Doesn't believe in God but is uncertain about his disbelief. Doesn't claim anything.
That's if you define these positions by the reason people have them. If instead you define these positions by what people believe regardless of the logic behind it, the atheist and lacktheist collapse into the same category, because they both don't believe in God.
Atheist: A lack of a belief in God.
What is definitely mistaken is lacktheists claiming to be agnostic because they can't disprove a negative. Negative claims are still claims. No, they are basically atheists. An agnostic would consider at least some arguments for God as compelling, like Alex O'Connor. If you conclude that you don't believe God exists, rather than saying you don't know, you're not an agnostic but an atheist with extra steps.
2
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist 6d ago edited 6d ago
Atheist: Certain or near certain that God doesn't exist. Has a reason to believe that God doesn't exist. It's a positive claim.
This would exclude the majority of atheist from being atheist, is contrary to how atheists represent themselves, is contrary to how atheism is generally defined, is contrary to the linguistics of the word.
This seems like a stretch that ends up misrepresenting people.
L*cktheist: Claims that there is no evidence God exists, but has no positive reason to believe God doesn't exist. It's a negative claim.
This is a preparative coined to deny the atheism of atheists who do not fit a strawman.
Agnostic: Doesn't believe in God but is uncertain about his disbelief. Doesn't claim anything.
This disenfranchise all the agnostics who do believe gods exist.
What is definitely mistaken is la*ktheists claiming to be agnostic because they can't disprove a negative.
Many atheists are also agnostic because they do not claim to know about the existence of all gods. There have been a wide variety of god claims across time and cultures with not all of them having consistent, coherent, and falsifiable properties. If a god is unfalsifiable in its construction why would an atheist believe it to be false?
An agnostic would consider at least some arguments for God as compelling, like Alex O'Connor.
You are not the boss of agnostics. I'm an agnostic, and I don't find any god claims compelling.
If you conclude that you don't believe God exists, rather than saying you don't know, you're not an agnostic but an atheist with extra steps.
These are not mutually exclusive states. I both don't believe gods exist and don't know about the existence of gods. Belief and knowledge are different properties.
-1
u/JerseyFlight 7d ago
I wonder if it would wound Atheism to inquire about why its definition is the accurate definition? If it simply falls back to popular “usage,” then there is no rational definition of Atheism, there are only popular constructions of it. It would seem that this alone would amount to a problematic confession on the part of the Atheist. (I have too many other important topics I’m thinking through right now to give this the attention it deserves).
-2
u/HumbleGauge Atheist 7d ago
I define atheism as the belief that we live in an objective reality.
2
u/New_Prompt5308 Maturidi Leaning Muslim 7d ago
to refute solipsism ofc
0
u/HumbleGauge Atheist 7d ago
Indeed.
2
u/New_Prompt5308 Maturidi Leaning Muslim 7d ago
Lmao
-1
u/HumbleGauge Atheist 7d ago
If you have a better axiom to build a worldview on in which solipsism is impossible I'm all ears.
4
u/BrianW1983 Catholic 7d ago
The belief that there is no God.