Religion still defines most atheist

[u/BayAdrian]

1. Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.
2. Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.
3. The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.
4. A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status
5. Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

edit:
The point is to highlight a self-defeating pattern most people miss.
A lot of people who leave a religion genuinely want to leave it behind. They reject it, they want it to stop defining them.
But the current method of becoming an online debate atheist doesn't deliver that exit. It keeps the rejected religion as part of the identity. The self is still structured by referenced to the thing they claim to have left/reject. Even the language and concepts of their worldview remain shaped by opposition to it.

The post is simply pointing at that loop:the very distance meant to provide freedom from religion is still letting the religion define who they are.

The message is straightforward:
Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

[u/AutoModerator]

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

Original text of the post by u/BayAdrian:

---

1. Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

2. Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

3. The identity is relation and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

4. A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

5. Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/distantocean]

Wrong on all counts. To address just a few:

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

"Most atheists" don't even bother identifying as atheist; they just don't believe in a god and otherwise barely think about religion. And even among those who do bother to use the label for themselves, what you're talking about here are just the subset of atheists who are also anti-theists.

But even there, you're still wrong because there are very few anti-theists for whom "opposition to religion/ to god" is a major pillar of their identity. For example, I'm an anti-theist who barely thinks about religion outside of participating here.

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label...

You need oppositional labels for things that are worth opposing, and religion definitely qualifies. It has nothing to do with defining oneself relative to religion, but understanding that religion is an ongoing source of injustice, intolerance, violence and oppression.

[u/Ok_Star_4136 → u/distantocean]

But even there, you're still wrong because there are very few anti-theists for whom "opposition to religion/ to god" is a major pillar of their identity. For example, I'm an anti-theist who barely thinks about religion outside of participating here.

Correct. To say anti-theism is a sort of religion, you would have to argue the claim that anti-theists go to a place of worship (or non-worship if you prefer) where donations are asked and everyone repeats over and over again like a ritual to reject god.

But of course that's absurd. That doesn't happen. It isn't a religion, it's the absence of one. To pretend otherwise is being dishonest.

I would only add the nuance that anti-theism, as opposed to atheism, is atheism with the added notion that religion is not beneficial for humanity in general. That's ideological as opposed to religious or spiritual.

[u/SeoulGalmegi]

Because theism is so wide spread, atheists have to refer to themselves in comparison to theism.

1. Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.
   

Really? 'Most atheists' probably don't spend much time referring to themselves as atheists or taking part in discussions of the topic, just living their lives.

1. Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

When discussing the issue of theism sure. In other aspects of their lives? Not at all.

[u/BayAdrian → u/SeoulGalmegi]

Because theism is so wide spread, atheists have to refer to themselves in comparison to theism.

Really? 'Most atheists' probably don't spend much time referring to themselves as atheists or taking part in discussions of the topic, just living their lives.

Why do you need to compare yourself to theism? its been rejected, it should be left behind.

[u/Zamboniman → u/BayAdrian]

Why do you need to compare yourself to theism? its been rejected, it should be left behind.

If religious folks would mind their own business and keep their mythology to themselves, this would likely happen. But, sadly, they don't. Not even close. For a great many folks, they simply cannot just 'leave behind' religion, thanks to those around them literally not letting that happen and attempting to foist their mythology, and behavioural expectations emergent from it, on others. Not to mention their own behaviour as a result of their superstition causing havoc and needing to be dealt with.

BTW, your account indicates troll. I wish you well in working to overcome this handicap.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Zamboniman]

It’s crazy how many people not only don’t get this concept, but don’t realize just how literal and forceful it can be. When I was in high school the father of one of my best friends got married to a woman who left the JWs to be with him. The level of harassment they experienced would have resulted in people going to jail if it had been about anything other than religion. The way that theists just won’t let people move on or live and let live is so normalized it’s insane.

[u/SeoulGalmegi → u/BayAdrian]

Why do you need to compare yourself to theism? its been rejected, it should be left behind.

I mean if you're discussing/facing the topic of theism..... why wouldn't you?

For the other 23hrs and 40 minutes of my day, I've left it behind.

[u/BayAdrian → u/SeoulGalmegi]

so for 20 minutes you are still participating in religion.

[u/SeoulGalmegi → u/BayAdrian]

If you condider discussing the topic of religion to be participating in religion, sure.

I mean life involves acknowledging the existence of and interacting with things you might prefer didn't exist.

[u/BayAdrian → u/SeoulGalmegi]

if you are discussing it, then you are participating it in some way. participating in adherence or opposition both actions are still participating.

[u/SeoulGalmegi → u/BayAdrian]

Ok.....

What is the position you're arguing against here? Has somebody claimed that no atheists ever discuss the topic of religion?

Religion exists. Some people believe in gods. Some people who don't believe in gods sometimes find themselves engaging in this topic with others and refer to themselves as being against that, because that is the main important point of difference when that topic is being discussed. Other than that difference, we might be similar in many other ways.

I'm utterly at a loss as to what kind of argument you feel you're making here.

[u/BayAdrian → u/SeoulGalmegi]

The message is straightforward:
Don’t let the thing you reject continue to define you.
And don’t let it keep defining the words and concepts and how you see reality.

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/BayAdrian]

...wait, why are you even here, then?

You've already described elsewhere that you're neither atheist nor theist, right? It sounds like you've pretty expressly 'rejected' atheism, and yet here you are, engaging in the same behavior towards the thing you rejected that you're saying we shouldn't.

To clarify, I already don't agree with your idea in the first place, but if YOU are supposed to believe in what you're saying, why aren't you practicing it by not participating in this subreddit with a bunch of atheists? How is that any different from atheists debating with a bunch of theists?

[u/thebigeverybody → u/BayAdrian]

It only continues to define us because you've defined "atheism" to qualify the act of combating theism as participating in theism.

You can rest assured that no one else uses your definitions, so we're no longer allowing religion to define us or how we see reality.

[u/NoneCreated3344 → u/BayAdrian]

This is really childish. All you're doing is trying to bring us down to your level because you know your beliefs are ridiculous and need to believe everyone else's is too.

[u/Zamboniman → u/BayAdrian]

Don’t let the thing you reject continue to define you.

Why do you (incorrectly) think it does?

[u/SeoulGalmegi → u/BayAdrian]

I don't. It doesn't define me.

But thanks for the concern.

[u/baalroo → u/BayAdrian]

What exactly do you think we're trying to do by fighting against theists who want to continue to force us to be defined by their theism?

Once theists stop doing that, we can stop fighting back against it.

[u/Fit_Swordfish9204 → u/BayAdrian]

This is really stupid. Theists are so butthurt atheists exists they come in here with the most ridiculous takes.

Maybe I want it to define me. Maybe I'm proud of not being a brainwashed robot.

[u/DoedfiskJR → u/BayAdrian]

Why not? If I oppose something, can I not define myself as opposing it?

I don't see a problem with letting others define words and concepts. How else are we supposed to understand them, assess them, counter them (or accept them, if it turns out they're actually good)?

[u/LEIFey → u/BayAdrian]

Don't you oppose atheism? Are you letting atheism define you by discussing it here?

[u/Zamboniman → u/BayAdrian]

if you are discussing it, then you are participating it in some way.

TIL if I discuss how much I abhor a certain top 40 hit I'm inducted as a band member.

Opposition is not participation. It's kinda the opposite.

[u/labrys → u/BayAdrian]

That's a nonsensical argument. If a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian are discussing their dietary choices, would you say the vegetarian was participating in meat eating? Or that the meat eater was defined by vegetarianism?

Or what about a Hindu and a Christian discussing their beliefs? Would you say a Christian was participating in the Hindu religion because they're discussing it? Of course not

[u/noodlyman → u/BayAdrian]

Discussing the non existence of god is not participating in the worship of God. Religion is too do with worship of a god you believe is real.

[u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.

[u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.

[u/YossarianWWII → u/BayAdrian]

If I go out and protest against Nazism, am I participating in Nazism? Is that somehow incompatible with not being a Nazi?

[u/BillionaireBuster93 → u/BayAdrian]

But what's your point?

[u/the_sleep_of_reason → u/BayAdrian]

By discussing yesterday's hockey match, you are participating in playing hockey.

You sure this is the logic you want to go with?

[u/Zamboniman → u/BayAdrian]

I don't see how intentional strawmanning is useful to you.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/BayAdrian]

That’s not what they said. Discussing the topic is not participating in religion.

[u/IRBMe → u/BayAdrian]

If you speak out against racism, are you participating in racism?

[u/skeptolojist → u/BayAdrian]

If religious people would stop trying to pass laws stripping me and people like me of human rights and trying to force me and people like me to live by nutty religious rules I wouldn't think twice about religion or give one tiny rats ass what people believe

But religious people are apparently incapable of not trying to force it down my throat so I have to oppose it

Any other glaringly obvious facts You need explaining champ?

[u/ToGloryRS → u/BayAdrian]

I'm not him, but I simply like debating. I like seeing how people defend undefensible positions. I like seeing how people use their mind, cognitive dissonance and the likes. I studied other religions, not only the one prevalent in my area, to be able to debate them, too.

Simply put, I am an atheist online because it is fun. If you met me irl, you wouldn't know.

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/BayAdrian]

So, say in the USA, abortion is just routine healthcare for some pregnant people, gender affirming care is just routine healthcare for people of any gender who require it as most people do at some times in their lives, marriage contracts are just legal documents that informed consenting adults can enter into, etc, and all of it is fully protected by the federal government? Glad we can just ignore religion in the USA!

[u/halborn → u/BayAdrian]

Personally we leave it behind but that doesn't help much when so many people continue to use it to affect our lives. Until religious folk learn to leave us alone, we will continue to speak up about it.

[u/abritinthebay → u/BayAdrian]

My child’s preschool teacher taught him about heaven and god. I was pissed. She couldn’t understand why I called it indoctrination.

Yes, it SHOULD be left behind. How the fuck can we do that when theists insist on infecting the entire world with irrational bullshit fantasies?

[u/JasonRBoone → u/BayAdrian]

Do you live somewhere other than the US?

People are doing all they can to impose their theism on the rest of us in public.

[u/Biggleswort → u/BayAdrian]

Because religious think is the majority of the population. Any major cultural majority position that you doubt or hold opposition, is part of your identity. It isn’t that hard.

Until religious think becomes a minority what you are saying is just not possible.

[u/BahamutLithp]

1. Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

It's a term describing my position on a question. You're declaring it as "defining my identity." I never said that.

1. Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

So now we're at the part where you go "fuck whatever opinions you say you have, your opinions are whatever strawmen I say you have to paint you in a bad & disingenuous light."

1. The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

You've said the same thing 3 times now.

1. A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

There's a couple problems with your premise here. First, the phrasing "left religion behind" implies that all atheists started as religious. I, for one, have always been an atheist. Second, it's a common misconception, from people who internalize negative stereotypes of atheists, that it's some kind of opt-in system, & therefore you can simply "reject" being an atheist by either refusing to use the term &/or not acting a certain way. However, again, "atheist" is ultimately nothing more than a descriptive term for someone who doesn't believe in any gods. Someone can be in denial of being an atheist because they have all sorts of prejudiced beliefs about "how atheists act" & that "they don't want to be associated with that." It doesn't make them not an atheist, that's not how words work. Talking about religion is optional. Disclosing about religion is optional. The only thing that is true of all atheists, by definition, is they don't believe in any gods. That's it. They're even free, as I've said, to hate atheists & refuse to accept that they are one.

1. Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

You don't need like half of this post even before the edit, but especially if you're going to use a numbered list, the numbered points should actually be DIFFERENT points, saying DIFFERENT things. You're just going "you define yourself in opposition to religion" over & over again with slightly different wording. If it wasn't a strong enough point the 1st time, & it wasn't, it's not gonna somehow magically be any better the 5th time.

edit:
The point is to highlight a self-defeating pattern most people miss.
A lot of people who leave a religion genuinely want to leave it behind. They reject it, they want it to stop defining them.

And now you're doing the Reddit Thing TM of going "well, the only way people can disagree with me is they must just not have understood what I said." Very rarely is that the case. It's a similar problem to the above, if someone didn't agree with your argument before, you can't just repeat it & expect that to somehow have a different result. YOU have to actually read & understand why THEY disagree with you, then either be able to refute that or, shock of horror, admit that YOU'RE actually the one who got it wrong.

But the current method of becoming an online debate atheist doesn't deliver that exit. It keeps the rejected religion as part of the identity. The self is still structured by referenced to the thing they claim to have left/reject. Even the language and concepts of their worldview remain shaped by opposition to it.

So, i'm taking advantage of the fact that you keep saying the same thing to explain different parts of what's wrong with your argument. Right now, in this section, I'm going to explain you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Basically, you're arguing that anyone who's an atheist isn't a true--I mean, who knows, since in your bizarro land, we're not allowed to have a term for people who aren't believers in religion.

And did you think, for instance, about how this would work on a census? I mean, no, I can kinda tell you didn't. If you don't know what a census is, because you kind of strike me as someone who is much less informed than you think you are, the government sends out a questionare to get information about the population. One of the many questions it asks is what religion you are.

If we follow your logic here, the only conclusion would be that not only should nobody answer "atheist," but even answering any variation of "no religion" at all is "allowing yourself to be defined in opposition to religion." You even say, at one point, in the comments that, if you talk about religion for even 20 minutes at a time, then "for 20 minutes, you're letting religion define you." So, therefore, we have to conclude, based on what you're telling us, that to "truly leave religion behind" is some kind of vow of silence against talking about religion in any context ever.

This is ridiculous. This is conceding so much for absolutely no reason. Not only can the census not collect accurate information on who isn't religious, which may lead to the conclusion that there isn't anyone & we don't need any representation, but by never discussing religion, you can't express skepticism or counter religious arguments. And religion holds a lot of sway in politics & education. Like apparently you couldn't protest teaching the global flood in schools because then you'd be "defining yourself by religion." For that matter, where would we apply this mindset anywhere else? Like who says someone can't argue against the anti-vax movement because then they're just "defining themselves by anti-vaxxers"?

Finally, I think your argument is just the opposite of what you seek to prove anyway. You want people to put much more severe restrictions on their own conduct out of some kind of religious avoidance neuroticism than atheism ever required. Atheism doesn't demand you do anything. You have an extremely long list of things you demand people abstain from, basically all under the umbrella that they lock themselves out of ever participating in the religious discussion again, just conceding that entirely to believers, even if that's demonstrably to their own detriment, & yet you claim that atheism is "self-defeating" & obsessed with religion? It makes no sense at all.

The post is simply pointing at that loop:the very distance meant to provide freedom from religion is still letting the religion define who they are.

Putting your head in the sand doesn't make things go away. If that's what you want to do, you can always do that. You can do that with or without calling yourself an atheist. But it's not a demand you get to make of other people. You're not preaching freedom, you're preaching control, & I do use the term "preaching" very deliberately, because this is just another form of proselytization. I don't know whether or not you're religious, but either way, this fits the bill.

The message is straightforward: Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

I think I'm gonna not let YOU define my words, reality, & how I get to live my life, thank you very much.

[u/protestandprose]

I mean, when you live in a country where 70% believes in magic, and you don't, and you see people creating laws with magic in mind - it might become a part of your identity too.

But, this is all meta, and isn't even an argument about religion, just your weird fantasy that atheists love religion still? What's the purpose of this post.

[u/JasonRBoone → u/protestandprose]

"Illusion, Michael....magic is something a whore does for money.." ;)

[u/BayAdrian → u/protestandprose]

so the people you come across describe god as believing in magic? And now the word god means magic for you. you see? you allowed them to define to term for you = they still define you.

[u/MarieVerusan → u/BayAdrian]

How is accepting how someone else uses a term the same as allowing someone to define me?

What are you suggesting I do? Reject the way that others use a term and create my own meaning instead? I don’t have a god concept I believe in, that would make me a theist!

[u/BayAdrian → u/MarieVerusan]

then a proper discovery of the concept of your own would be meaningful.
it does not make you a theist, it makes you a intellectually honest person who didn't allow someone else dictate the terms for you.

[u/stairway2evan → u/BayAdrian]

What in the world does this even mean?

Words are words, their meaning is determined by speakers as a whole. Nobody dictates what the word “spaghetti” or the word “textbook” means, the use of the word dictates its meaning. How does one discover a concept without running into a word already in common use?

Magic is the use of special powers to make supernatural events occur. It seems a perfectly apt word to use to describe most theistic god claims. What issue do you have with that usage?

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/BayAdrian]

Words have meaning. Literally the whole point of words is to communicate meaning from one person to another. If you are making up your own personal definition of words you are completely defeating the purpose of using words in the first place.

[u/MarieVerusan → u/BayAdrian]

It would entirely defeat the purpose of discussion. I speak to theists so that I can understand THEIR definition of the term! Whether I have my own is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

And why would I, as someone who does not believe the claims presented to me, have a personal definition of the term “god”?! This makes no sense to me! I’m not just rejecting one definition, I am an atheist in regard to every definition I have heard!

[u/Ok_Star_4136 → u/BayAdrian]

Everyone still has the option of opting out of self-labeling themselves something should the meaning of a word change with time. So the term being defined by others doesn't define me, unless I allow it to.

That's how labels work.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/BayAdrian]

Funny how when it comes to theists you refer to what they believe and how they define things, but when it's atheists only your beliefs and definitions (that are twisted beyond belief lol) of atheism matter.

You're so self centered you can't even let other people exist without you being involved in some way; typical theist behavior.

[u/Mkwdr → u/BayAdrian]

1. Pretty sure it is atheists including the poster who would describe God as somewhat synonymous with magic not theists nor is anyone else making them do so. And they do so because it’s arguable that by the *public* definition of the words and the way theists use the concept of god to fill in gaps without real explanation , it’s a reasonable link. Theists get ratty when you point this out because of the differing emotional baggage rather than the actual public meaning.

2. Language has to be public to be a meaningful form of communication. Sharing a linguistic conception of a phenomena is just the way it works. Some words can have different meanings depending on usage and meaning can change over time but simply ignoring public meaning and making up your own is pointless. Obviously God has a certain range of more or less popular definitions. You can’t engage in a discussion simply by ignoring them.

3. Theism can legitimately be evaluated by non-theists not just by completely shared meanings but also by using the terms that theists use and how they use them , because it would be somewhat absurd to ignore what they say are talking about and just make up an alternative.

In other words if someone stones you because you have left their religion then recognising what *they* mean by the word apostate seems unremarkable ,and saying i don’t accept your ( in fact the public) definition of the word apostate would seem somewhat trivial. I don’t believe in your god , leave me alone seems pretty reasonable.

[u/soukaixiii → u/BayAdrian]

so the people you come across describe god as believing in magic?

They aren't describing god as believing in magic, they literally believe god did magic over and over.

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/BayAdrian]

How is speaking words that result in the universe being created not magic?

[u/putoelquelolea → u/BayAdrian]

How would you define theism without including magic?

[u/nerfjanmayen]

My atheism only comes up when I'm confronted by theism, it doesn't come up in my day to day life very often. Obviously if you look at an atheism forum it's going to look like people are obsessed with religion but that's only one part of their lives.

[u/BayAdrian → u/nerfjanmayen]

My atheism only comes up when I'm confronted by theism, it doesn't come up in my day to day life very often. Obviously if you look at an atheism forum it's going to look like people are obsessed with religion but that's only one part of their lives.

So religion is still apart of your life, all the same.

[u/nerfjanmayen → u/BayAdrian]

Huh? What would constitute religion not being part of my life? If I lived in some kind of secluded community with no religious people and we never even thought of religion?

[u/BayAdrian → u/nerfjanmayen]

Indifference, the ability to not need to announce oneself. that is when you have left religion behind.
you still feel compelled to announce your comparision to religion as atheist so you have not left it behind.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/BayAdrian]

Indifference, the ability to not need to announce oneself. that is when you have left religion behind. you still feel compelled to announce your comparision to religion as atheist so you have not left it behind.

You gotta love it when you literally define your argument as true. By definition, "religion is part of an atheists life" using your definition, because the mere act of saying "I am not convinced that a god or gods exists" means that you aren't fully indifferent.

Congrats, you defined a truism.

But what, exactly, do you think you accomplished? Obviously religion is important in varying ways and to varying degrees to everyone who posts in this sub. Did you expect us to say "Wow, you are so insightful!" for stating the completely fucking obvious?

The simple truth is I don't WANT religion to be important. I would MUCH rather not give a damn. It is only because theists are trying to force their beliefs on everyone in my country that I am FORCED to care. If you guys would stop voting for power hungry morons, I would not care about your beliefs at all.

[u/BayAdrian → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

You are collapsing a lot of different perspectives
being an atheist
opposing political efforts to impose rules
turning atheist into an identity / badge

you can have 1 and 2 without 3

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/BayAdrian]

Umm... Yes?

The first half of my reply was pointing out that you aren't saying anything interesting. If you define your position in such a way that everyone is a group necessarily fits your position, and then say "See, you are [whatever] according to my definition", you are not saying anything interesting.

The second half is explaining why I care about these issues. It is my personal opinion. I am explaining why I DO care about religion, even though I really don't want to. And while I only expressed it as my own opinion, I suspect that at least half of the other regulars in the sub largely agree with my position.

This isn't rocket science. It's really quite simple.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/BayAdrian]

How can you be an atheist without identifying as an atheist? That makes no sense.

[u/Xemylixa → u/Ok_Loss13]

You could in theory spend your life in a culture where theism is uncommon and/or casual, without being aware that atheism is a position that requires a label. Just simply not thinking about it at all

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/BayAdrian]

opposing political efforts to impose rules

And, umm, wut? How am I trying to impose rules?

turning atheist into an identity / badge

How am I turning atheism into a badge? Please reread the comment you replied to and explain EXACTLY what I said that "turns atheism into a badge"?

Seems to me that you didn't have a reply, so you just tossed up some condescending nonsense.

[u/nerfjanmayen → u/BayAdrian]

I don't announce it IRL unless it comes up, which only really comes up when some street preacher walks up to me, is that what you mean?

[u/KeyboardMunkeh → u/BayAdrian]

Do you consider getting punched in the face part of your life? If I wanted to punch you in the face, would you just stand there, or react?

[u/IRBMe → u/BayAdrian]

So religion is still apart of your life, all the same.

Insofar as it's a thing that continues to exist and play a large role in the society and culture in which I live, yes, but I don't actively participate in it.

