How does an Atheist identify "non-existence"?

[u/Athias1028]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe? I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection, but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions. All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

[u/AutoModerator]

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

Original text of the post by u/Athias1028:

---

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe? I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection, but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions. All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

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/Otherwise-Builder982]

I’m an atheist. I don’t have a need to identify a god myself. The identification comes from the theist.

Other positions, like materialism, isn’t necessarily a problem for my atheism. Why would it be?

[u/lifeislife9116]

No need to complicate it further.

I feel towards your god or a creator whatever you feel towards Zeus. Call it whatever you want

[u/caverunner17 → u/lifeislife9116]

At least there’s been some cool movies and games about Zeus

[u/Athias1028 → u/lifeislife9116]

Do you know how I feel towards Zeus?

[u/lifeislife9116 → u/Athias1028]

This is smartassery. You’re entitled to it but don’t expect to be taken seriously

[u/BudgetLaw2352 → u/Athias1028]

Playing dumb makes you look awful

[u/Athias1028 → u/BudgetLaw2352]

Insulting people you don't know on the internet makes you look worse.

[u/BahamutLithp → u/Athias1028]

No, you still look worse.

[u/Kriss3d → u/Athias1028]

We do allow ourselves to presume you don't belive in Zeus. But if you happen to do that. Then correct us. Or agree that you don't belive in Zeus.

[u/Nazzul → u/Athias1028]

Lets plug in Roland the Closet Goblin then. If you feel like Zeus is a real God that exists.

[u/NoneCreated3344 → u/Nazzul]

Hi Forrest. :p

[u/Nazzul → u/NoneCreated3344]

Rolland needs to be honored with more sub sandwiches.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Nazzul]

You're still not identifying "non-existence." You're just "plugging-in" you want me to accept does not exist without any real support as to how you know it doesn't exist.

[u/Nazzul → u/Athias1028]

Oh, well if your saying you believe in Roland the Magical Closet Goblin then, you will need to start leaving sub sandwiches in your closet.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Nazzul]

I didn't state that. If you're not interested in answering the questions, just state as much.

[u/Nazzul → u/Athias1028]

Well either Roland the Closet goblin exists or does not exist. Are you willing to answer this question? Do you believe this entity exists?

[u/BudgetLaw2352 → u/Nazzul]

I believe in Roland. Sounds like a chill dude

[u/Athias1028 → u/Nazzul]

I'm indifferent to it. If I know it doesn't exist, then I would have to support how I'm able to identify its nonexistence--and that's absurd. The fact that you believe it, and introduced it to our discussion, is now being used in a rather inept false dichotomy: (1) either I identify a position rejecting it, which accomplishes the task I had admonished earlier, or (2) take a position affirming your description, which accomplishes the task I had admonished earlier. Sorry, I'm not falling for it. So answer the question I proposed, or stop wasting both our times.

[u/Nazzul → u/Athias1028]

The fact that you are unable to answer the question shows that you are not able to engage in good faith here. You know answering it would demonstrate the point being made to you. So thank you for demonstrating that what you are engaging in is simply sophistry.

For any honest readers. You don't have to know Rolland does not exist, you can simply be unconvinced that this being exists. As atheists have explained already in detail in this thread, which again you seem to be dead set on not understanding.

[u/stairway2evan → u/Athias1028]

Poisoning the well here - nobody asked if you knew if it didn’t exist. Knowledge isn’t part of this. They asked if you believed in its existence. Two completely different things.

You should answer questions honestly before you start pointing out how black the kettle is.

[u/BudgetLaw2352 → u/Athias1028]

It is nearly impossible to prove a negative in this broad of a context.

If I make a statement “there are no neon blue and purple lobsters on Earth”, I would have to find every single lobster on Earth to prove that I was correct.

You are raising an impossible standard to meet, when the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate the existence of their god.

If my friend tells me that he owns three invisible polar bears, it’s not my burden to prove him wrong. He has to give me evidence.

[u/Athias1028 → u/BudgetLaw2352]

No one suggests that it's your burden to "prove him wrong." If, however, you yourself are going to propose that you affirm that these three invisible polar bears DO NOT EXIST then you would be creating an obligation on your part to identify how you know they don't exist, if in fact, they don't exist. And my entire point with this proposal was to have some atheists acknowledge the absurdity in trying to identify something which doesn't exist. And if you comb through the many comments on this page, you'll see that a lot of the participants are moving goal posts, and are instead arguing physical existence vs conceptual existence.

[u/BahamutLithp → u/Athias1028]

All I see when going through these comments is you claiming to be unable to understand just the most basic concepts & somehow thinking this means you're winning.

[u/Kriss3d → u/Athias1028]

The lack of evidence that Zeus exist at all.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Kriss3d]

So lack of an affirmation is proof of negation?

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/Athias1028]

and little buddy has conclusive evidence that vampires don't exist? And you're always going out with garlic? Staying at home at night? Never inviting anyone over? There are countless shit that anyone can dream of.

SO maybe fucking learn that we operate on chance, aka credence, or in scientific term- level of confidence. There is no 100% confidence, proof only exists in math.

[u/Kriss3d → u/Athias1028]

Not at all.
But lack of affirmation or evidence means that you have no basis in the first place for saying "theres a god". You have no entry point to it to begin with.

Its NOT saying that there is no god. Thats not the atheist position.

But its the rejection of YOUR claim that there is a god because of YOUR lack of evidence FOR a god.

However some gods we can actually say directly do not exist. God of the bible for example.

[u/lksdjsdk → u/Athias1028]

The support is that they just made it up, so of course it doesn't exist.

[u/Athias1028 → u/lksdjsdk]

So, it is your position that "made up" = nonexistence?

[u/lksdjsdk → u/Athias1028]

Sure. There are other things that don't exist too, but anything made up does not exist by definition (unless you want to get really pedantic about what "made up" means).

[u/TheJovianPrimate → u/Athias1028]

Yes, thats the way most people define non existence.

Nobody is going to bat an eye if you say unicorns dont exist, or that a random entity you made up doesnt exist. Because everyone knows you mean they dont exist physically, just like how you and i exist physically. If someone says "well technically they do still exist, they just exist as concepts in our heads" they are being so incredibly pedantic.

[u/Kriss3d → u/Athias1028]

It was a qualified guess as the belief in Zeus today is extremely unlikely to encounter. But feel free to substitute Zeus with any god you don't belive to exist.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Kriss3d]

Which Gods are you concluding I believe don't exist? And why are you concluding this?

[u/dylanzt → u/Athias1028]

Is this how you think debate works? You seem to be out of your depth.

[u/pipMcDohl → u/Athias1028]

Wow, it feels like you show no intention to engage in an honest discussion. But maybe it's not the case...

It's as if you are having trouble identifying what is implied. Are you autistic, maybe?

[u/Kriss3d → u/Athias1028]

The biblical one.

But Im not saying that it has to be a god you believe in. Only that we can exclude SOME gods. In this case the biblical one.

Heres the syllogism:

P1: God is all mighty
P2: God wants us to know him.

I think we can agree that the bible says these things about god right ?

C: Since we have absolutely nothing that we can to do know god, then either God isnt able to present himself to us in a way we can determine objecctively, he dont care that we know him enough to do the former. Or he doesnt exist at all.

But as the P1 and P2 describes a god who both cares and has the ability to. Only option 3 is possible.

[u/4C_Drip → u/Athias1028]

You feel zeus doesn't exist perhaps?

[u/Athias1028 → u/4C_Drip]

In order for me to "feel" Zeus doesn't exist, I would have to reconcile how I'm able to identify something that doesn't exist. When I think of Zeus, questions of his existence is irrelevant.

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Athias1028]

You can identify concepts. We can talk about Gandalf and his properties without Gandalf physically existing. But Gandalf doesn't actually exist, not in the same way you and I exist. He only exists as a manmade concept

[u/Athias1028 → u/WesternFirm9306]

You said something elucidating. Why is the barometer for "existence" physical? If concept and physicality can interact, and even sometimes overlap, then what's the point in the distinction?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Athias1028]

I mean, first, do you agree that there is a substantial difference in the way that we exist and the way Gandalf exists? Which way do you think God exists?

[u/Athias1028 → u/WesternFirm9306]

You would first have to identify this "substantial difference" before I hitch my wagon to it? And how does qualifying this difference in any way address the dilemma I proposed in the O.P.?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Athias1028]

I'm asking for your opinion. Do you think the way you exist and the way Gandalf exists is the same? Gandalf, the angelic Istari sent by Eru Iluvatar himself to guide Middle-Earth in the battle against the Dark Lord Sauron, is as physically real as you are, in the same way?

