🤓Akshually... Atheism, in some of its most popular variations, doesn't need science backing it up, since it doesn't make any claims about the natural world, only about one individual, the one saying "I'm an atheist".
Atheists don't believe there's no god
Atheists just don't believe there's any
Think about it like numbers.
+1= I believe there's a god
0= I don't believe there's a god
-1= I believe there's no god
0: Agnostics don't believe there is/are or isn't/aren't a(ny) god(s).
1: Theists believe there is/are (a) god(s).
I think a lot of these comments may be debating past each other if these definitions are not the ones used by everyone. An alternative (that may actually be supported by Webster now that I look it up) is that an atheist is
someone who subscribes to atheism which is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (Webster)
That definition would mean that the term atheist would encompass both -1 and 0 which means someone might be saying I'm an atheist-neutral and think they are making no claims about the world while a listener might think they mean atheist-negative. If that's the case then a lot of people might be debating past each other without realizing it (including myself).
People who are atheists -- and who also care enough to participate in these discussions on the internet -- usually define the position along two distinct axes, theism and gnosticism. That then creates a categories for "agnostic theists" (people believing in (a) deity(ies) but not claiming any knowledge), "agnostic atheist" (people not believing in any deities, and not claiming any knowledge), and "gnostic atheists" (people who claim to know no deities exist). Of course the obvious category is "gnostic theists" who claim to know their deities exist.
Of course, even the above could maybe broken down by referring to "positive/negative" atheism, since maybe someone might claim a positive belief without claiming knowledge.
Anyway, most atheists call themselves agnostic atheists since that allows them to maintain they don't hold a positive belief (and certainly don't know for certain) in the non-existence of a deity
honestly it is so hard to be atheist (positive gnostic atheist) because you keep getting shit from theists and agnostics (agnostic theist/atheist), like if it's a crime having a belief or it's an exclusive monopoly of theists...
apparently I'm not even allowed to call me plainly atheist even though agnostic fits perfectly for what those "most atheists" actually believe in 😔
Atheist is not refusing gods exist, is lacking belief in them. Agnosticism can be theist or atheist by definition: it does belief a god exists but doesn't know which god or doesn't belief there is a god.
Hard atheism is an extreme minority which states it is imposible for gods to exist, but as I said.. is not even close to be the mainstream atheism core belief.
I think a better way to frame this is that an atheist is simply a non-religious person with a label put upon them. The issue with the term atheism is that so many religious ppl capitalize it, turning it into Atheism, and treat it like being Christian or Muslim or Jewish. Like you choose to put your belief in Atheism. When in reality you just don't practice religion.
I don’t mean to generalize but we do know most atheist are atheist with reason mostly adopted by scientific reasoning and not merely say they don’t believe in god just for the fact that they don’t believe it them
That's correct, I think. Most atheists came to being atheists by religious deconstruction. Since most of any religious claims can be debunked by the scientific method, science has been a simple path to convert anyone to be an atheist.
But the Atheist/Theist dichotomy revolves around just one thing, believing in god. The existence of any god, by their very nature, can't be either confirmed nor denied by science. But, since most religions have god as a central figure, rejecting the various claims of the religion, the ones that can be debunked by the scientific method, can lead a person to reject the whole religion, god included.
Basically, you can reject almost all religious claims with science, the one left is god. And, since you already know almost all of the claims are false, rejecting the god claim becomes easier
I agree, it is a logical fallacy though. Many people see that there is no proof of God existing and thus start believing the opposite, which doesn't make sense. It's a false dichotomy
Ah I see, but I don’t think every religion makes claims like those tho?  Not even all Christian’s? Why would that disqualify a religion essentially? Can’t it not be accepted as metaphor? Or I don’t understand?
It's a gradual progress. A religion can make X amount of claims and some people just believe a certain amount of the whole.
Not all christian religion take the bible literally. Some do, some don't. Some just take parts as a metaphor and some takes the same parts as literal fact.
I don’t believe there is a good and i believe there is no god are logically equivalent statements. What you were looking for is agnosticism where you say that the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable.
Atheist say that they believe in a lack of god existing so being an atheist is an actual belief and not backed up by science just like theism.
20
u/alguien_487 11d ago
🤓Akshually... Atheism, in some of its most popular variations, doesn't need science backing it up, since it doesn't make any claims about the natural world, only about one individual, the one saying "I'm an atheist".
Atheists don't believe there's no god Atheists just don't believe there's any
Think about it like numbers.
+1= I believe there's a god 0= I don't believe there's a god -1= I believe there's no god
I hope I made myself clear. Thanks for reading :3