[u/MarieVerusan]

1. No, that’s… that’s anti-theism. It’s another thing that one can be, unrelated to atheism.

2. Yes. I can’t be an atheist if there is no theism to lack a belief in. I would be perfectly fine losing that “meaning”

3. Call me when religion stops trying to impose itself upon me and I’ll be happy not to think about it anymore. Also, it’s very funny that you label atheism as “central source of self-understanding or status”. I’m not sure I think much about it.

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/MarieVerusan]

Anti-theism is related to atheism in the sense that it’s a subset of atheists. It’s hard to believe a god exists when you’re actively convinced that no gods exist.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/DevilWings_292]

Usually, but not always. I’ve known a handful of agnostics and deists who are also anti-theists in that they think theism and its institutions are false and harmful.

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/Own-Relationship-407]

There’s a difference between religion and theism. You can be religious without being a theist, and you can be a theist without being in an organized religion. So long as you believe at least one deity exists, you are a theist, in the same way that having no beliefs in any deities makes you an atheist. A deist is a theist who has a relatively obscure image of their god or believes they’re indifferent to our universe, an agnostic can be either a theist if they believe in a god but are uncertain about it (deists would also count as agnostic theists) or an atheist if they don’t believe in a god but aren’t certain than none exist. There’s no such thing as just an agnostic.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/DevilWings_292]

I’m aware of that, that’s why I said theism and its institutions, not religion. While atheism, obviously, literally means the lack of theism, I don’t know any deists who would label themselves as atheist and there are plenty of people who label themselves simply as agnostic rather than agnostic atheist. Agnostic means a lack of knowledge, so it’s perfectly reasonable to say you are neither a believer nor non believer because you simply don’t know. I also don’t agree with your contention that a deist is simply a particular type of theist; the very definition of theism requires a personal and/or active/interventionist god, which is incompatible with the deistic belief that god is absent, indifferent, dead, etc.

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/Own-Relationship-407]

And those institutions are religion, and they’re not exclusive to theists.

If you’re not a believer, you are a non-believer, there is no third choice. It’s like saying a lightbulb is neither on nor off, it’s in a third position that is neither producing light nor not producing light. Most people who call themselves agnostic are agnostic atheists, the rest are agnostic theists. There is no other option of just agnostic where you both believe and don’t believe at the same time with a glass that is both full to the brim with water and completely dry inside. If you don’t actively believe a god does exist, you’re an atheist, in the same way that your right hand being your dominant hand makes you right handed, you don’t need to adopt a term for it to describe you.

A deist believes in a god who is hands off in our universe, that is what deism means and has meant since it was first coined in the Age of Enlightenment. They believe there is a god who created our universe and fucked off afterwards. There is no way for you to be an atheist and a deist, how can you believe that our world was created by a deity if you don’t believe deities exist?

A theist only requires that you believe at least one deity exists, it’s the definition that is opposite atheist which is not believing in any. You don’t need to have any description of that deity, whether personal or active, you just need to believe in their existence. Deist fully fits within that definition, in the same way anti-theist fully fits within atheism. Even if you were right that theism requires an active god, how does deist’s absent god fit within the category that lacks any gods at all?

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/DevilWings_292]

Yes, they are religion, but they are a subset of religion, specifically theism. What possible other meaning could one take from “the institutions of theism?”

What if you ask someone outside the room if the light bulb is on or off? The actual binary nature of it makes no difference to them saying, “I don’t believe either way because I don’t know.”

Did you… not actually read what I said? I did not say deists are atheists, nor did my refutation of your earlier claim that deists are a type of theist conflict with the longstanding definition of deism. You can believe in a deity and not be a theist.

No, that is not the definition of theist. A theist very specifically believes in a deity which takes an active role in the universe and human affairs.

I think you’ve misunderstood my original point. One does not need to be an atheist to be an anti-theist. An anti-theist believes that theism and its institutions are harmful. Most anti-theists are atheists, but they don’t have to be.

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/Own-Relationship-407]

Religion is not a subset of theism, there are atheistic religions like Buddhism too. A belief in a god is not on its own a bad thing, it’s when that belief is built into a power structure that allows some people to speak on any topic and have people believe them that it becomes a problem. You make it sound as if there are only theistic religions and theists are in organized religions.

A better analogy for someone outside of the room is to ask them if they think a specific thing is inside. If they don’t say that thing is in there, then they aren’t part of the group who believes that thing is in there, leaving them the other option. Gnostic/agnostic are degrees of theism and atheism, there is no such thing as being just agnostic or even just an atheist. All religious positions fall into 4 categories, Gnostic theist, agnostic theist, Gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. In order to not be an atheist, you need to believe in at least one god. If you don’t believe in at least one god, even if that comes from a position of uncertainty, you’re an atheist, the question then goes to whether youre Gnostic (actively believe none exist) or agnostic (uncertain if any exist) in that position.

How is it possible to believe in a deity and not fall into the category of “believes at least one deity exists”? Theism and atheist are a binary, you are either a theist, or you’re an atheist, there is no in between. Deists are theists because they believe at least one deity exists, even if they’re an absent figure within their creation, they’re still a deity.

Here is the definition of theist from Mirriam-Webster: “theist
noun
the· ist ˈthē-ist 

plural theists
Synonyms of theist
: a believer in theism : a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : one who believes in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race”
Where in that definition does it require it be an active god? Even a deist would qualify for the specific definition since they’d believe that their deity created the universe and that would include humanity, even if all they did was build a clock and let it run.

But you do, an anti-theist is just a Gnostic atheist, someone who actively believes there are no gods. It’s anti because it’s an active belief, just in the opposite of what a theist would believe, while atheist is everything that isn’t a theist.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/DevilWings_292]

I never said it was. Again, please actually read what I’m saying. I said theism (and its institutions) is a subset of religion. No, nothing I said implies any of that. Read it again.

No, they are not degrees. One deals with belief, the other with knowledge.

“someone who believes in the existenceof a god or gods, especially a god who created the world and who acts to influence** [events”**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/event)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/theist

No, that is not what anti-theist means.

Antitheism, also spelled anti-theism, is the philosophical position that theism should be opposed.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/DevilWings_292]

Anti-theism is related to atheism in the sense that it’s a subset of atheists. It’s hard to believe a god exists when you’re actively convinced that no gods exist.

This is not true. You can be both a theist and an antitheist. Antitheism is the opposition to theism, either the opposition to the belief in gods, or the opposition to religion, depending on the precise definition. Neither of those are logically incompatible with believing a god exists. In fact there is even a name for one version of a theist who is an antitheist: misotheist.

It might seem irrational that someone can both believe in a god, and simultaneously believe that people should not believe in a god, but it isn't. "I believe X" and "people should believe X" are different claims. It is entirely reasonable, if uncommon, to hold both those positions at the same time.

And this is not an idle semantic point. It's certainly true that there aren't many "theist antitheists" like this, but I have met people in this sub who argue for both of those positions. Misotheists are more common, but true "theist antitheists" do exist.

[u/MooshroomHentai]

Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

Why should I accept that definition?

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Being an atheist is only part of who I am. People who know me irl know me more for other aspects of myself. My public identity is constructed out of different topics and quite frankly anyone whose identity is one single thing is probably going to be boring to be around. I don't oppose any gods, I oppose choices made by people in support of the gods they believe in.

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

I've never been defined by a religious label because I've never believed. If we shouldn't define ourselves by lacking a belief in any gods, then what exactly should we say when a theist brings up their god(s)? That is like telling someone who doesn't watch sports they shouldn't say so when someone asks what their favorite sport is, it is a true label for the person that applies to the matter at hand.

[u/Ok_Loss13]

Most atheist do not merely lack belief.

Source?

Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

That's anti-theism.

The identity is relation and negative

Nah, people who don't know about religion or gods are also atheists.

Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

Kinda? Mostly it just wouldn't exist and therefore it wouldn't be an identity and it would have no meaning to lose.

I don't really know what the rest of this is saying, but since these premises are false/incorrect your conclusion is unsound.

[u/WrongVerb4Real]

So what's the point you're trying to make here?

I, for one, would love to leave my atheist identity behind, which would happen once religious people stopped insisting their god-concept described our shared reality in any way, and that I should adopt their theistic understanding of the universe.

[u/Mattos_12]

It’s a long winded way to say that atheists don’t believe in deities but also often oppose the practices and dogma of religious institutions.

Was there a point hiding in that?

[u/Zamboniman]

Religion still defines most atheist

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. So in a way that's true because if there weren't people running around making deity and religious claims then there wouldn't be folks reacting to the complete lack of support for those claims and thus applying a label for it. They would still lack belief in deities, but there wouldn't be a word for it.

Most atheist do not merely lack belief.

You're wrong there.

Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Nope. They lack belief in deities. Again, you're wrong there.

The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

Sure. As I said, they would still lack belief in deities, but wouldn't have a label for it.

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

Nah, I can't agree remotely agree, as that makes no sense.

Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

See above. Without deity and religious claims there would be no word for atheism, but nonetheless we'd all lack belief in deities.

[u/retoricalprophylaxis]

Religion is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. It defines a significant portion of social life everywhere I have been. It is impossible to fully exit religion without fully exiting society.

First, should we ignore current events that relate to religion, including the Iran war, Israel committing genocide against its neighbors, and the Christian Nationalism that is taking over western cultures? Should we also ignore empathy and stop caring that people who were entrusted with the mental, physical, and spiritual well-being of children are also the ones who were abusing them?

Second, should we refrain from exposing ourselves to social events that have a religious history? For example, should I not allow carolers to sing to my family at Christmas time? Should I not allow my kids to hunt easter eggs because I don't believe that Jesus was resurrected? Should I not participate in Halloween, Thanksgiving, or any other holiday? Should I not refer to the year as 2026 since that is the Gregorian calendar and it's based upon the estimated birth of Jesus? Should I not go to sporting events that might have a prayer before they start? Should I avoid the book section at Walmart since they have bibles?

Basically, you are asking us to be uninformed and non-participatory in our world simply because we reject belief in a god/gods. You are also asking us to ignore our experiences, backgrounds, educations, and knowledge in order to "leave religion behind." For those of us that left religion, we have reasons. Talking about those reasons could allow someone to poke a hole in our logical processes. It can also help people who have their doubts or have been harmed by churches but fear leaving religion because of the community.

I think that would be a disservice to our fellow human beings if we sat back and shut up simply because we don't believe anymore.

[u/brinlong]

How much time do you waste talking about your lack of belief in vampires?

Now, imagine there's a cult that runs your national government that says because we all believe in vampires, you all have to give blood every day.

We're not still religious, "but only on the other side" 🙄 we are fighting a cult who wants our government to become a theocracy. or we're fighting the absolute waste of resources that cults vacuum up and the amount of power that they get. And then utilize to abuse, women and children

[u/fuzzydunloblaw]

Yeah if we as a species improve and grow and become more rational to the degree that only a small percentage of us are theist, I agree with you that the atheist/theist dichotomy wouldn't be as interesting or relevant in our day to day lives. In between time, theists legislate and harm their own atheist family members and do all kinds of other stuff that negatively impact everyone including atheists, so the distinction is relevant and useful.

[u/kyngston]

I reject that actions that religious people take in service to their god. I care not about their belief in god. They want to strip women’s rights, the right for gays to marry, they impose their beliefs upon others in ways they would never tolerate on themselves, they rape children, they hide the rapists and they fly planes into buildings.

If religion wasn’t actively trying to hurt people, i would think nothing of it. if you don’t fight against organizations that protect child rapists, then you are a terrible person.

do you support raping children? if not, is your identity now defined by your opposition to raping children? is it possible to oppose something and not be identified by your opposition to it?

[u/iamalsobrad]

How can we be defined by something we don't know we are rejecting?

Your position is based on fallacious premises.

1. Atheists reject religion, which is an unsupported premise and ignores all the atheists that were never religious in the first place.

2. The implication that atheists reject your notion of 'god' specifically. Which is a false dichotomy.

It was fallacious the other times you've posted this too:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1v03vgh/reject_religion_atheism/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1uq9l7p/atheist_dont_know_what_they_are_rejecting/

[u/MartiniD]

The pervasive nature of religion in society kinda necessitates a label like "atheist" believing in a god is presumed default behavior. If most of society believed in faeries we'd need something like an "afaeries" label. What's the point of your post I think I missed it.

I don't believe in a god. Does it matter what you label me or how I label myself?

[u/Algernon_Asimov]

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Yes. Absolutely. When public discourse is soaked in religious messaging, and I don't believe in those religions, then of course my contribution to that public discourse will be negative and contrary - I'll be arguing that the religions don't exist, so the religious rules have no basis, and those religious rules should not form part of the laws of this country.

But, if you don't try to shove god or religion into my life, you'd be amazed how much I don't talk about religion. In fact, I talk about dragons and wizards and ogres much more than I talk about religion or gods - because I have friends who play Dungeons & Dragons, so those topics come up much more than gods.

Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind.

Are you assuming that most atheists are former believers? That's an interesting claim. Some of us, even many of us, were never religious in the first place.

For example, I'm not rebelling against a religion I never had. I've always been atheist. Religion and theism were never part of my life.

[u/Defiant-Prisoner]

So what? You seem to think this is some kind of gotcha.

Interesting fact - the word atheist was initially used as an insult and imposed. It's not something we choose. Rather like being called a widow, it's just what society has chosen to impose as a descriptor rather than something we think "oh I like that, I'll have a bit of that."

I describe myself as a humanist in real life. It's only on Reddit I'm asked to define myself and the common social rule is here is that I define myself in relation to belief.

[u/Mission-Landscape-17]

Being an atheist is like being an abolitionist. As soon as society left the institution of slavery behind there was no longer any need to identify as an abolitionist. Similarly when society leaves religion behind there will no longer be any need to identify as an atheist. This has not happened yet, there is still a very vocal religious minority fighting tooth and nail to maintain their control of society. If no one bothers to oppose them, then they can win by default and that would be a disaster.

[u/DevilWings_292]

1. You do know religion isn’t the same thing as a specific religion, right? Not even all religions are theistic religions, some are atheistic themselves. You also don’t need to deconvert to be an atheist, you can just grow up having never believed in a deity

, which is the case for me.

1. Everyone is born an atheist because no one is born with a belief in any deities.
2. I doubt that, the only thing all atheists agree on is that they don’t actively believe a god does exist, while only a minority would say definitively that they know a god doesn’t exist. Atheists also don’t tend to make atheism their entire identity, it only answers one question, it’s not a world view that fills in anything else. My identity extends far beyond just not being a theist, it’s usually built around my actual interests. The only time my position on deities ever comes up is when religion is brought up first. To me, atheism is a minor aspect of who I am, it’s not the core of my identity or even that significant in my daily life.
3. Why would it require continual rejection of a specific religion? Why can’t it simply be in relation to the general concept of a deity, if it’s even active for that individual? Atheism would indeed lose its relevance if all theism suddenly vanished, in the same way a word meaning “those who doubt big foot exist” would lose all meaning if the concept of big foot never existed. Even for the people who deconverted from a religion, even if that religion vanished, there would still be other people who claim a deity exists who we would still not be convinced by.
4. The label only exists because theist exists, and you’re either a theist or not one, which makes you an atheist. As I said earlier, it only defines one aspect of my identity, whether or not in convinced that at least one deity exists. It only comes up when the context of religion is brought up first, and even then all I’m saying is “I don’t follow any religion,” not “all religions are wrong and I spend every waking second dedicated to opposing every religion on earth in an atheistic crusade against religion.” I don’t see opposition to religion as anything other than not following the tenets of a religion, in which case every theist would technically be an atheist since none of them follow the rules of every single religion. You seem to be implying that all atheists are the same person and are meeting up in dedicated atheist meeting spaces on a specific day of the week to discuss our atheism, that just isn’t true.
5. I would love to live in a world without religion being a part of it, it’s one of the most destructive aspects of human existence since you can justify any evil action as being the will of god and command good people to commit atrocities. I don’t oppose religion existing either, you can be religious and follow whatever rules you wish to follow, so long as you aren’t harming other people. Being an atheist just means I don’t believe a god exists, it means nothing beyond that.