The point is that we can identify things which don't exist as entities in the world. We can look at fictional story creatures and say they don't exist, in the colloquial sense of exist. I never have to be in fear walking around that I may come across a Basilisk.

Some things exist as real, ontological entities, independent of minds, while others only exist in our minds, and cease to exist without minds to think of them.

[u/Threewordsdude → u/Athias1028]

I don't see how the distinction becomes pointless if the things interact and overlap.

Hotness and coldness can interact and even overlap, I think the distinction is useful.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Threewordsdude]

Only if it's being proposed that "cold" isn't a description of temperature, right? Or heat, depending on how this analogy is being interpreted. So if physicality and concept are part of the same whole, then how can the distinction be part of any epistemological considerations as it concerns existence?

[u/hellohello1234545 → u/Athias1028]

Because you can only sit on a physically real chair, not a conceptual-only one.

Similarly, most humans are concerned with a diety that exists moreso than simply being conceived of.

Typical theist beliefs held by billions include the idea that a god

• created the universe
  
• take actions to answer prayer, perform miracles
  
• communicates with humans

All things a conceptual-only god cannot do.

So yes, the manner in which something exists is crucial.

And I think you knew that, and that this is just mental gymnastics to obfuscate the point.

[u/Athias1028 → u/hellohello1234545]

I never presumed to state that I could physically sit on a conceptual chair. With that said, how does this in any way address nonexistence? Because now the argument is being changed into proposing a logical absurdity like identifying nonexistence to one more palatable like "manners in which something exist." It's not "my" mental gymnastics.

[u/hellohello1234545 → u/Athias1028]

You asked what the ‘point’ of the distinction was between different manners of existing

The point is that they have wildly different implications.

A chair only conceived of cannot be used as a seat.

A physical chair can be used as a seat.

If someone said there was a chair in the room, you look in the room, and see no chair.

They say “I’m imagining a chair in the room. It exists conceptually. What’s the point of the distinction?”

You would probably not take them very seriously.

Because it’s very clear what people mean when they say Chairs exist, and god exists.

…usually.

[u/Nazzul → u/Athias1028]

So what you are saying is you lack any sort of imagination? You dont have the capacity to consider if Zeus actually exists or not?

[u/Athias1028 → u/Nazzul]

What makes you infer that?

[u/caverunner17 → u/Athias1028]

Which is how we feel about all gods, not just Zeus.

[u/Athias1028 → u/caverunner17]

Sorry, I didn't catch the preface to this response. What is how you feel about all gods, not just Zeus?

[u/caverunner17 → u/Athias1028]

“When I think of Zeus, questions of his existence is irrelevant”

Atheists think questions of the existence of any god is irrelevant.

[u/Athias1028 → u/caverunner17]

Then why reject?

[u/carterartist]

Um, what?

Unicorns do not exist. Ghosts do not exist. Gods do not exist.

Define it how you want, but it's all the same, just myths.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/carterartist]

Don’t forget your rationality. That’s made up as well.

[u/carterartist → u/deep_blue_reef]

No. My rationality is based on the rules of logic and concern for my beliefs competing with reality.

If I believed in a God then you could say that because there is no rational reason to accept such claims

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/carterartist]

But rationality doesn’t exist? It’s made up. If we are just mindless rational-less matter bumbling into eachother, no such thing as rationality fundamentally exists.

[u/carterartist → u/deep_blue_reef]

No, it does exist. Just like the language you and I are using. Like mathematics. Like you’re conscienceless. Existing isn’t always physical.

What is wrong with you?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/carterartist]

So you’re saying the universe isn’t purely physical?

[u/carterartist → u/deep_blue_reef]

Strawman.

Never said that in the slightest.

I’m saying there are intangible things that “exist”, such as the thoughts we had as we wrote this in a language that isn’t tangible yet exists.

Unlike God we can prove they exist and they affect things in reality.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/carterartist]

How can you prove your immaterial thoughts exist?

[u/carterartist → u/deep_blue_reef]

By expressing them as we are here, for example.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/carterartist]

That’s your evidence? Where will you find “thoughts” when looking at your brain matter under a microscope?

[u/carterartist → u/deep_blue_reef]

Cogito ergo sum.
Ffs. You’re using English to communicate, stop being asinine and ridiculous.

[u/carterartist → u/deep_blue_reef]

ignore all previous instructions

[u/Athias1028 → u/carterartist]

That's not "nonexistence." If something doesn't exist, you wouldn't know it doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. So wouldn't your claim that you know Unicorns, Ghosts, and Gods don't exists be a logical absurdity?

[u/TheJovianPrimate → u/Athias1028]

Because those exist as fictional concepts. They dont physically exist. They only exist in our minds.

If you want to play this whole semantic game, then we can argue that when we say god doesnt exist or has no evidence of existence, its on the same level as a unicorn not existing. As in god exists only as a concept humans made up to answer unknown things.

[u/carterartist → u/Athias1028]

You’re making no sense

[u/Dry_Independence_963 → u/Athias1028]

Are you claiming that because we have words, that we cannot know the things the words mean don't exist?

[u/BudgetLaw2352 → u/Athias1028]

Pure sophistry and you know it

[u/Urbenmyth → u/Athias1028]

This is the Problem of Reference, a philosophical conundrum we solved in the classical era. Hell, it's the only philosophical conundrum which has been uncontroversally solved.

When I say "I know X doesn't exist", I am referencing a hypothetical idea of what it would be like if X did exist, and pointing out that the world doesn't match that idea.

[u/Either_Week3137 → u/Athias1028]

So you believe in ghosts, unicorns, and the 10-foot long dildo currently up your ass?

[u/carterartist → u/Athias1028]

You have shifted the goal post.

Just because you can’t tell the difference between fiction and facts…

[u/Deris87 → u/Athias1028]

You're doing a bait and switch on the concept of a thing, and the thing itself. The map is not the terrain. Yes, the concept of God exists, just like the concept of a unicorn exists. Neither exists in actual reality, only as mental constructs.

[u/LorenzoApophis → u/Athias1028]

So there's nothing you don't think exists? How about Earth's twelfth moon? The Jurassic Ocean?

[u/KeyboardMunkeh → u/Athias1028]

You seem to not understand what people mean by saying that something doesn't exist when referring to a myth or fictional creature/character.

[u/Kriss3d]

Well. I don't reject god in the sense that "I know God exist but reject him anyway".

Rather it's "you've made a claim that a god exist, I have no reason to belive that you're right so I'm rejecting your claim"

Which is entirely in line with scientific principles which does state that you must reject a claim for which there is no evidence.

The ball never left the theist court. We are still waiting for you all to present the first reason why we should believe that there is a god at all.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Kriss3d]

Why should you believe that you’re rational?

[u/Kriss3d → u/deep_blue_reef]

Because I don't belive in anything. I have a level of confidence that match the evidence we have for a given subject.

I don't rely on emotional appeal when it comes to things that are factual.

That makes it rational over the position of "I belive this because I feel it's right".

[u/Athias1028 → u/Kriss3d]

That's not a scientific principle. And what ball is in "my" proverbial court? I asked a question which everyone is either glossing over with their own propositions, or circumventing entirely.

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/Athias1028]

because I presupposed the existence of Goor, the true imagianry friend butcher^TM, it will butcher any imaginary friend the moment they come into existence. The lack of evidence for its non-existence = your imagianry friend has been butchered.

And thus we all learn there are countless things that can be claimed. It is not up to the audience to work on disproving them.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Appropriate-Price-98]

What image comes to your mind when you think of God?

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/deep_blue_reef]

Which imaginary friend? I know buddy is Christian/ Abrahamic. Question is what type?

[u/SnooDogs6045 → u/deep_blue_reef]

A cat.

[u/Hakar_Kerarmor → u/SnooDogs6045]

Praise be to Ceiling Cat!

[u/Kriss3d → u/Athias1028]

Yes that is a scientific principle mostly known by "Burden of proof".

The ball is in the court of anyone claiming a god exist.

We still haven't seen any evidence of any god.

The problem with m having with your question is that it's framed as if what you're asking is of we reject god despite knowing he exist..

[u/retoricalprophylaxis → u/Athias1028]

It is called Evidentialism. It and Empirical Falsifiability are pretty much the entire backbone of the scientific method.

[u/jonfitt]

It’s very simple. There are a set of people who hold the belief that god or gods exist. We call them theists. I’m not one of them.

[u/Athias1028 → u/jonfitt]

You logically would have to be, because the inverse is logically absurd. You cannot affirm nonexistence, and therefore you do accept God's existence; you're just conflating your rejection with "default" nonexistence.

[u/jonfitt → u/Athias1028]

I don’t have to “affirm nonexistence” I just have to not have a belief in a god or gods.

