7 ms·

Only if you redefine atheism to mean theism, as in "they believe in atheism! Can't you see?"

User23 7y ago
Atheism is a positive belief system. It actively asserts special gnosis of God’s nonexistence which effectively makes it a particularly bare-boned form of Protestantism. Agnosticism on the other hand isn’t a religion, it’s just intellectual humility or maybe just laziness.
- BackBackBack 7y ago
  See, you’ve redefine it. If you assert “gnosis” then you are not talking about belief you are talking about knowledge. Gnostics claim to know there is a god, Agnostics claim they do not know if there are gods. But I’m an Atheist. Why? Because I do not BELIEVE there are gods. I have not made any claims. I have not asserted anything. I simply find all the arguments in favor of gods lacking. Atheism IS NOT a positive belief system, but simply the rejection of one.
- woodruffw 7y ago
  > Atheism is a positive belief system. It actively asserts special gnosis of God’s nonexistence which effectively makes it a particularly bare-boned form of Protestantism. Asserting the nonexistence of something is not asserting special knowledge of something's nonexistence. Atheism isn't a Platonic Beard[1]. On a more practical level: if Protestants and atheists don't find their views mutually intelligible, there probably isn't any really meaningful sense in which one is a "bare-boned form" of the other. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard
- satellitec4t 7y ago
  Atheism is just a-theism, not-theism. If you are not a theist ("i believe in a god or gods"), you are an atheist. You can be atheist and agnostic - most atheists are.
- sklivvz1971 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect. Atheists are people who assert "I do not believe in God" and not, "I believe there is no God." It can not be otherwise, because the opposite makes no logical sense. Which God would the correct one to "believe against"? There are infinite Gods that one must equally disbelieve. Not believing in Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Ra, Yahveh, and the flying spaghetti monster does not require any evidence at all, it's merely the default position which any rational person must take. Atheists merely believe in one God less than believers.
  - User23 7y ago
    I appreciate the sophistry, but it just doesn't accurately describe the empirical reality. Western atheists are observably interested in the nonexistence of the biblical God. As you correctly note, none of them define themselves by, say, disbelief in Trimurti. I doubt they even think about it. Furthermore, every atheist I encounter actually asserts something like "I do not believe in God, because there is no God." After all "I do not believe in God, because there is a God" is irrational and, given the consequences of disbelief if God is as described in western tradition, exceedingly foolish. Atheism is only a rational belief if God is known to not exist. Otherwise it's no different than not believing in climate change or dinosaurs. And in any event a transcendent creator God (first cause, etc) isn't anything at all like the easter bunny, comic book superheroes, or bad fictional characters.
    - sklivvz1971 7y ago
      Atheists are well aware of the distinction, I can assure you. A statement like "I do not believe in God because there is no God" proves absolutely nothing. I could tell you "I do not believe in pink unicorns because there are no pink unicorns" and you would not take it as a statement of faith, just as the obvious truth. Such a truth is also obvious about the Judeo-Muslim-Christian God to atheists: there is no evidence of God, and in particular, there is no evidence whatsoever of Yahweh. As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people, but it makes really little sense to those who came to disbelief through a philosophical journey. A lot of atheists will tell you that the specificity problem is one of the most convincing reasons not to believe in God.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Atheism is a positive belief system. It actively asserts special gnosis of God’s nonexistence which effectively makes it a particularly bare-boned form of Protestantism. Agnosticism on the other hand isn’t a religion, it’s just intellectual humility or maybe just laziness.

BackBackBack 7y ago
See, you’ve redefine it. If you assert “gnosis” then you are not talking about belief you are talking about knowledge. Gnostics claim to know there is a god, Agnostics claim they do not know if there are gods. But I’m an Atheist. Why? Because I do not BELIEVE there are gods. I have not made any claims. I have not asserted anything. I simply find all the arguments in favor of gods lacking. Atheism IS NOT a positive belief system, but simply the rejection of one.
woodruffw 7y ago
> Atheism is a positive belief system. It actively asserts special gnosis of God’s nonexistence which effectively makes it a particularly bare-boned form of Protestantism. Asserting the nonexistence of something is not asserting special knowledge of something's nonexistence. Atheism isn't a Platonic Beard[1]. On a more practical level: if Protestants and atheists don't find their views mutually intelligible, there probably isn't any really meaningful sense in which one is a "bare-boned form" of the other. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard
satellitec4t 7y ago
Atheism is just a-theism, not-theism. If you are not a theist ("i believe in a god or gods"), you are an atheist. You can be atheist and agnostic - most atheists are.
sklivvz1971 7y ago
I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect. Atheists are people who assert "I do not believe in God" and not, "I believe there is no God." It can not be otherwise, because the opposite makes no logical sense. Which God would the correct one to "believe against"? There are infinite Gods that one must equally disbelieve. Not believing in Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Ra, Yahveh, and the flying spaghetti monster does not require any evidence at all, it's merely the default position which any rational person must take. Atheists merely believe in one God less than believers.
- User23 7y ago
  I appreciate the sophistry, but it just doesn't accurately describe the empirical reality. Western atheists are observably interested in the nonexistence of the biblical God. As you correctly note, none of them define themselves by, say, disbelief in Trimurti. I doubt they even think about it. Furthermore, every atheist I encounter actually asserts something like "I do not believe in God, because there is no God." After all "I do not believe in God, because there is a God" is irrational and, given the consequences of disbelief if God is as described in western tradition, exceedingly foolish. Atheism is only a rational belief if God is known to not exist. Otherwise it's no different than not believing in climate change or dinosaurs. And in any event a transcendent creator God (first cause, etc) isn't anything at all like the easter bunny, comic book superheroes, or bad fictional characters.
  - sklivvz1971 7y ago
    Atheists are well aware of the distinction, I can assure you. A statement like "I do not believe in God because there is no God" proves absolutely nothing. I could tell you "I do not believe in pink unicorns because there are no pink unicorns" and you would not take it as a statement of faith, just as the obvious truth. Such a truth is also obvious about the Judeo-Muslim-Christian God to atheists: there is no evidence of God, and in particular, there is no evidence whatsoever of Yahweh. As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people, but it makes really little sense to those who came to disbelief through a philosophical journey. A lot of atheists will tell you that the specificity problem is one of the most convincing reasons not to believe in God.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]