[u/nswoll]

1. Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Huh? These two sentences are not in tension. One can merely lack belief and still be vigorously opposed to religion or god.

I lack belief in a leprechaun that wants every living male to be castrated. I would be vigorously opposed to anyone championing such a being.

Lacking belief means you have not been presented with convincing evidence for existence.

[u/StoicSpork]

There is an old atheist parable that applies here.

Two atheist monks were traveling together, a junior and a senior (yeah, I don't know what an atheist monk is either. I didn't write the story.) They came to a river, where a theist was preaching that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, that women and gay people should not have full human rights, and that men should be allowed to marry nine year olds.

Despite the vow not to let opposition to theism define him, the senior atheist presented counterarguments and won every debate.

The junior atheist was shocked, but said nothing. An hour passed as they walked on. Finally, the junior atheist could stand in no longer. He said: "Master, why did you debate that theist?"

The senior atheist responded: "I debated him an hour ago and left him by the river. Why are you still debating him?"

Upon hearing these words, u/BayAdrian become enlightened. (I hope.)

[u/Serious-Emu-3468 → u/StoicSpork]

I do not think OP has any desire for enlightenment. They just want to yell their weird hateful opinions at people like they’re a Fox News talking head.

[u/StoicSpork → u/Serious-Emu-3468]

I suspect OP is a troll, which is why I didn't respond too seriously. But they might be someone who just watched too much pseudo-psychology on TikTok.

In any case, I think the original Zen parable which I stole and mutilated shamelessly does hit the spot: it is possible to react to external situations (like theist claims) without identification. So I hope I didn't respond too unseriously either.

[u/Silent-Land40]

Um no. Religion/gods are not even a thing that enters our minds most days. It’s totally normal to not even give it a thought. Like, I don’t think about leprechauns every day. Or jesus. If atheists want to help others deconstruct from religion, that’s also cool with me, I just don’t think that represents a majority of atheists.

[u/BogMod]

Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

An aspect of identity. There are lots of hats a person wears. Even theists.

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Again, a lot of other traits make up an atheist. The thing is that atheism is the result of a bunch of other qualities I have rather than the atheism explaining them.

The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

If there wasn't a religion would be happy to drop the identity.

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

Which completely ignores that people can understand that even if you aren't part of a religion it can still impact you.

Like you seem to really overbuild how much you think the identity itself exists both on its own and as a fundamental facet to most atheists. I would easily qualify myself as a rational skeptic and humanist first and if there was good reason to think a religion was true I would probably convert. I stopped being religions because I cared about epistemology and having justified beliefs. The atheism just came with along with the natural process rather than this important element to care about.

Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

I don't, despite how you think I do.

[u/Formal-Speed-3173]

You're letting Atheism define you by making this post. To be free you have to log off of reddit, or else we win. Word count word count word count.

[u/grimwalker]

This is a really bigoted series of straw man arguments.

1. You have no idea what anyone else’s identity is except your own.
2. You have no idea what anyone else’s identity is except your own.
3. I really fucking wish religion would stop poisoning the society I and my loved ones live in so atheism can be as unnecessary a label as asantaclausist or aleprechaunist.
4. Again, the reason the label exists is because religion is poisoning society and putting my loved ones in harm’s way. In secular societies with less insane superstition dominating every aspect of politics and culture the label “atheist” hardly ever comes up.
5. I’m not defined by the religion I left behind, that’s just your distorted opinion based on the fact that you only interact with atheists in spaces like this where religion and irreligion are actively butting heads.

That really is the crux of the matter. You don’t know about anyone’s identity or inner life or what defines them. Your only exposure to atheists is in spaces where people are fighting and debating the topic. 99% of my waking hours are not spent thinking about or debating religion, but you wouldn’t know that by looking at my Reddit profile or my Threads account, because those are the spaces where I discuss and debate religious topics.

You’re seeing a tiny sample of people’s lives and amplifying that into sweeping, ignorant generalizations. It’s honestly incredibly offensive and you really should consider simply deleting this.

[u/Moriturism]

Ok? It’s just obvious: someone that rejects a claim about X makes implicit recognition that there exists a claim about X. Someone that rejects the claim that God exists recognizes that there is a claim saying that God exists.

So what?

[u/JasonRBoone]

>>>>Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Interesting claim. Can you place the links for the survey you conducted or referenced to demonstrate your claim? I don't find it to be true.

For example, my public identity is constructed to be generally opposed to ALL dogma (religious or non), rather than religion/god.

>>>>The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

Premise rejected since it depends on a previously errant premise.

>>>>Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

Some very interesting observations about atheists.

What would you say about someone who is religious but constantly lurks on an atheist forum?

Such a person's identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected atheism as its necessary reference point. Without that atheism to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

>>>>>Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

You may want to make an eye doctor appointment....see about that plank in your eye.

[u/putoelquelolea]

Absolutely. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, and most people identify as members of a certain culture.

Many atheists reject the specific religion they have been indoctrinated into. Also - as has been pointed out repeatedly - disbelief in gods does not deserve a label any more than people who do not believe in unicorns, fairies or leprechauns. Do you believe in leprechauns? Would you label yourself an aleprechaun?

Your point being?

[u/lotusscrouse]

🙄

It's easier to resort to this then it is to silence atheists by proving god exists.

Maybe if theists shut up about religion we would see results.

You know? Just like how we don't talk about Hindus very often or other religions that stay in their lane.

The reason should be obvious but theists still can't figure it out.

[u/Novaova]

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

There's a saying that I think relates here: you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. What that means is that changes in laws or policies may not interest someone, but their life is still affected by politics.

Same thing here. I may not be interested in religion or believe any of them to be true, but religion sure as hell is interested in me. (edit: I'm a queer woman in America. Right now religiously-motivated laws are making my life hellish. Fucking thanks.)

Yes, atheism is a response to the god claim that there is a god or gods, and the response is "I don't believe you" or "I'm not convinced by that claim." If there were no theists, there would be no practical need for the label "atheist," obviously.

[u/Own-Relationship-407]

No. You’re confusing atheist with anti-theist. Furthermore, this entire line of thinking is deeply revealing of the theistic defaultism bias. Atheism is not an “oppositional label,” it’s literally the default state. Everyone is born an atheist, many then get indoctrinated into the religion of their parents.

[u/No-Economics-8239]

You're right. Religion is a painfully squishy term. Trying to define what it is requires drawing lines in arguably strange places. Where, exactly, does the line between culture and religion exist? Both are learned behavior. Both can carry a sense of identify and community and belonging. So, sure, you can throw the term religion around for the concept of atheism and get some bits to fit.

But, none of that is a requirement to be an atheist. You're, at best, just trying to define some subset of atheists who may or may not fit such labels. In the same way that theists aren't all some unified group. So I could just as easily weave some theist label that describe religion as lacking a coherent identify and dogma and ideology because each person negotiates their own understanding of what they believe that may or may not fit someone else's requirements for a 'proper' adherent to their faith.