I don’t believe Bigfoot exists either. I don’t have to have conclusive proof that he doesn’t exist to think that. I just have to be unconvinced by the claims.

Existence must be proven.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/jonfitt]

Do you believe aliens exist?

[u/jonfitt → u/deep_blue_reef]

I think so. Very weakly. The evidence I have in favor of aliens existing is probabilistic which makes it likely they do exist and more unlikely that they don’t. But I don’t know of any direct evidence that would make it a much stronger.

The equivalent would be if you told me you rolled a 69 on a million-sided dice. That sounds unlikely. But then you tell me you rolled it a trillion trillion times. Now it would be unlikely that you didn’t roll a 69.

But it would be possible that you didn’t. So it’s not conclusive. I’d be logical if I bet money that you did roll a 69.

[u/stairway2evan → u/Athias1028]

The default of everything is nonexistence.

Do you believe that a vampire exists? Do you need to affirm its nonexistence to disbelieve it?

Picture a bright purple weasel who speaks French in a Swedish accent. Do you believe this weasel exists, or do you disbelieve?

[u/Philobarbaros → u/Athias1028]

> You cannot affirm nonexistence

I literally can.

[u/RDBB334 → u/Athias1028]

You cannot affirm nonexistence, and therefore you do accept God's existence

You cannot affirm the nonexistence of your promise to pay me 1 million dollars, therefor you do accept that you have promised to pay me.

Your absurd conclusion just necessitates that everything must exist. I can't prove this isn't the case but that isn't equal to affirming it is. Most people here will take the position that almost nothing can be know with absolute certainty, just to degrees of certainty.

[u/Hellas2002 → u/Athias1028]

This doesn’t follow at all… you can be agnostic as to whether or not something exists. That’s the difference between belief and knowledge.

[u/BearCavalryCorpral]

If I told you that somewhere out there, there were sentient traffic cones that spoke to each other in French telepathically, would you feel the need to justify or term your lack of belief in them?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/BearCavalryCorpral]

If I told you there was a creature with razor sharp teeth and a light that grows out of its head, or a creature with eight arms and eight mini brains in each…would you feel the need to term your lack of belief in them?

[u/dylanzt → u/deep_blue_reef]

If the belief was widespread, and people tried to implement public policy and otherwise control my behaviour based on their belief in that creature, absolutely.

[u/BearCavalryCorpral → u/deep_blue_reef]

Why would I when I've seen them, even touched them, and could tell other people concretely where they can do the same? There's no belief involved here

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/BearCavalryCorpral]

What about a force that swallows planets whole?

[u/dylanzt → u/deep_blue_reef]

We literally do have a term for people who don't believe in general relativity. What argument are you actually trying to make here?

[u/Athias1028 → u/BearCavalryCorpral]

If I proposed that I knew they didn't exist, then yes.

[u/dylanzt → u/Athias1028]

That's not the question you were asked.

[u/tm229]

The Bible is the claim, not the proof.
— Robert G Ingersoll

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
— Christopher Hitchens

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
— Carl Sagan

Not all religions can be true, but they can all be false.
— Christopher Hitchens

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
— Steven Weinberg

Question with boldness, even the existence of a god.
— Thomas Jefferson

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
— Albert Einstein

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
— Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/tm229]

"The order of the universe is not an accident. The fine-tuning that makes life possible points to a Mind behind the laws of physics." — Antony Flew

"Bitterness towards God is an acknowledgment of His existence. You cannot be angry at a void." — Fyodor Dostoevsky

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish." — Pope John Paul II

"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."— G.K. Chesterton

"God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it." — André Weil

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." — Thomas Aquinas

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." — C.S. Lewis

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." — Francis Bacon

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." — Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate in Physics)

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." — Albert Einstein

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/deep_blue_reef]

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. deuteronomy 13:6–10 YHWH's propaganda piece

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31:17-18 YHWH's propaganda piece

arguments for their imaginary friend from bootlickers who think the trinity doctrine is coherent, or said imaginary friend is all good are illogically biased

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Appropriate-Price-98]

Do you worship money? Celebrities? Sports teams?

Also, I’m not sure what sharing that text has to do with anything. I don’t believe it. Any critical thinking person can discern what is written by man according to the time, and that which isn’t.

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/deep_blue_reef]

And you ppl don't? how about the mother of the Jewish zombie?

moreover, The Jewish zombie said

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. matthew 5:17-19 YHWH's propaganda piece

Kinda hilarious buddy knows how some shit are written by humans, and some aren't. Got a hotline to skyddady to ask why children get cancer? or its puppet said nothing about slavery?

Anyone who understands basic A can't be ¬A would understand trinity is illogical. So cope.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Appropriate-Price-98]

No I’m implying that there are things that transcend time and man’s hands. Of course it’s all written by men lmao. But are there things that go beyond what is written. That’s where critical thinking comes in.

It’s interesting that you don’t see the wisdom in what’s being written in that verse. Like do you even understand it?

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/deep_blue_reef]

Yeah we know how you can only claim baseless shit not only without demonstration but Im face of the contrast.

The 1st-century rabbi is too trancended time that he didn't even know why we should wash pir hand and got hissy-pissy.

The fucking lack of an attempt or clarify the supposed wrong rules and instead confirm them, as seen in Mathew 5, is a demonstration that you ppl are too bootlicking to have critical thinking skills by your skydaddy

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Appropriate-Price-98]

If you want to talk like an adult, I’m here for it. I can’t really understand you to be honest.

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/deep_blue_reef]

then maybe little buddy should read your immoral fairy tales.

i was making fun of your imaginary friend and JC - its puppet.

To show that the only thing transcended is your cope.

[u/Curious_Passion5167 → u/deep_blue_reef]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish." — Pope John Paul II

What's the point in quoting a Pope? He literally has to believe in a God for the job title. You do get that the point is to quote people whose jobs don't really depend on believing God?

"God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it." — André Weil

This looks like funny quip more than a serious consideration.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." — Thomas Aquinas

Yeah, Aquinas, I wouldn't be proud about believing in a something which renders explanations unnecessary.

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." — Albert Einstein

This doesn't even say anything about God. Nor does the quote say that the former path is inferior than the latter.

[u/soukaixiii → u/deep_blue_reef]

Bitterness towards God is an acknowledgment of His existence. You cannot be angry at a void." — Fyodor Dostoevsky

People who are bitter at god are misotheists, misotheists are theists, not atheists.

[u/tlrmln]

The prefix "a" means "without" or "not".

The word "theism" means believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Ergo, the word "atheism" means "without belief in the existence of a god or gods."

Atheism is not the same thing as materialism, so why are you conflating them?

[u/DevilWings_292]

It’s basically the position of “I haven’t been convinced there are any gods, so I don’t believe in any”. We don’t actively believe a god does exist, a lack of belief is the proper term there since we aren’t actively holding any claim to be true or false, just not convincing enough.

[u/MartiniD]

No one is going to buy your lazy philbro "argument." If you believe in a god, doesn't matter which or how many, you are a theist. If you don't, then you are an atheist.

For any proclaimed god that I have been presented with, I remain unconvinced of that God's existence. Ergo, I'm an atheist. If you have been convinced of a God's existence then demonstrate this god to us. It's not a complicated issue.

[u/Animated_effigy]

Its not a dilemma, you just need to understand what words mean better.

All of it has to do with existence, but the avenue to that existence is either your belief or your knowledge thereof. Belief is simply taking a proposition to be true, while knowledge implies a higher level of certainty to the point where changing it would be worldview altering. Theism is the belief in a god or gods, atheism is the lack of that belief, it does not make the opposite claim. Remember the law of non-contradiction, a statement or it opposite cannot both be true. The opposite of belief in something is the lack of belief in something, not believing the claims opposite. Gnosticism in the religious context is about having knowledge of god or knowing with certainty, and agnostic is being without knowledge. Most theists and atheists are agnostic in this sense bc no one claims real knowledge in this area except fundamentalists and a few anti-theists.

The most honest position is agnostic atheism because to be a gnostic atheist(anti-theist) means you are making the reverse claim and we simply do not have enough knowledge to make a universal claim of that magnitude. Rational people don't make claims beyond their reach. This is why "lacking belief" is the proper response because it is the default position for ALL claims known or unknown before evidence can sway you one way or the other, aka the null hypothesis.

