• 0ops@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I made an edit to my comment just around the time you posted your reply, just fyi I don’t want to be sneaky or anything.

    Huh, I always took atheist to be the complement of theist, not to be confused with the opposition. So because I’m a math guy: atheist = NOT(theist). For example, theist: “I believe in a god”, atheist: “I’m not with this guy”, antitheist: “Your god is fake, there is no god, it’s impossible”.

    I’ll be real with you I did not and have no intentions of reading this whole thing, but sections 1 and 2 is relevant to this discussion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

    It mentions both of our definitions of atheism - not having belief and having belief against god - and where they came from and arguments for or against them, but they do seem to lean toward yours, the “philosophical” definition as they call it

    • fkn@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You are correct, and I should have worded my example differently.

      They lack the belief (as opposed to active disbelief).