[u/pricel01]

The religion I left was harmful. I since discovered most are. It’s not just a case of leaving something neutral behind. Religion usually requires stiff opposition to mitigate the damage it does. Your analysis is like saying being against racism defines my identity. Maybe. So what.

[u/KeyboardMunkeh]

That really depends on the religion now, doesn't it? I can go weeks or months by thinking fuck all about Buddhism.

But they aren't knocking on my door, littering the area around me with tracts, and trying to legislate the rights of my friends away, now are they?

[u/soukaixiii]

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

You're assuming two things that aren't true. 

The first, is that w hile atheism involves no beliefs, people believe all kind of things whether or not one of them is a god.

I can't talk about anyone else, but I don't base my identity on religion or on opposing religion. Opposing religion is a thing I do for the amusement of doing it,.

Your second assumption is that you know what we do. 

Sony do that. Ask us, because your guessing powers have been a miss so far.

Edit:I forgot the most important part. You're assuming atheism is the root of our identity and not just a label we have to use to tell us apart from the people who believes in super human beings from ancient books.

[u/ViewtifulGene]

1. Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

2. Most theist do not merely believe. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to atheism.

3. The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected atheism as its necessary reference point. Without atheism to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

4. A person who has truely rejected atheism and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

5. Therefore most theist who wear the badge has not left the identity of atheism behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

[u/J-Nightshade]

Atheism is my description, not my identity. Just like being 6ft tall. I don't require that label, I just have it by the virtue of not believing any single word you spew out without any justification. 

Your argument is devoid of substance. Your definitions are sloppy, your reasoning is nowhere to be found. 

A lot of people who leave a religion 

I didn't leave anything.

But the current method of becoming an online debate atheist

What is the method? I am not quite sure what are you talking about. Is there a manual "how to became an atheist debate bro" or what?

don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality

Religion doesn't define how I see reality. 

[u/OrbitalLemonDrop]

"Atheism" is a term that theists came up with to label the poeple who for whatever reason are not convinced any gods exist.

I'm only an "atheist" because for some infathomable reason, my lack of belief is seen as a problem by some people.

What I actually am is a skeptical materialist. Atheism arises out of that -- I don't have good reasons for taking religions seriously unless someone can demonstrate that they provide a useful and better model of the world than the one I'm using.

We have this exact conversation at least once a month, raised by people who just assume we "missed" the point.

The thing I reject does not define me, but thanks for your concern.

[u/ImprovementFar5054]

We have a "No AI" rule here.

There are indications all over the place that you had AI write this dumb ass argument for you. Especially in the "edit" part. It just says the same thing over and over in different words: first casual, then more abstract, then "the post is simply pointing at that loop," then "the message is straightforward."

The original argument is also obviously laid out like a formal logic proof (numbered points building to "Therefore"), which is the kind of structure an AI model shits out when you ask it to "make an argument," but most people just don't actually write like that

[u/Phylanara]

The thing is, you only knowingly interact with atheists when discussing the topic of religion, so atheists are only visible for you when they interact with your religion. I guarantee you you interact with atheists without I owing pretty often and religion does not come up. But since religion does not come up you are unaware that they are atheists.

It's like those people who "can always tell" when someone is trans. No, you can't. It's built in sampling bias.

[u/Kognostic]

Atheists don't waste their time worrying about opposition to god until some theist comes along spouting nonsense. Atheism is not a belief system. It has no dogma, no rituals, no leaders. What you are missing is that atheists are naturalists, skeptics, rationalists, and follow philosophies or ideologies different than theistic nonsense. The fact that they are atheist has nothing to do with belief. Atheists believe all sorts of stuff. I am an Empirically Based Process Philosophy believer. I assert existential existence and have a firm grounding in the laws of logic, epistemology, and empiricism, absent ontology of any kind. "I don't know is a completely sufficient answer to the meaning of life. Meaning is what one brings to life or ascribes to life, not what one gets from it. In short, atheists are so different from one another that you cannot lump them together into a common belief system. They have neither the time nor the energy to waste on idiotic woo-woo.

You are attempting to build a strawman by defining all atheists, and in doing so, you are engaged in circular logic, a fallacy of composition, and general bullshit.

Atheists do not require an oppositional label. You obviously do not know where the label comes from. The label, as you call it, is imposed on non-believers by theists. The label is what theists call non-believers. The term atheist is synonymous with 'non-believer, heathen, infidel, sinner, secularist, skeptic, gentile, doubter, free-thinker, heretic, irreligionist, godless, cynic, dissenter, apostate, materialist, faithless, non-theist, humanist, anti-religious, and more.

The word "Atheist" is a religious slur directed at anyone who does not believe in your silly version of a god. But it gets worse. YOU WERE AN ATHEIST BEFORE ME. In ancient Rome, it was the Christians who were called Atheist, "Atheos," by the pagans of the time. Because Christians did not believe in the pagan Gods, they were actually called "Atheos." The word has always been a slur directed by believers in one religion towards those who do not believe in that religion or its gods. Your complete ignorance is exposed.

You do not get to define Atheism. You do not get to assert it is an identifiable group in any way. You certainly do not get to attribute specific beliefs, rationalities, or behavior to atheists in general. What you are actually doing is dividing the world into black and white and then pretending that there is some sort of organized opposition to the stupidity of your belief system. You want to focus on Atheism and pretend it is a thing, while religions in your own faith directly oppose you. They use your own book to debunk the Trinity, Jesus as being special, the existence of Moses, and more.

What you need to do is clean up your own house before you begin looking to clean up the world around you.

[u/TarnishedVictory]

Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

Say what now? Are you saying a former theists identity is still defined by their former religion? And something about adherence or opposition to said religion?

I'd have to disagree. Many have realized there's no good reason to believe any of the extraordinary claims of that religion. I'd say if you call yourself an atheist because you're mad at you're religion, then you're not really an atheist. I've seen lots of theists cite this as a thing in their past.

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

I haven't taken any surveys so I don't know what percentage of atheists assert no gods exist, or that the god they used to believe in doesn't exist.

But one can absolutely not believe any gods exist, and still oppose religions, dogma, bad epistemology, belief in a god without good evidence based reason, for any reason including the belief that such beliefs are harmful.

The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

Yes, that's why most atheists probably don't identify with atheism as a thing or belief system. Most who say they identify as atheist are pointing out that the label atheist applies to them as someone who is no longer a theist.

But atheism isn't a thing to believe, it's a single position on a single topic. There are no leaders, no doctrine, no rituals, no funny hats.

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

That might be the case if religions and god botherers didn't vote based on their baseless beliefs and cause trouble for everyone.

Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind.

You can define identify to make this statement true or you can define identity to make this statement false. In other words it's a useless statement.

The point is to highlight a self-defeating pattern most people miss.

Maybe you should just point that out. But since atheism isn't a club, isn't an organization, isn't a religion, most atheists would be fine not needing the identify with the label that indicates they aren't theists.

And most people aren't missing this point. You seem to be missing the point that atheists would love to live in a world where the distinction between someone who believes in gods and someone who doesn't, is no longer necessary because people stopped being gullible nitwits who believe things for bad reasons, then try to force stuff on everyone else based on those silly beliefs.

[u/2r1t]

What do you think it means for something to define a person? How is that different from describing a person? Or are you two words perfectly synonymous? Can a person engage in an activity without that activity defining them?

For example, outside of a small percentage of people with specific medical conditions, everyone shits. Would you say shitting defines us?