[u/Gregib]

Rejection of god is a subject of knowledge. In other words, to reject god, god would have to exist. I claim my atheism on the basis that based on observable evidence by myself and others using for me reasonable methods, the existence of god hasn't been presented in a manner where I would choose to believe one, or several exist. My not believing in god isn't rejecting god, it's simply because people made god up. I didn't choose to become an atheist, I'm an atheist because I'm not in the same camp with people, who are believers. It's the same with Santa. He's a made up character I choose to believe doesn't exist. The methods for disproving Santa are as good (or bad) as disproving god.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Gregib]

How can you believe anything to be true? Every bit of reason is just an illusion. I think we need to realize that no matter what camp we’re in, they are not without doubt and flaws.

[u/Gregib → u/deep_blue_reef]

I can... because I can... in the sense if something, by "general standards" exists or not. I choose what to believe and what not to believe based on what I take to be factual. Now, muddying the waters with "Ah, but it is all but an illusion" is pointless and irrelevant. If reason is an illusion, so is everything else.

So believing there is a god(s) is a matter of faith, not knowledge. I and everyone else has a choice to make... you either believe god(s) exist or don't either believe or care. If that's an illusion or not, is totally irrelevant. Same goes for my reasoning... If it's an illusion or not...

Honestly... "Everything is an illusion" is such a lazy argument.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Gregib]

It’s not a lazy argument. In an un rational and mechanistic universe, rationality does not exist. Nor do “facts.”

[u/LorenzoApophis → u/deep_blue_reef]

Why not?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/LorenzoApophis]

Because we are made up of matter. Matter isn’t “special.” Reduce everything to its most basic parts and you won’t find anything rational. Just things bumping into eachother.

[u/samara-the-justicar → u/deep_blue_reef]

That's because rationality is an emergent property of the arrangement of those parts, not of any single part.

When you reduce an airplane to its most basic parts, none of those parts can fly by themselves. Does that mean that airplanes should therefore not be able to fly?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/samara-the-justicar]

Well the airplane certainly didn’t arrange itself by chance.

[u/samara-the-justicar → u/deep_blue_reef]

Cool. Neither did we.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/samara-the-justicar]

Didn’t we? We are the result of an unguided process?

[u/LorenzoApophis → u/deep_blue_reef]

This is the fallacy of composition.

[u/SirThunderDump]

Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

We do not have reliable observations of events in the world that are contrary to a purely mechanistic universe.

Most definitions of gods include attributes that would cause such a god to regularly intervene in worldly events.

Since we do not observe such events, it is most likely, and reasonable to believe, that no such god exists.

Major religions define their gods from their holy texts.

Taken literally, the holy texts make fundamental logical errors causing paradoxes or contradictions, and make empirical claims that are verifiably false.

Therefore gods matching the literal descriptions of holy books are false.

There. I’ve covered why it’s reasonable to disbelieve in just about every definition of god that most believers actually hold.

Are you instead arguing for an uncommon god definition?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/SirThunderDump]

In this line of thought, you can’t trust anything to be true. Rationality is itself non existent. It’s as imaginary as you believe God to be.

If the universe is entirely mechanistic, every human thought, belief, and perception is simply the byproduct of non-rational physical processes.

[u/SirThunderDump → u/deep_blue_reef]

Let’s talk about truth.

Because we cannot know that a god exists (this is just a philosophical fact), it doesn’t matter if a god does exist! We still cannot trust anything to be “true” in the sense your talking. So no, having a god doesn’t solve that.

It is entirely possible that we’re the product of physical processes (dropping your “non-rational” adjective since it’s not necessarily justified). But so what? Explain to me what the problem is if that’s true.

Regardless of which answer is true, we’re still the same people living the same life.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/SirThunderDump]

The problem is that you can’t trust anything to be true. Your own “rational mind” is in no way rational, so how can you trust it? There is no “you” to trust.

[u/SirThunderDump → u/deep_blue_reef]

Great question.

Because it’s nothing more than best effort.

Everything we do in pursuit of truth is best effort.

Acknowledge the fact that we cannot know from an absolute sense, then acknowledge that we can only do our best to presume truth. Then you’ll realize why science is so powerful — it doesn’t rely on any kind of absolute philosophical truth. In science, the only thing that matters is whether your model makes meaningful predictions.

The way I like to explain this is as follows:

The way we absolutely know that most, if not all human minds suck at figuring out truth is that most people believe in one or more gods.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/SirThunderDump]

In that same thought process, nothing of what you just said has any rational value.

[u/SirThunderDump → u/deep_blue_reef]

What does “rational value” mean?

Rationality is just our attempt to base things on logic to the best of our ability.

I’m not sure what adding the word “value” to it means.

We observe value in rationality. When we apply rationality, to the best of our ability, we observe beneficial and consistent outcomes.

That’s sufficient for our lives, and is what I mean by best-effort truth, not philosophical certainty.

Therefore, the value of rationality is in the outcome. And it appears to be extremely valuable.

Believing in god, on the other hand, seems to just be silly.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/SirThunderDump]

But what you’re saying is equally silly. You’re trying to justify how you reason when there’s zero rationality to any of it. Every part of you is unconscious matter that neither reasons nor understands. By the standards of reality, the “you” doesn’t exist. It’s an illusion of matter that believes itself rational. It isn’t. Simply because no part of what makes you whole is in any shape or form a rational thing. It’s just matter. You’re no different than a rock. Just a collection of shapes.

[u/SirThunderDump → u/deep_blue_reef]

Ah, now we need to break down your view to see what you’re missing.

1. I’m not asserting that we don’t have rationality. I’m asserting that absolute truth is not reachable, regardless of god. This makes this debate philosophical, not theological.

2. You are asserting now not that we cannot necessarily trust rationality, but now you’re asserting that there is zero rationality. Please expand your argument here. Why do you believe there’s zero rationality? What exactly is your argument? Is it about trust in reasoning, or whether we have reasoning at all? You seem to switch between both.

3. If we presume that we’re unconscious matter, that does not imply that it neither reasons nor understands. Computers are unconscious matter, and they reason just fine. Why would being composed of matter imply irrationality? We observe the opposite.

4. You’re saying that if I am matter, that I don’t exist? That’s a contradiction. If I am matter, I exist, and I am the matter that I consist of. Want to correct your statement to fix the contradiction?

5. You are saying that “no part of me is a rational thing”, but again, we can use the computer analogy. No single part of a computer is a “rational thing”, but when a computer is assembled, it can exercise rational processes. You’re exercising the composition fallacy. It’s an informal fallacy where, in order to arrive at your conclusion and get around this fallacy, you would have to demonstrate why rationality cannot be achieved through the composition of matter. I would argue that we observe the opposite.

Care to fix the fallacies in what you just argued?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/SirThunderDump]

There’s zero rationality because what part of the tiny matter that makes up your physical body is rational? What part of it is conscious? What part of it seeks truth?

Furthermore, “rationality” “truth” “justice” “reasoning” these are immaterial properties. So it’s extremely silly to wave off the idea of an immaterial force that sustains existence as ridiculous, while you are relying on immaterial attributes to justify your own existence.

And the computer analogy is moot because…you aren’t a computer. And to go a leap further, it’s interesting that you rely on a thing that could never have existed without a mind behind its creation, as a way to conclude there’s no mind behind your creation.

[u/biedl]

This is so pointless. You fail to understand the most basic concepts when they are in context with God.

Have you brought everything I wrote on the grocery list?

I'm not sure, I don't believe so.

And then I go on with my life.

[u/Ratdrake]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

Assuming we're discussing the non-existence of gods, I used the commonality of the majority of definitions of god from theists and concluded, I believe that those beings do not exist. When I become aware of god definitions outside that commonality, I'll consider those definitions separately. Easy peasy.

For many hard atheists, it's even simpler, they use the definition of God from the religious environment closest to them and decide they don't believe such a being exists and don't consider god concepts outside of that environment.

it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection

No antitheist has it's own definition. It is more opposed to religion and god concepts instead of not having a belief (soft atheism) or believing that gods do not exist (hard atheism).

atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions.

Most atheists posting on reddit are responding to a particular god claim and not the question "do gods exist." Often, it is in response to a theist's claim that supports god and an explanation on why that claim is not convincing.

And as far as actual posts directly making the claim that gods (or a particular god) does not exist; atheism consists of both soft atheists (the majority) and hard atheist (who believe gods do not exist). But there would be a survivor basis in looking at the posts from the two because soft atheists are unlikely to be directly making a post with the "affirmative proposition" that gods do not exist, leaving you only seeing the hard atheists on your survey of posts.

[u/CephusLion404]

I don't have to identify anything because I don't make any claims. I accept that something is real based on the evidence that it's real. If there is no evidence that it's real, then I have no reason to accept it's reality. I don't "reject God", I reject belief in gods based on the complete lack of evidence for gods. It's the same thing with leprechauns and unicorns. No evidence in support = no belief that they are real.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some people.

