Greentext

8453 readers

770 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

479

Anon ruins christmas (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

190 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's not called militant atheism, you're describing anti-theism. I've never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either, just that since there's no evidence the claims aren't worth consideration and can be dismissed as nonsense.

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org -1 points 1 day ago

I believe what you are describing is Agnosticism, which questions the existence of God but doesn't claim there isn't one either.

Atheism afaik does claim that something like a God can't/doesn't exist (or Anti-theism).

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I’ve never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either

Maybe this will help?

This definition is also found in multiple encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy. For example, in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William L. Rowe (also an atheist) writes, “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief” (2000: 62). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy recognizes multiple senses of the word “atheism”, but is clear about which is standard in philosophy:

[Atheism is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in god and is consistent with agnosticism [in the psychological sense]. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Maybe you will understand the picture I posted in the other comment as well now?

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not surprising that academic theological philosophy uses atheism as a strict position that there are no gods, inferring the claim, but even your source states the widely accepted definition is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods before choosing the previous definition for the purposes of the paper. Academic usage that acknowledges they're not using the widely accepted usage isn't super relevant unless you're having academic discussions with academics in academic contexts. I understood the picture fine, it's just wrong.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

what’s wrong about the picture?

Did you not see the gnostic and agnostic in front of atheist and theist?

eg. you are aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism