are you an atheist?

Wouldn't "no god" be "atheos"?.

"Theism" only comes in the 17th century, with the English "-ism" suffix, which modifies towards "system, principle, or ideological movement".

Look, I admit it's silly but I think there's an interesting difference between asserting there's no god, and not asserting that there is a god.

I would have no trouble with "nontheist," but "atheist" seems presumptuous to me.

Imagine if my wife asks me if we have any leftover pizza in the refrigerator. There are several possibilities.

1. I know for sure that we have some pizza. I am a pizzaist.

2. I know for sure that we don't have any leftover pizza (because I ate it all). I am an apizzaist.

3. I don't know whether or not we have any leftover pizza. I'm pizzagnostic.

Conflating 2 and 3 is common but omits important information.

I still don’t understand the question tbqh

Etymologically, atheism means "no god." In practice, people may equate it with "no belief," but its root sense is that there's no god. Which is, to my mind, a claim of access to the truth about the existence of the divine, or of the nature of the divine. Which is unverifiable and therefore on shaky epistemological ground.

Would you say the same of "poltergeists aren't real"?

Which question don't you understand, silby? The original poll has two options.

Fine, but I think the topic is enriched by having at least three options.

Compare: 1. I know Cher exists, 2. I am not sure whether Cher exists, 3. I know Cher does not exist.

The original poll conflates 1 and 2.

Etymologically, atheism means "no god." In practice, people may equate it with "no belief," but its root sense is that there's no god. Which is, to my mind, a claim of access to the truth about the existence of the divine, or of the nature of the divine. Which is unverifiable and therefore on shaky epistemological ground.

would "there has never been any empirical evidence for the existence of god" be on more solid ground?

Rob, yes.

Xp to Milo, yes. Why not? Sure, different cultural resonances and different levels of respectability among the intelligentsia, but. Same amount of evidence on either side, which is (checks notes) none.

Proving a negative has always been and will always be troublesome; it is the way of the world.

I don't spend a lot of time actively disbelieving in poltergeists, or leprechauns, for that matter. Any more than I spend a lot of time disbelieving in Loki or Zeus or Osiris or Yahweh. It's all equally a waste of time. Time that would be better spent getting high and listening to music.

We don’t generally demand people prove negatives for that reason? Insofar as we have no evidence of the existence of poltergeists and no theoretical framework to explain how they could exist, it seems odd to require negative proof.

Ok, then I guess my point is that if one's epistemology is determined by a strict commitment to empiricism (which maybe you're not into that or find it sterile or w/e, but it's hardly a fringe or weakly argued branch of philosophy), then there's nothing epistemologically suspect about atheism. Or do you not see "no empirical evidence" as the/an atheist position? Maybe there are atheists who would say "there is no and there never could possibly be a god," but that seems more like misunderstanding the implications of one's own epistemological commitments rather than the core meaning of "atheism."

Can't argue with your last line though :)

I think the most robust form of atheism consists in saying that the idea of god doesn't make sense

Had a frustrating conversation with my mom about the definition of atheism a few months ago. She went to catholic school but would call herself agnostic. I'd call myself an agnostic atheist: I reject every religious claim I've heard, don't think there is god but can't be sure.
I was trying to explain the nuance of "there is no god" vs "I don't believe in any god yet posited". She thought it was a pointless distinction in practical terms and that people were just trying to weasel out of standing by the unproveable claim "there is no god".

Monotheism is a fairly recent idea. Most cosmologies have differed from monotheism. I am aligned with most cultures that have never existed in not believing in the abrahamic god of the torah/old testament/koran. The "you can't prove" a negative stuff is purest sophistry to me. Tend not to identify as an atheist for optics and am prefer to refer to myself, and am probably better identified as, a lapsed catholic

Ever not never doh

There are no leprechauns, there I said it.

Oh and the other glaring error

if there's a god, i doubt he has a coherent dogma other than "I built a play area for you, try not to make a mess, be back in a billion years"

Christianity is so weird

the idea of defining yourself by what you think the truth value of a proposition is seems absurd to me, that's not how religion came about and this sort of narrow existential literalist form of religion has grown in opposition to (v broadly) modern scientific scepticism, so "atheism makes a truth claim that is as as epistemologically suspect as the truth claims of theism" seems to have it backwards to me. don cupitt's focus on looking at god and religion primarily in linguistic rather than realist terms seems a lot more credible to me than all this "what exactly don't you believe in" nonsense, which also has all the problems with the implicit ideas that beliefs are definite things that ppl can have and not be mistaken about etc.