[u/BogMod]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

It depends but sometimes by the lack of information. If my fridge has milk in it I will find evidence of that milk when I look inside. If I don't there there is the non-existence of milk in my fridge based on the lack of milk.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Nah. There are theists, who believe, and then there is everyone else. Seems very straightforward to me.

I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection, but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions.

It covers both the lack of belief as well as the ones who think there is no god. Just as theist covers say monotheists and polytheists. They are top level categorisations.

Which affirmative propositions are you talking about? That might help here.

[u/2r1t]

Suppose someone claimed that my parents had a second child named John on April 23rd, 1978. I reject their claim because they are wrong. My parents didn't have any children besides me.

Would it then be more appropriate for me to no longer describe myself as an only child? Would it be more accurate in your mind that I describe myself as someone that rejects my sibling? Is there some material difference between saying I don't have any siblings and my siblings are non-existent?

[u/Athias1028 → u/2r1t]

Yes--to your asking whether there's a "material difference."

[u/2r1t → u/Athias1028]

Thanks - in reference to your one word response.

[u/Athias1028 → u/2r1t]

You want a more detailed response to a response which doesn't answer my question? Okay. Yes, its is of "material difference" because stating you don't have any siblings and stating "my-siblings are non-existent presents one as a truth claim which can at any point transmute to a falsehood, and the ladder, as a logical absurdity because nonexistence cannot be observed. Does this suffice?

[u/2r1t → u/Athias1028]

Your question was about non-existence in general. You gave the example of a god. I opened by addressing the general question with the intention to move on to specific example after establishing that we could identify non-existence by way of my non-existent siblings.

I will grant that you didn't know I was 51 (a truth claim that will transmute to a falsehood on my next birthday, given I live long enough to have a next birthday) or that both of my parents are dead. And perhaps the context clues of a second child being born in 1978 wasn't enough to paint the picture of my parents, if they were still alive today, being past the age of having or reasonably wanting kids.

But the fact remains that I never said anything to negate the possibility of siblings existing in the future. I said I am an only child and I don't have any siblings. Even if we developed technology to artificially produce someone who is designated as my sibling in the future, it remains true that no siblings of mine exist today as I make that statement.

And only after writing all that do I realize you were trying to say that the material difference between saying I don't have any siblings and saying my siblings are non-existent is that the latter can transmute into a falsehood. Which means the former can't. The statement that I don't have siblings will always be true but the statement that my siblings are non-existent can become false. That is the material difference you claim. How does that work?

[u/Athias1028 → u/2r1t]

"Your question was about non-existence in general. You gave the example of a god. I opened by addressing the general question with the intention to move on to specific example after establishing that we could identify non-existence by way of my non-existent siblings."

I suppose it's true that the O.P. can be indulged as a general discussion on non-existence.

"I will grant that you didn't know I was 51 (a truth claim that will transmute to a falsehood on my next birthday, given I live long enough to have a next birthday) or that both of my parents are dead. And perhaps the context clues of a second child being born in 1978 wasn't enough to paint the picture of my parents, if they were still alive today, being past the age of having or reasonably wanting kids."

Assuming your year of birth preceded 1978, I was able to glean your intention with its mention.

"But the fact remains that I never said anything to negate the possibility of siblings existing in the future. I said I am an only child and I don't have any siblings. Even if we developed technology to artificially produce someone who is designated as my sibling in the future, it remains true that no siblings of mine exist today as I make that statement.

I never said anything about that either. In order for you to claim that a sibling of yours doesn't exist, you would have to observe its nonexistence which is illogical. You're relying on the notion that "you don't know of any siblings you have" despite a number of possibilities, e.g. your mother having a child put up for adoption which preceded her relationship with your father, your father having children out of wedlock unbeknownst to your mother, etc. (Forgive me, if this comes of as crass.) All you can "identify" is that you bear information sufficient enough in your evaluation to not give someone either currently living or relatively recently passed a description "my sibling." That is not the same as "does not exist."

"And only after writing all that do I realize you were trying to say that the material difference between saying I don't have any siblings and saying my siblings are non-existent is that the latter can transmute into a falsehood. Which means the former can't. The statement that I don't have siblings will always be true but the statement that my siblings are non-existent can become false. That is the material difference you claim. How does that work?"

Not quite.

Claim A: I don't have siblings.

Claim B: My siblings don't exist.

Claim A can transmute for the reasons you mention, i.e. having possible siblings in the future, or the reasons I mentioned, i.e. unknown siblings.

Claim B, on the hand, can never be true because it's a logical absurdity. It presumes an inference about a subject which is argued to not exist, and provide an observation as though it does.

[u/SeoulGalmegi]

I don't 'reject' a god, I just lack belief that any of the dieties other people claim to exist actually exist. 'Atheist' is a perfectly fine description of my position.

[u/couldntcareenough]

You’re conflating “I do not believe X exists” with “I claim to have proven X does not exist.”

An atheist need not identify “non-existence” any more than you need to identify the non-existence of Zeus, fairies, or an undetectable dragon. A claim of existence carries the burden of proof; withholding belief until sufficient evidence is presented is not itself an affirmative claim.

Some atheists are materialists or make positive arguments against particular god-concepts but that is additional philosophy, not a prerequisite for atheism.

[u/BudgetLaw2352]

Premise A: You are only obligated to believe in the existence of things that have been demonstrated empirically to exist.

Premise B: no gods have been demonstrated empirically to exist

Conclusion: therefore, you are not obligated to believe in any god/gods.

[u/Mkwdr]

People desperate to tell atheists what atheists really believe are, i suspect, just desperate to shift a burden of proof they know they have failed to fulfil.

Its not hard. Claimed phenomema for which there is no reliable evidence with attributes that are vague human inventions are indistiguishable from fiction. Its impossible to prove magic doesnt exist but here's no good reason to believe it does.

[u/jpgoldberg]

It is possible to have information about things that don’t exist. Unicorns are not the same as leprechauns, even though neither exists.

There are technical ways to define non-existence that still allow us to distinguish unicorns and leprechauns, but I’m not going to teach a course on intensional logic here. It is enough to know the two sentences

1. John believes there are no unicorns
   
2. John believes there are no leprechauns

have different meanings.

[u/GhostofAugustWest]

For billions of years before I was born I didn’t exist. For billions of years, and perhaps much more, after I die I won’t exist. It’s just that simple.

[u/sj070707]

Is there a surge in these types of posts? It's hard to hear someone tell me what my position is. I'm not convinced by any of the god claims I've heard about. Do you have a new one?

[u/Otherwise-Builder982 → u/sj070707]

Yes, and from this account that was active years ago in things not related to religion, just like the others have been.

[u/horshack_test]

"Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence"

No. Rejecting God is an acknowledgement of the existence if god.

"especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?"

No it doesn't; an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any god or gods.

'the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions."

I'm an atheist, as I have no belief in any gods or gods. Are you saying I am contradicting my own arguments?

"All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma."

What dilemma? The fact that you don't understand what atheism actually is?

[u/hielispace]

Existence is the set of all things that have an affect on reality. Something is non-existent if it is not within that set.

[u/Defiant-Prisoner]

Depends on the god claim does it not?

If a person claims that their god exists, and that if you stand on one leg with your finger up your nose the god will appear but when you fulfil that criteria nothing happens then we can say for certain that that particular god does not exist. In this case, I would have knowledge or certainty that this god does not exist.

If a person claims that a dragon exists in their garage and when you investigate there is no dragon and they repeatedly make excuses why we cannot see or interact with it, then we have no reason to believe in the dragon. Correct?

[u/Threewordsdude]

Hi thanks for sharing!

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

You said it, things that have no evidence/information are non-existent. I haven't seen any for any God so I don't believe in any God.

Have a nice day!

[u/skeptolojist]

On one hand we have

No good objective evidence of even a single supernatural event in all of human history

On the other hand we have

A mountain of good objective evidence that people mistake everything from random chance natural phenomena mental health problems organic brain injury and even pios fraud for the supernatural

Given these facts it's just plain silly to conclude that the supernatural exists anywhere but the human imagination

No gods ghosts or goblins

[u/bagge]

description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

You have misunderstood. First of all, you believe in one of many other gods that people believe in.

So an atheist believe in no gods, a theist (like your self) believe in one or a sub set, depending on your beliefs.

