• db2@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ackshually… it’s a lack of theism. Technically deists are atheists.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lol yeah. “We live in a simulation created and observed by an unpaid intern” vs “we live in a test world where a supreme being keeps changing the rules and then will judge whether you get to live in his resort or the bad hostel once you die”

      • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

        • Thranduil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Atheism is a lack of belief. Basically we are not convinced there is a god. There is no burden of proof because we are not claiming there isnt a god, just that we are not convinced one does.

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also worth noting that the onus of proving a claim lies with whoever does claim a thing. It is always more difficult to prove a negative and nobody just assumes everything that hasn’t been specifically debunked. Hilariously wrongheaded of them.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year 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.

        • eldain@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Easy, gods used to do devine interventions all the time. Didn’t sacrifice to Neptunus before your sea journey? His mood storm sinks your ship. Didn’t please Mars before your battle? You fight at bad weather and the enemy has surprise reinforcements.

          Modern day gods? They left a secretary or something. Buhbuh you did something bad, I put you on the naughty list but I’m a weak noodle so your punishment will have to wait until after your death. When your soul which is not your body but has all senses asif it were because we antromorph everything, gets hurt.

          If you can bomb a kids hospital without getting struck by lightning, there are no gods. There are millions of people praying for peace and the save return of their children in the ukraine war on both sides, nothing happens. I claim that the presence of a god would be obvious if they took their job description seriously. Like a managers/auditors presence can be felt in the office without seeing him.

        • shiveyarbles@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well if you say, for example, Christianity is faith based, then you could argue that atheism is faith based as well. Faith that there is no god.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          As always, people use those words with the most absurd meanings linked to them.

          But you are technically correct. What is the best kind of correctness, and all that…

      • MissJinx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is a form of faith based aproach. If you don’t believe in something you believe it doesn’t exist.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, if you ask an Atheist if they believe in something spiritual, they would say “no”. They wouldn’t say “I believe that god doesn’t exist”.

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

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

      • hexi [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • Bram@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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.

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah the sorting hat takes in to account who you are and who you might be. Religion us mostly based on geography.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Agreed, though there is an argument to be said where your parents will raise you in a specific way, based on their upbringing, and therefore your nature could decide your house. Malfoy was a slytherin because his parents were, and that’s all they brought him up to be, which isn’t unlike religion, where being raised in a specific way will decide your outlook on the world

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year 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

      • eldain@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the us ngo satanic temple, you also have people who religiously worship satan instead of jesus. Christian multiverse. High chance of encountering cults if you look for them.

          • Mothra@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A cult may or may not include a religion.

            A cult is also typically closed off to the general public (secret or keeps a low profile on purpose). Some cults also isolate their members from the rest of the general population.

            You sure have overlaps between cults and religions, but they are not the same.

            • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My question was rhetorical, but I didn’t make it obvious. Most religions isolate their members, but it just depends how much.

              My point is that most religions are culty, it’s just a matter of how much.

              Sometimes it’s so hard to tell the difference that one must ask themselves whether there is one. Are religions just normalized cults?

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Know I’m thinking it just starts letting out prophecies, not answering the question of what religion you get, but rather telling stories of horror about the non-existence of God and yet the ever fleeting reality we are yet to experience.