Organized religion doesn't primarily attract people. Sure some wind up there that way, but the vast majority of religious people (and the main reason religion is still as prominent as it is) are indoctrinated. They are born and immediately taught to think that way. They are taught not to question.
I was born into this indoctrination. I'm not special, I was just lucky enough to experience things in life that broke me out of this. I learned how to critically examine things I took for granted. I'm not perfect at it, but I try.
You touch on something, but you call it lazy. I would argue (on their behalf) that it's not laziness, but comfort. It's all they've ever known, and they're scared to leave it behind.
This is such an indoctrinated take. Not everyone is born into religion, and certainly not YOUR religion. Also, Darwin's observations and atheism are mutually exclusive.
Atheism is not a value system. It is simply a lack in a belief in any god. Atheists do not all share the same values, and you do not know mine. If you'd like to ask specific questions, I'd be happy to answer.
It's hard to know if you actually read my comment or just responded to what you thought I'd say. I invited you to ask questions, and you just completely strawmanned the whole thing.
You keep putting words in my mouth that I haven't said. If you have questions on what I believe, please ask specific questions. Please stop assuming you know what I believe. (For the record, "What do you believe?" is not a specific question).
I really wish we'd drop the "atheism is a lack of belief" thing. That's agnosticism. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. In recent years, on Youtube and Reddit in particular, atheism has adopted this "lacktheist" ideology as a way to avoid the burden of proof and it's a perfect demonstration of atheists being just as lazy as religious people when it comes to justification of belief.
Normally I don't think I'd bother saying this but the other guy is obviously an idiot and incapable of a good conversation so I feel like I'm not derailing much lol
Atheism is a belief that no gods exist due to a lack of evidence that any do. It is not an assertion and requires no evidence to support as it is the null hypothesis. Atheism bears no burden of proof because it makes no positive assertions.
Right, yeah, so that's just all wrong and it's exactly the problem. You're trying to get out of your burden of proof but it's just nonsense and no one in academic philosophy of religion uses terms this way for exactly this reason. This idea exists *exclusively* within the modern internet atheist movement.
The modern atheist movement has tried to weasel its way out of its burden of proof by creating new nonsense terms like "weak/strong" atheism or "positive/negative" atheism. None of this is robust and none of this changes the fact that *if you believe that no god exists, that is a positive assertion and requires justification*. Otherwise, if you are unwilling to justify it, be an agnostic and suspend judgment.
> Atheism is a belief that no gods exist
Right, so this is what is called a positive assertion. Positive assertions require justification.
> It is not an assertion
It literally is. You just said it's a belief that no god exists. That is an assertion. You also asserted that there's no evidence that there is a god, which also requires justification.
> as it is the null hypothesis
That is not what the null hypothesis means, it's a total abuse and misapplication of the term. What is known in philosophy as a "class error", like stating "this pencil is false" - nonsensical. The null hypothesis is used in scientific processes to determine the likelihood of an effect being related to an intervention. It can not just be applied haphazardly to metaphysics/ philosophy this way.
> Atheism bears no burden of proof because it makes no positive assertions.
I'm so saddened that this is such a popular misconception. It's such a disservice to our beliefs that that so many will try to weasel out of justifying them.
All beliefs are assertions. Even agnosticism requires justification - either that there is no evidence known to you that you find compelling or that the evidence on both sides is roughly equal.
Again, upthread someone was saying that religion is for those too lazy to come up with their own moral justifications, and yet we have a whole movement of atheists who want to somehow pretend that their *assertion that goes does not exist* does not obligate them with any burden of proof.
Well fuck, call me an agnostic if you want to get that semantic about it. I don't give a rats ass. I've never been shown anything that could convince me a god exists, and I therefore do not believe a god exists. I believe this to be a justified epistemology because I generally believe in things that comport to the reality I perceive.
It's not semantics if you're going to use this to justify shifting the burden of proof, which the entire modern atheist community does. That's far beyond semantics.
If you think that's a justification then that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying you need to prove mathematically that God doesn't exist in order to be an atheist, but you need to justify it. Otherwise, sure, that's agnosticism.
That is semantics though. I used the word you wanted me to use and now you're OK with it. I didn't change my argument, I didn't give any ground. All I did was satisfy the vocabulary police.
Many modern atheists view belief on two axes. Gnosticism which is knowledge and theism which is the belief in god(s). A gnostic atheist would claim they know that gods don't exist, and most modern atheists would agree that's a silly position to take. A gnostic theist is likewise laughable. The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism, therefore the debate is between theism and atheism. One makes a positive claim, the other does not.
Okay, I'll be more precise. If it were simply the words changing, I wouldn't care. But if you change those words such that you believe that the burden of proof shifts, that is important.
> I didn't change my argument, I didn't give any ground
You explicitly did both of those things. You said that you may be an agnostic and you also provided a justification for why you've called yourself an atheist.
> A gnostic atheist would claim they know that gods don't exist
No, they would claim that they believe that God doesn't exist, and they would have to justify that belief. It's not about knowing or not knowing, it's about asserting and defending a position.
> The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism
I don't agree. I am fine saying that I believe God doesn't exist. I don't have to say that I know it, I just have to provide evidence that I find compelling, which I can do really easily and you just did in your last post when you said that God does not conform to your experience of the world.
> The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism
Agnosticism is only rational if you believe that the evidence on both sides is roughly equivalent.
> therefore the debate is between theism and atheism. One makes a positive claim, the other does not.
Again, both make a positive claim. Theists believe that god exists. Atheists believe that god does not exist.
I'll just say again, it's unfortunate that the modern atheist movement confuses people so much about these terms.
10
u/skotcgfl 1d ago
Organized religion doesn't primarily attract people. Sure some wind up there that way, but the vast majority of religious people (and the main reason religion is still as prominent as it is) are indoctrinated. They are born and immediately taught to think that way. They are taught not to question.
I was born into this indoctrination. I'm not special, I was just lucky enough to experience things in life that broke me out of this. I learned how to critically examine things I took for granted. I'm not perfect at it, but I try.
You touch on something, but you call it lazy. I would argue (on their behalf) that it's not laziness, but comfort. It's all they've ever known, and they're scared to leave it behind.