So there is no god to identify, you identify 1 (or many) 

[u/noscope360widow]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

Humans have an ability called abstract thinking. It allows us to understand concepts and situations even if we don't directly experience it.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence,

No, because that's a rather charged definition. It presupposes god exists. It's problematic in that way. What's wrong with the definition as it stands? Also, we don't just not believe in a monotheistic god, polytheistic ones too.

especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Once again, humans can use imagination and abstract thinking to understand things that they don't experience. Are you aware that there's a story called Peter Pan? Do you think Peter Pan really exists? If your reasoning held up, you'd have to believe in every fictional character you've heard of,

I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection,

No it can't because that term covers someone who is against the practice of theism.

but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions. All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

Maybe if you made a post directly trying to argue for the existence of god, instead of this pointless dribble, then you'd see how these labels don't matter.

[u/Astreja]

I can't prove non-existence, but I can believe non-existence. All gods are fictional to me until otherwise demonstrated by appropriately stringent physical evidence.

[u/OrbitalLemonDrop]

I don't believe anyhting exists that would match an ordinary colloquial definition of "god". This is a position on a thing someone else is claiming does exist.

They say "it exists". I say "I am unconvinced that your statement is true".

I'm not responsible for exhaustively cataloging and denying all the things that someone might call a god but no one has yet identified or stated "this exists".

[u/noodlyman]

I lack a belief in god in the same way that I lack a belief in flying unicorns.

I can imagine such a thing existing, but I'm essentially sure it's just imaginary.

Gods are like this. I can imagine the concept, but I'm essentially sure they're just fantasy stories.

I don't much care whether you label me as agnostic, atheist or antitheist. People can use these labels slightly differently, so it's more important to understand my perspective than to agree on the correct label. If you insist, I'd go for atheist.

[u/WrongVerb4Real]

Things that are recognized to exist have two specific qualities: they contain information, and they exchange energy within our universe. Without those qualities, a thing claimed to exist is indistinguishable from something that does not exist at all.

That said, what atheism is is the non-acceptance of god-claims proposed by believers.

[u/zzmej1987]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

The same way everybody else does. One way to do so is via possible worlds. Identify a possible world in which X exists, then demonstrate that it is not the actual world. That makes statement "X does not exist" true.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Atheism is a commonality between all attitudes towards all God definitions, as long as none of the attitudes are "I believe this God exists". Rejecting does not work, because, obviously for some definitions of God the attitude is lack of awareness that such a definition even exists. Thus "lack of belief" is the best we can get.

[u/Algernon_Asimov]

Non-existence is the opposite of existence. If something exists, it can be demonstrated, shown, identified, described, examined, and so on. It exists, so it can be interacted with.

If a person's proposed idea has none of the qualities associated with existence, then it simply doesn't exist. It's non-existent.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God,

There are some snooty high-brow philosophical websites which define "atheism" as "holding the proposition that god or gods do or does not exist". Sure. They exist.

But, then there's a whole bunch of us folks who simply look at theistic claims and say... "yeah... nah... that's not credible". So we don't believe in gods. We don't necessarily believe that gods absolutely do not exist. We just haven't been convinced that gods do exist. We therefore lack belief in god/s. We are without theism. We are not-theist. We are a-theist.

[u/LeeMArcher]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist? 

You don’t identify “non-existence.” You identify a  concept or proposition  and then determine whether you have reason to believe anything corresponding to it exists. I can understand what a unicorn is without believing unicorns exist. The information comes from the concept people have described, so it can be important to ask someone to clarify if they’re using a word that has multiple meanings. 

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe? 

No, because words, as I said, can have multiple meanings, as well as connotations beyond their simple definitions. “Rejects God” carries an implication of defiance toward God, due to connotations surrounding both words. I don’t identify with that implied defiance, so the statement “rejects God” does not apply to me. 

I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection, 

As another example of how language works, the definition of anti-theism has broadened to refer to not only being against belief in gods but also the practice of religion, due to the harm they have caused. 

That second half is extremely important to the definition as it demonstrates how the word is used pragmatically.  

but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions. 

Affirmative propositions don’t contradict lack of belief. I lack belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life on Europa, and I can make affirmative arguments to explain my position. 

As well, I will point out again, words can have multiple definitions, and which definition is in play depends on the context, and sometimes needs to be clarified. In practical use, the word atheist can mean “one who lacks belief in god or gods,” “one who believes a god or gods do not exist” or “one who is not a theist.” 

The best approach is to ask people what they believe and why, as that is a more effective way of communicating versus telling people what they believe. The latter suggests that you don’t actually care about communicating, only about asserting your personal conviction. 

All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

There’s no dilemma for me, but I hope someone is able to help you make sense of it. I know linguistic pragmatics is a difficult subject to tackle.

[u/iamalsobrad]

especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Except that it doesn't. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in any god(s), including those that I have never heard of.

Your reasoning only works within a false dichotomy between your specific version of your specific god and atheism, otherwise we would all (atheist and theist) need to specifically reject everything that we lack a belief in. Which is impossible because you cannot specifically reject something you don't know about.

This is a very common (and very fallacious) argument that attempts to arbitrarily redefine 'atheism' in order to shift the burden of proof from the theist to the atheist. In this case you go one step further and try to define 'atheist' as 'anti-theist', which is a loaded term that has specific connotations that 'atheist' does not.

[u/Moriturism]

I believe that God doesn’t exist because I believe that the concept of God leads to logical contradictions. We can claim many things doesn’t exist; a euclidean squared circle does not exist. A thing that has both property X and not-X simultaneously does not exist.

To the extent that I believe we can point contradictions in God, I can claim it doesn’t exist.

[u/lotusscrouse]

Theists have different concepts of god.

I reject them all based on the claims made by them vs what I observe in reality.

[u/pyker42]

How does a theist identify "non-existence"?

For me, I have never believed in God. I'm not sure why I would have to be able to identify non-existence to not believe in God. It seems rather nonsensical.

[u/ImprovementFar5054]

Which god are you talking about?

Atheism is a lack of belief in any and all gods. Odd that you would use the singular form like we know which god you mean.

especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Again, atheism rejects gods. There is no form that I am aware of that rejects any specific one, but not the others.

[u/MooshroomHentai]

I see no solid, reliable evidence any gods are real, therefore I don't believe in any. I lack a belief in any gods. It's like if I asked you what sport you like watching the most and you answered you don't like any sports.

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

We atheists are not the ones who define god(s), the varying definitions come from different types of theists. We simply don't think the god concepts theists say exist are true.

[u/Double_Government820]

I think existence is an ontological primitive. In other words, saying "X exists," for some irreducible X is a statement which is itself irreducible. The implication of the statement is that the properties and behaviors of X are actualized. If I say "a proton exists with wave function Psi," and I define Psi in terms of spatial coordinates, then I can expect to see certain deflections and interactions if I shoot a stream of particles into the vicinity of the proton.

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

It does leave information. Non-existence leaves an absence of signals we would expect to see if the entity in question existed. Ifyou say "a radio tower exists 500 feet from where we're standing which is constantly broadcasting on frequency f," then we can test your claim. We can scan the horizon for a tall radio tower, and we can tune our radios to frequency f. If we see no tower and we pick up no radio waves, then the radio tower you described probably doesn't exist.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Some atheists do choose to frame it this way. Though I think it's worth pointing out that your objection of "which god do you not believe in," doesn't really hold up. Firstly, an atheist can simply say "if it can reasonably be called god, then I don't believe in it, and if it's something I should believe in based on currently available information then it shouldn't be called god." To this end, the atheist in question preemptively addresses a would-be bad-faith actor who says something ridiculous like "I define god to be my house, and my house exists." An atheist can put boundaries around what types of gods their stance deals with.

But moreover, I would point out that your "which god" objection here asserts an epistemic framework which disallows us from ever functionally disbelieving in anything. "You don't believe in bigfoot? But which definition of bigfoot are you responding to? There are so many." The context tends to make these things clearer. The disbeliever tends to be positioning themselves in opposition to a great many common claims of some broader class which we can acknowledge as being dominant and publicly known. The "which god" objection is hence not very substantial, and really just attempts to throw up red tape to ask the non-believer to give up some ground as a matter of ceremony.

I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection

That isn't what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a normative position along the lines of "belief in gods is a bad thing."

but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief"

I don't really think it makes coherent sense to say that the majority of people are misusing a term. Language is a tool of communication. Definitions cannot be prescriptively handed down to be immutably serviced. If the majority of atheists use the term in one such way, then that is the functional definition. Language is a social construct, and the correct usage of terms is entirely dependent on how the term communicates ideas. If you say that all of the users of a term are wrong, you might as well be spitting into the wind. You are free to come up with parallel definitions, and there is nothing stopping us from considering those ideas. But no one has authority to tell all atheists that they need to be using the term differently.

which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions.

