4 ms·

> what if non-religious people are actually the most religious of them all. humor me. Atheism is not an assertion that there is no god. It is the understanding

> what if non-religious people are actually the most religious of them all. humor me. Atheism is not an assertion that there is no god. It is the understanding that we cannot with our current level of technology prove there IS a god. Therefore, we cannot believe in a god. That is the baseline argument: Prove it. You can't. That is the end of the conversation. In other words, the assertion you make here is one of the very few things we CAN prove and DO know. We CANNOT prove there IS a god. We CANNOT prove there is NO god. Therefore, we abstain from believing in a religion until sufficient evidence is provided. That is why atheism is not a religion. There is no belief involved. Because we do not pretend to know. We assert that we do not, and currently can not, know.

hunterb123 5y ago
You're thinking of agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion there is no God. A-theism. But it's a highly debated topic itself (as most things are in this realm). In general though, people mean it as they don't believe in God, and use agnosticism to indicate they do not believe one way or another.
- honkycat 5y ago
  People can interpret Athiesm in different ways, and I was a bit clumsy by asserting anything about Athiesm in a broad sense, since there is no category or group of people who all have the same opinions and interpretations of Athiesm. However, by dictionary definition and from citing Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." Anti-theism is the assertion there is no god. The prefix "a" can mean "not" or "without." "anti" means "against", "opposite of." So no, it is not the assertion there are no deities. It is an absence of the belief in any deities. The perspective I am arguing from is that there is no other coherent argument to be made about the existence of deities. We cannot currently prove there is no god. We cannot currently prove there is a god.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    As I said it's a debated topic, you have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one. Wikipedia's first sentence is the broadest definition but not the de-facto, the second sentence you left out shows that. If you don't want confusion you'd want to use atheism for belief no God exist and agnosticism to indicate you don't feel one way or another. Which I believe is what most people do. Otherwise you start a semantic debate which is as pointless as a religious one. If you want to communicate the nuance of your beliefs without much explanation, use the two different words, otherwise use atheism as an umbrella term, which is what the "broadest sense" wikipedia is hinting at.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - honkycat 5y ago
      I'm not a philosopher by any means but the interpretation of Atheism I presented above is widely used. Specifically by Matt Dillahunty and a lot of modern Atheist. I wouldn't be against an interpretation of agnosticism that is functionally identical to my interpretation of atheism, but at a certain point one word to describe a world-view is never going to be sufficient and explanation of the nuance is going to be required. You can say "Christianity" and you would be referencing both the Westborough Baptist Church and Christian Unitarian Universalists. I already described in detail in my first comment my interpretation of Atheism so I don't know where confusion could possibly come in. Therefore, I reject your premise that I "have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one" because: - that varies from person to person and I cannot read people's minds. - Your interpretation is not universal - the interpretation I presented is actually quite widely understood and common. So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X", you are wrong that I am wrong. Also you are the one having the pointless semantic debate about something I already explained and clarified in my first comment. Call me agnostic I don't care, even though an interpretation of agnosticism is that god CANNOT be proven, which is NOT what I said.
      - hunterb123 5y ago

hunterb123 5y ago

You're thinking of agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion there is no God. A-theism. But it's a highly debated topic itself (as most things are in this realm). In general though, people mean it as they don't believe in God, and use agnosticism to indicate they do not believe one way or another.

honkycat 5y ago
People can interpret Athiesm in different ways, and I was a bit clumsy by asserting anything about Athiesm in a broad sense, since there is no category or group of people who all have the same opinions and interpretations of Athiesm. However, by dictionary definition and from citing Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." Anti-theism is the assertion there is no god. The prefix "a" can mean "not" or "without." "anti" means "against", "opposite of." So no, it is not the assertion there are no deities. It is an absence of the belief in any deities. The perspective I am arguing from is that there is no other coherent argument to be made about the existence of deities. We cannot currently prove there is no god. We cannot currently prove there is a god.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  As I said it's a debated topic, you have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one. Wikipedia's first sentence is the broadest definition but not the de-facto, the second sentence you left out shows that. If you don't want confusion you'd want to use atheism for belief no God exist and agnosticism to indicate you don't feel one way or another. Which I believe is what most people do. Otherwise you start a semantic debate which is as pointless as a religious one. If you want to communicate the nuance of your beliefs without much explanation, use the two different words, otherwise use atheism as an umbrella term, which is what the "broadest sense" wikipedia is hinting at.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - honkycat 5y ago
    I'm not a philosopher by any means but the interpretation of Atheism I presented above is widely used. Specifically by Matt Dillahunty and a lot of modern Atheist. I wouldn't be against an interpretation of agnosticism that is functionally identical to my interpretation of atheism, but at a certain point one word to describe a world-view is never going to be sufficient and explanation of the nuance is going to be required. You can say "Christianity" and you would be referencing both the Westborough Baptist Church and Christian Unitarian Universalists. I already described in detail in my first comment my interpretation of Atheism so I don't know where confusion could possibly come in. Therefore, I reject your premise that I "have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one" because: - that varies from person to person and I cannot read people's minds. - Your interpretation is not universal - the interpretation I presented is actually quite widely understood and common. So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X", you are wrong that I am wrong. Also you are the one having the pointless semantic debate about something I already explained and clarified in my first comment. Call me agnostic I don't care, even though an interpretation of agnosticism is that god CANNOT be proven, which is NOT what I said.
    - hunterb123 5y ago