• Isoprenoid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. Atheists have a burden of proof of a negative. Only agnostics get the “not a belief system” card.

        Fight me.

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I…don’t need to fight you. It’s not about burden of proof; it’s about the definition of the word. Atheism is—as we agree—merely a yes/no classification of the belief in a deity; it is not a belief system in itself. As such, someone can be an atheist while still having a religion, which is a belief system, one that may or may not involve a deity.

          Burden of proof only applies if one is making a claim in an objective context, not when one is making a claim in a subjective context.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          You can’t prove a negative.

          Prove to me there isn’t a teapot floating around Saturn, or that Gravity isn’t a panda in the centre of every planet pulling on invisible strings.

    • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Agnosticism isn’t a religion. Atheism is. You have to have faith to “know” something doesn’t exist with certainty.

      • Bram@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

        Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

        • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Your definition of atheism is not my experience with pretty much every atheist I’ve ever met. It’s not absense of belief, but belief that God doesn’t exist. There was never anything nuanced about the definition.

          Now we can say absense of belief for the sake of discussion, but then it becomes an issue of semantics, as there is overlap with agnosticism. But it doesn’t match my experience at all. Most atheists will call you names for suggesting anything but the idea that the laws of physics are a complete description of reality. Teenage edgelords mainly.

      • hexi [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Atheists aren’t claiming to have positive proof of the nonexistence of God.

        The term means that someone has not seen convincing evidence for God’s existence.

        Likewise, I wouldn’t say I’m agnostic about Russel’s Teapot or any mythical idea because that terms tends to imply that you find the existence and nonexistence of the thing to be comparably likely.

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Mhhh well this is a difficult question. Atheists believe there is no God. So there is no point in religion. From a Atheists point of view atheism is not a religion. From a neutral pov you may argue the believe in no God is a religion of its own.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Isn’t that what basically happens when you’re born? I seriously wonder how many Christians would be such if they were born in India or China.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    No Satanism, Pastafarianism or Wiccan on the list? >:(

    Considering sports and religion always go out of control with large crowds, I bet the Quidditch matches would end up in massacres too frequently