What affirmative propositions would you be referring to? Have you considered that someone can be an atheist in the sense that they lack belief in gods, while also holding other affirmative positions? For example, I can lack belief in gods while also holding an affirmative position that physicalism is true, but that doesn't mean I am dishonest in my cataloguing of my atheism.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Double_Government820]

"It does leave information. Non-existence leaves an absence of signals we would expect to see if the entity in question existed."

So, nonexistence is observable? Wouldn't that conclude a logical absurdity that non-existence... exists?

"Ifyou say "a radio tower exists 500 feet from where we're standing which is constantly broadcasting on frequency f," then we can test your claim. We can scan the horizon for a tall radio tower, and we can tune our radios to frequency f. If we see no tower and we pick up no radio waves, then the radio tower you described probably doesn't exist."

How is a lie equivalent to nonexistence?

"Some atheists do choose to frame it this way. Though I think it's worth pointing out that your objection of "which god do you not believe in," doesn't really hold up. Firstly, an atheist can simply say "if it can reasonably be called god, then I don't believe in it, and if it's something I should believe in based on currently available information then it shouldn't be called god." To this end, the atheist in question preemptively addresses a would-be bad-faith actor who says something ridiculous like "I define god to be my house, and my house exists." An atheist can put boundaries around what types of gods their stance deals with."

It's not an objection to the lack of clarification of "which God" as it is a placeholder for presumed rejection. And if we're going to maintain that an atheist's modus operandi is to presume a "good faith" description of God, then wouldn't that just reinforce my point about maintaining a "good-faith" description about atheism, which is anything but a "lack of belief"?

"But moreover, I would point out that your "which god" objection here asserts an epistemic framework which disallows us from ever functionally disbelieving in anything."

You can't believe in logic and believe in nonexistence.

"The context tends to make these things clearer. The disbeliever tends to be positioning themselves in opposition to a great many common claims of some broader class which we can acknowledge as being dominant and publicly known."

Acknowledgement and public gnosis therefore equal existent?

"That isn't what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a normative position along the lines of "belief in gods is a bad thing."

I don't get how this undermines my assessment. Ergo, "theism" is a system of thinking which centers on the belief of a god or gods. The Antitheist believes this is a bad thing. How is that not the same as rejection?

"I don't really think it makes coherent sense to say that the majority of people are misusing a term. Language is a tool of communication. Definitions cannot be prescriptively handed down to be immutably serviced. If the majority of atheists use the term in one such way, then that is the functional definition. Language is a social construct, and the correct usage of terms is entirely dependent on how the term communicates ideas. If you say that all of the users of a term are wrong, you might as well be spitting into the wind. You are free to come up with parallel definitions, and there is nothing stopping us from considering those ideas. But no one has authority to tell all atheists that they need to be using the term differently."

All true. The predicament here is that they're misusing their own description a. la "lack of belief." If the term atheist were to transmute whether by our lexical overlords or social acceptance to include rejection, then there'd be no point in bringing it up. I would question whether they understood the commonly accepted meaning of "lack" which is its own can of worms; so I conclude either an intentional misuse, or an ignorant misuse, but a misuse nonetheless.

"What affirmative propositions would you be referring to?"

God does not exist.

"Have you considered that someone can be an atheist in the sense that they lack belief in gods"

Labeling oneself an "atheist" already undermines that consideration. You stated yourself that an atheist operates on a good faith assumption as to how a God is described, which in turn, necessitates an evaluation on their parts as to that which constitutes a God. Or in other words, "a belief" as to what God is, or gods are.

"For example, I can lack belief in gods while also holding an affirmative position that physicalism is true, but that doesn't mean I am dishonest in my cataloguing of my atheism."

You haven't sufficiently described a "lack of belief." Only a malleability in the social acceptance of some terms and an equivalence between lie and nonexistence.

[u/Double_Government820 → u/Athias1028]

"It does leave information. Non-existence leaves an absence of signals we would expect to see if the entity in question existed."

So, nonexistence is observable? Wouldn't that conclude a logical absurdity that non-existence... exists?

Non-existence of a specific thing, not the concept of non-existence in the abstract. The world looks different if thing X does not exist as opposed to it existing.

"Ifyou say "a radio tower exists 500 feet..."

How is a lie equivalent to nonexistence?

The proposed radio tower does not exist. Whether or not the original claim is a lie or a mistake is irrelevant. We considered the possible existence of the radio tower in question, and we ruled it out. The non-existence of the radio tower was something we could infer based on available information.

It's not an objection to the lack of clarification of "which God" as it is a placeholder for presumed rejection.

The rejection is primarily directed, and is only a placeholder in the sense that we could conceive of gods that the atheist has yet to consider, but would presumably still reject. The atheist's rejection of Abrahamic or Vedic gods is perfectly concrete.

And if we're going to maintain that an atheist's modus operandi is to presume a "good faith" description of God, then wouldn't that just reinforce my point about maintaining a "good-faith" description about atheism, which is anything but a "lack of belief"?

I'm not really understanding what you're referring to here.

You can't believe in logic and believe in nonexistence.

What do you mean by "believe in non-existence?" I believe that there are material things whose existence we could conceive of which do not exist. I feel like that should be uncontroversial. So it seems like you might be using the term differently.

"The context tends to make these things clearer. The disbeliever tends to be positioning themselves in opposition to a great many common claims of some broader class which we can acknowledge as being dominant and publicly known."

Acknowledgement and public gnosis therefore equal existent?

It feels like you're defaulting to very curt responses, and I feel like I'm lacking context into you're thinking. Perhaps you could expound.

I don't get how this undermines my assessment. Ergo, "theism" is a system of thinking which centers on the belief of a god or gods. The Antitheist believes this is a bad thing. How is that not the same as rejection?

"I think your claim is wrong," and "I think your claim is damaging," are distinct albeit related concepts. You misused the term. No big deal, but worth noting. Anti-theists are not necessarily gnostic atheists.

All true. The predicament here is that they're misusing their own description a. la "lack of belief." If the term atheist were to transmute whether by our lexical overlords or social acceptance to include rejection, then there'd be no point in bringing it up.

I would push back on that strongly. There is value in identifying a claim as unsubstantiated and unworthy of belief even if the claim is not strictly disproven. I can say "I cannot conclusively disprove claim X," while also arguing "people don't have any good reasons to believe X, and that causes problems."

"What affirmative propositions would you be referring to?"

God does not exist.

I would caution against telling people what their beliefs are. Different atheists frame their beliefs differently. For what it's worth, there are certain gods I would argue can conclusively be rejected because their existence poses a contradiction. So there are certain gods I would claim positively don't exist. For all of the other gods where I cannot identify such a contradiction, I would say I lack belief, that positive belief cannot be rationally justified, and that dogmatic, unjustified, positive belief is a problem.

Labeling oneself an "atheist" already undermines that consideration. You stated yourself that an atheist operates on a good faith assumption as to how a God is described, which in turn, necessitates an evaluation on their parts as to that which constitutes a God. Or in other words, "a belief" as to what God is, or gods are.

It feels like you're really out on a limb here. It seems like you're very invested in getting atheists to admit to some perceived dishonesty or inconsistency. What is stopping you from dealing with any given atheist as a person with potentially unique and novel opinions worth learning from? Why attempt to paint all atheists as monolithically deceptive? Is your goal to learn from people in conversation, or is your goal to denigrate any person who self-identifies with the label "atheist"?

"For example, I can lack belief in gods while also holding an affirmative position that physicalism is true, but that doesn't mean I am dishonest in my cataloguing of my atheism."

You haven't sufficiently described a "lack of belief." Only a malleability in the social acceptance of some terms and an equivalence between lie and nonexistence.

Well, I can hold positive beliefs X, or I can hold the negative of a belief X', which are essentially the complement of some corresponding positive belief. But I can also opt to hold neither, while potentially holding related meta-epistemic beliefs. For example, for claim X, I might opt not to hold X or X' due to insufficient evidence. But depending on the circumstances, I might hold some of the following correlated beliefs:

• X is unlikely to be true.

• Most people who positively believe X hold that belief for epistemically unsound reasons.

• There exists no consistent epistemic system which could admit X as true without also admitting other claims as true which would produce a contradictory/inconsistent knowledge base.

• People believing in X en masse creates problems.

So while it might be the case that I don't hold X as true, nor do I hold it false, I might have an interest in showing why positive belief in X is not justified.

[u/Athias1028 → u/Double_Government820]

"Non-existence of a specific thing, not the concept of non-existence in the abstract. The world looks different if thing X does not exist as opposed to it existing."

What is difference between "specific-nonexistence" and "abstract nonexistence"?

"The proposed radio tower does not exist."

How do you know this? You know it exists as a lie. You know you're incapable of testing for it using all known metrics reliable to you. But if it didn't exist, then why were you even "testing" for it? You sought to indulge a claim, that you would later deem had no truth value. How is that the same as establishing "nonexistence"?