Still an atheist but the bigger problem is not religion but faith and belief more fundamentally. People prefer a convenient, manipulative fraudulent or batshit crazy fiction to that which can be empirical demonstrated or is supported by overwhelming evidence, especially if that which is supported by evidence is personally inconvenient. It’s a matter of some despair how easily people are manipulated by or selfishly buy into whatever quackery that is in vogue, where the it is climate science denial, anti-vax, religion etc. etc. if I proselytise it’s against the first two rather than religion but i see it all part of the same poisonous human weakness.

I do think on the whole religion hurts society so it should be pushed back against, rather than just ignored as best we can. It affects so many things negatively. Something like attitudes towards criminals which at first glance may seem to have nothing to do with religion. Yet believing in good vs evil tends to make people believe that societal forces aren't the root cause of crime; Satan is. So instead of a humanistic rehabilitation focused criminal justice system we get a wrathful punitive one.
If I had a magic wand I'd make everyone be incapable of religious thoughts and beliefs. But yeah the attempts to push back against it are almost exclusively carried out by assholes.

Y’all have still only heard of one religion

Well that's pretty condescending. Of course I've heard of many. Some I find to be less harmful than others. But my culture is dominated by Christianity so fucking duh I'd focus on that.

Then say “Christianity” instead of “religion”

Yet believing in good vs evil tends to make people believe that societal forces aren't the root cause of crime; Satan is.

This is not a feature of “religion”

To me there isn’t much use clarifying that there might be a god for the same reason I don’t have to clarify that existence might be a simulation. Sure either thing might be the case but no compelling evidence encourages me to make that distinction as a disclaimer even if I choose to strongly assert “there is no god”.

I am happy to stand down on any semantic quarrel with atheists, or those who deny the existence of leprechauns. We cool, rock on with your bad selves.

But I remain at fierce odds with agnostics who think an Abrahamic god (beard, clouds, etc.) is more plausible than, say, Kali or Dionysus or Huitzilopotchli.

It's a feature of the religions practiced by more than half of humanity. I didn't just mean Christianity. And it's just one example of a religious trait I find problematic.

Abrahamic god (beard, clouds, etc.)

Only one Abrahamic religion I’m familiar with commonly portrays God as a bearded cloud guy

But I don’t really know anything about Baha’i.

Whatever, silby. Delete the beard and clouds if you like - it's still no more (or less!) plausible than Neptune or Ra or Hephaestus.

Thank you for whatevering away a critical distinction between Christianity and two of the other famous Abrahamic religions, that’s very sensitive

Say Christianity when you mean Christianity, that’s all I am asking for

If the correction you're making doesn't affect the thrust of the point that was being made, you're just being a nitpicky dick

Hmmm no I don’t see it that way

It kind of weakens the argument when the points y’all are trying to make about “religion” are in fact just about Christianity, the only religion you know anything interesting about.

silby, are you suggesting that Yahweh and Allah are somehow on better ontological footing because... (checks notes) they aren't depicted as being bearded? Please help me understand exactly where you're going with this line of inquiry.

Of course not

idgi, the big 3 monotheistic religions all have the same god and p much share a “bearded guy” conception, don’t they?

I’m just asking you not to attribute to (more than) two vastly different Abrahamic religions things that apply mostly or solely to (some variations of) Christianity

idgi, the big 3 monotheistic religions all have the same god and p much share a “bearded guy” conception, don’t they?

― singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:18 PM (one minute ago)

No

Okay silby, your correction is duly noted and will be entered into the record. These major faith traditions have different iconography. The point is conceded.

They're all still equally speculative, though. Therefore equally ungrounded. They may differ in how fun they are, how entertaining they are to believe in, and how silly they seem when viewed from the outside. But still: all equally speculative. Perhaps we can agree on that much?

AFAIK hinduism explains evil/bad things happening via karma. I also find this problematic. The only religious explanation I would be OK with is "god is an evil irrational sadist". If you can find a religion that is practiced by a population larger than that of Amarillo TX, then I'll withdraw my careless smearing of all religions.

"the only religion you know anything interesting about."

Ah more condescension. Really feeling a need to feel superior to others today huh.
My feelings are, just as I stated initially, applicable to all belief systems based on supernatural creator(s).

God tripped balls

I mean I guess? I’m not really here to engage the question of which gods are and aren’t plausible, because I don’t think it’s interesting

they cannot stand this mourning
of my life
show me
how the gods
are and aren't plausible

(riff)

idgi, the big 3 monotheistic religions all have the same god and p much share a “bearded guy” conception, don’t they?

― singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:18 PM (one minute ago)

No

Uhhh in two of them it’s prohibited to draw a picture of a human man with a beard and say it’s god, is my first point

Odin has a beard too motherfuckers

“Punishing father” doesn’t really resemble the conception of God that I or other actual extant Jews of my acquaintance would be likely to describe.