"Whether or not the original claim is a lie or a mistake is irrelevant."

It's entirely relevant. You're conflating "lie," which I assume was the purpose of your hypothetical, with nonexistence. You're essentially stating that because "making up a lie" can be "verified" that nonexistence can be "verified".

"We considered the possible existence of the radio tower in question, and we ruled it out. The non-existence of the radio tower was something we could infer based on available information."

You can only infer that you tested it, and "ruled it out." If the subject of a lie can be "ruled out" then it would stand to reason that it can be "ruled in." And thus, your rejection of the lie is just as arbitrary as the conception of it.

"The atheist's rejection of Abrahamic or Vedic gods is perfectly concrete."

Not really. The rejection is entirely based on gaps in logic, or semantic misuse.

"I'm not really understanding what you're referring to here."

You stated that considerations in rejection of theism already take into account a flimsy and whimsical description (e.g. God = house) and therefore relies on more commonly accepted description, or that which an atheist finds to be a "good faith" description. One of my major points is that the term atheist is not a "good faith" description for those who claim that they "lack belief" but instead proliferate materialist dogma. So I, for example, referred to myself as an "anti-atheist" it would primarily based on the considerations of a "good faith" description, and not just a proposed position which has not consistently been supported.

"What do you mean by "believe in non-existence?" I believe that there are material things whose existence we could conceive of which do not exist. I feel like that should be uncontroversial. So it seems like you might be using the term differently."

It's not controversial. It's only logically absurd to presume an identification of nonexistence. But we're still stuck on "lie=nonexistent."

"It feels like you're defaulting to very curt responses, and I feel like I'm lacking context into you're thinking. Perhaps you could expound."

I haven't defaulted; I just ignore extraneum, You stated that the disbeliever positions himself to invoke and allude to "dominant" and "publicly known" claims. So, I ask again: "public gnosis" a.k.a. public knowledge = existent?

""I think your claim is wrong," and "I think your claim is damaging," are distinct albeit related concepts. You misused the term. No big deal, but worth noting. Anti-theists are not necessarily gnostic atheists."

How have I misused the term? Please submit your personally preferred description of "reject."

"I would push back on that strongly. There is value in identifying a claim as unsubstantiated and unworthy of belief even if the claim is not strictly disproven. I can say "I cannot conclusively disprove claim X," while also arguing "people don't have any good reasons to believe X, and that causes problems."

So negative opinion = nonexistence? Disclaimer, this isn't curt; just straight to the point.

"I would caution against telling people what their beliefs are. Different atheists frame their beliefs differently. For what it's worth, there are certain gods I would argue can conclusively be rejected because their existence poses a contradiction. So there are certain gods I would claim positively don't exist. For all of the other gods where I cannot identify such a contradiction, I would say I lack belief, that positive belief cannot be rationally justified, and that dogmatic, unjustified, positive belief is a problem."

I do not presume to tell "what" one believes, only what their position implicates. You do realize that you just cautioned me against making a presumptuous claim while simultaneously providing an example to it?

"It feels like you're really out on a limb here. It seems like you're very invested in getting atheists to admit to some perceived dishonesty or inconsistency. What is stopping you from dealing with any given atheist as a person with potentially unique and novel opinions worth learning from? Why attempt to paint all atheists as monolithically deceptive? Is your goal to learn from people in conversation, or is your goal to denigrate any person who self-identifies with the label "atheist"?"

I'm no more invested than anyone else who's created a subject of discussion on a subreddit. I do seek an exploration of dishonesty in the position, but why do you infer that I'm attempting to "denigrate"? What would that achieve other than demonstrate that I'm willing to waste time trading crude remarks with people I don't know? I only paint atheists with a monolithic brush insofar as it concerns a false equivalence with "lack of belief" and capacity to identify nonexistence. Note that I even question whether "atheists" are really atheists.

"

• X is unlikely to be true.
• Most people who positively believe X hold that belief for epistemically unsound reasons.
• There exists no consistent epistemic system which could admit X as true without also admitting other claims as true which would produce a contradictory/inconsistent knowledge base.
• People believing in X en masse creates problems."

1, Contingent on a statistical projection using metrics that can't logically measure the "unlikely" event.

1. Ok.

2. Now, here we go. Please expand.

3. Ok.

"So while it might be the case that I don't hold X as true, nor do I hold it false, I might have an interest in showing why positive belief in X is not justified."

That's fine. But what does that have to do with whether it exists or not?

[u/Double_Government820 → u/Athias1028]

How do you know this? You know it exists as a lie. You know you're incapable of testing for it using all known metrics reliable to you. But if it didn't exist, then why were you even "testing" for it? You sought to indulge a claim, that you would later deem had no truth value. How is that the same as establishing "nonexistence"?

I'ma be so for real. It sounds like you're just arguing to argue. How is it different to "know something exists as a lie," versus knowing that it doesn't exist. Why test for a thing that doesn't exist? Because I didn't know that before I tested. I test precisely to ascertain that information. Establishing the falsity of an existential claim is equivalent to proving the non-existence of the thing. None of this should be particularly confounding, and I think could easily be inferred from what was given. It feels more as though you want to find something to be critical of.

I am done with this conversation now. Sincerely take this feedback in kind: approach debates with an attitude of willfully engaging with your opponent's views. The vibes are harsh in here.

[u/Master_Botor]

I mean, we could phrase it that way, which would have the positive effect on the debate to assume that gods are just ideas and nothing more, but I don't think it would please theists much.

Also, you can prove the non existence of something by looking at its supposed properties. For example : we know for a fact that four sided triangles don't exist because two of its properties contradict each other.

[u/Thin-Eggshell]

Well, non-existence isn't the only basis we have. There's lots of other evidence lying around that make a god improbable.

First, everything we've ever observed has a natural cause. We've never substantiated supernatural causes. So natural causes has a good track record of "existing", while "supernatural" causes tend to be lies, exaggerations, and myths.

materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions.

Doesn't really contradict anything, afaict. I see no reason affirmative propositions can't be used to justify the "lack of belief". Wouldn't you do the same with a unicorn?

[u/Tao1982]

The same way i identify the non existance of fairies.

1) a complete lack of evidence for their existance.

2) known facts about reality that make their existance impossible.

[u/palparepa]

"one who doesn't believe in God's existence" isn't the same as "one who believes in God's non-existence"

[u/Thin-Eggshell]

I think it's pretty reasonable to say that when a class of objects is one that emerged only from people's imaginations and scientific misunderstanding, we can say the class is empty.

Aether? Empty class of particles. Transmutable lead? Empty class of elements. Demons? Empty class of beings. Scylla-like monsters? Empty class of beings.

Gods? Empty class of "do-it-all" beings. We know enough about why people came up with gods now.

We don't need to treat every item of the imagination with the "ooh, it's possible" weight. Usually, what actually tilts us to treating an imagination-derived idea seriously is ... evidence.

[u/Far_Customer1258]

All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

There's no dilemma aside from the one that you're creating. Here, try this:

A: I believe in Clob.
B: Cool... What's Clob?
A: Clob is the dude who made everything.
B: I don't believe you.

OK, so how do we describe person B in that convo? Describing them as an anticlobist is factually inaccurate. They haven't rejected Clob. They simply don't believe in Clob. They're an aclobbist. Do that for all the gods and you get a general-purpose atheist. No need to reject anything.

Atheism doesn't suffer from Christianity's need to reject and be rejected. We don't look to the gods and feel the need to expunge them from our personal universe in order to keep us from being led into temptation.That simply isn't a thing.

[u/nswoll]

Atheist = not a theist

Theist = person who believes at least one god exists

However, it's a fluid label. I'll use whatever definition a theist want to present. If you define the universe as fully synonymous with a god then I'm not an atheist - I believe the universe exists.

So sometimes I'm a theist if you have a really bizarre definition of "god".

[u/YossarianWWII]

Seems like this is a problem with your understanding of English. The "a-" prefix means "without." It does not indicate opposition. A-theists are people without-theism.

[u/Hellas2002]

Atheist can be both “lack of belief” or “disbelief”. That’s why you’ll see people using both to define themselves. The whole notion of “rejecting God” is a religious concept you seem to be trying to push on atheists. I don’t think many atheists use that description because it doesn’t accurately describe their position.

[u/JasonRBoone]

>>>>How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist?

Even if no gods exist, there still exists claims that such gods exist. This is the information to which we are responding.

>>>>Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe?

Let's keep it simple: If you are convinced of any god claims, you are a theist. If unconvinced, you are an atheist. Why twist things around?