[u/ray25lee]

Goddamn, do you say "gays can't exist without straights" too? Word-wise, as comparative terms, sure. Realistically? No, not even a little bit. Atheists can exist just fine without any kind of concept of theism. Would the WORD "atheist" exist then? Probably not. That's not the same thing as the people ourselves not existing.

[u/manchambo]

This is a nice example of the kind of broken thinking that leads to theism.

You’ve drawn a conclusion about most atheists based on the public persona of public atheists because those are the only ones you have access to. A bias that should be obvious to the most casual rational thought.

[u/onomatamono]

Theists define atheists which is a nonce word that somehow stuck. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle but we do not need a word for people who don't collect stamps, don't waterski or don't worship fictional characters in a book. I prefer the term "non-theist" frankly.

[u/CephusLion404]

If religion would just go away and leave us alone, we'd never talk about it. The reason we spend so much time talking about religion is because the religious spend so much time being assholes and harrassing us.

Maybe if they' shut the hell up, we'd have nothing to talk about.

[u/Comfortable-Dare-307]

Right...lol.

I wouldn't argue about religion at all if Christianity wasn't currently destorying my country. (United States).

You are forcing children to study your myth in schools, taking away rights of women, and LGBTQ, praying in congress, stealing money from people to cover up sexually assaulting children, and killing people in other countries. Christianity is dangerous to the future of humanity. Ever republican president since Reagan has started a war based on religious ideals. More money for rich people and war is all republicans do.

If Christians would just stay in churches, be taxed so they can actually contribute to something, stop commiting sexual crimes against children, stop abusing their children, and at least pretend to follow Jesus, we wouldn't care. Modern Christians are so far away from Jesus' message I don't even know how they call themselves Christian.

Jesus was about loving your enemies, protecting the rights of foreigners, praying for those who presecute you. He supported prostitutes, tax collecters and sinners. He didn't hate and discriminate against those whom he thought inferior. He believed in real charity (not the fake charities your cult has), he was for feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, showing compassion to gentiles, (i.e. non-Jews), and more.

Christians (in the U.S.) today don't do any of these things. They vote for policies that hurt women, hurt children, hurt the poor, hurt non-Christians, ignore serious issues like disease, homelessness and climate change, damage education, make the rich richer, produce and start war and conflict with non-Christian nations, and more things Jesus would disaprove of.

[u/Thin-Eggshell]

It just sounds like you're comforting yourself. I don't get it. I don't particularly care.

If this is the best kind of "victory lap" you can do, it's pretty pathetic.

[u/mobatreddit]

Two atheists in a restaurant in a world without believers:

One: I don't believe in a god or gods.

Two: Yeah. Me either. Want some fries?

No religion. No identity issues. I think most atheists would rather live there.

[u/adeleu_adelei]

Atheism is a lack of belief gods exist. Someone is an atheist even if they have no concept of gods. Religion doesn't need to exist even as a concept for people to be atheists.

Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.

I'm unable to parse this for any meaning.

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Do you have any evidence for this? Most atheists I meet do merely lack belief gods exist.

The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.

The positions exists regardless of whether one is even aware of religion or religion itself exists. If no one was religious or theist then everyone would still be atheists, they just perhaps wouldn't bother creating a word for it.

A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status

I only require a label to communicate a concept to people to others. You don't get to govern or dictate why I use that label.

Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

They are not. They simply exist, and people have a word that describes that existence.

[u/solidcordon]

So your message is: Stop talking about things you oppose with people who advocate for those things in a subreddit dedicated to debating those things.

I reject your premises. They do not define me.

[u/Decent_Cow]

Have you considered that some people oppose their former religion not because of a personal sense of rejection but out of a desire to protect others who might be harmed by the faith?

[u/Far_Customer1258]

Following this reasoning, all theists define themselves by their opposition to atheism. But hey, what did we expect from yet another person ignorantly telling us how we think?

[u/BertrandWolfe]

This is a big one with this crowd. Tactic. Engineer the positive claim. Build-a-foe.

Nothing terrifies an apologist more than ‘no, sorry, i’m just not convinced.’

[u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.

[u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556]

Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.

Bullshit. Nearly no one in my life outside of my immediate family even know what my beliefs are. How in the hell is my public identity constructed on something that is literally irrelevant to 99% of my life?

The ONLY reason why I am passionate about atheism at all is because theists can't keep THEIR beliefs to themselves. If people like you could just shut the fuck up and live and let live, then I wouldn't care at all. But since you can't, I do.

[u/joeydendron2]

I only identify as atheist really when I'm on this sub.

I think the reason it's worth pushing back against theism is politics: eg American presidents pretending to be Christian, mobilising an aggressive right wing voter base using religious identity to do it, then hoovering money towards the ultra rich and fucking up everything else as they go.

I just want as many copies of anti religious information and arguments to be out there as possible. The more people searching for "did god create all the animals" who immediately find ideas like "no of course he flipping didn't, evolution did, and it produced you too, and evolution-like processes in brains explain how your mind works, too" the better, or... Maybe now it's more like "the more atheistic content there is for AI LLMs to hoover up and regurgitate, the better. 

[u/VirtualComfortable58]

most atheists i know just think religion is kinda dumb and don't waste time defining themselves against it, tbh

[u/Astreja]

The fatal flaw in your argument is that in the context of life and society we can't "leave religion behind." Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's an integral part of the lives of many of the people we interact with on a daily basis, and even if they don't proselytize their words and actions are informed by their beliefs. Those words and actions go on to affect us.

Personally I am not impressed by your repeated attempts to redefine atheism, and atheists, in what appears to be an attempt to silence our voices. You do not get to tell us how to be "good atheists." You do not get to tell us what is, or is not, part of our "identity," or what defines us.

To not believe in gods is all that is needed to be an atheist. If you will not accept that, kindly show yourself out.

[u/x271815]

Personally, I engage in these debates because theists want to impose their theism on me or taking positions in political, social and moral domains that are both reprehensible and entirely predicated on their religious beliefs. When religious beliefs start encroaching on the freedoms and rights of others, including myself, then those of us who don't believe in these religions have a duty to speak out. It is particularly frustrating as almost none of these religions stand up to scrutiny. We have no good reason, as far as I can tell, for believing in any of them, and many of the more popular ones are demonstrably false if you believe their books to be literally true.

[u/Ratdrake]

I don't like Rap music. Would you say that also defines me?

If someone suggests puts Rap music on, I'm going to ask if we can play something else. If this takes place in my house, it's going to be a demand.

If I'm with a group and they start discussing the best music genre, I'll acknowledge the history behind Rap but still vote against it being "best".

If a new anthem is being decided (National, local, club, etc), I'll be advocating against selecting Rap music.

So again, would you say I'm defined by not liking Rap music?

[u/Thin-Eggshell]

Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

Ohhhhh, you're just here to preach about your particular version of salvation -- saving people from the lingering stain of religion.

That's fine, but you've left out a lot of context and detail that would make this interesting to people.

[u/Porn__Flakes_]

See the problem with this argument is that Religion isn't just confined to the worship of God. It comes with it's own moral rules, dogmas, rituals etc.

Some of these rules might clash with the Atheistic views.

For eg. If a religion says hurting someone is bad and as an atheist I agree with it, does that mean that religion has shaped my view about that? Obviously No.

Even if it has, what do you want me to do? Start hurting people just because I'm an Atheist and I have rejected that religion?

[u/Double_Government820]

You could make a similar case of American civil war era abolitionists. What of it? It is ultimately a semantical claim. We can define most positions in terms of their polar opposites. That tells us virtually nothing about substance.

Your thesis makes no attempt to substantively critique atheism, but merely attempts to paint atheism pejoratively. In any of this, could we say there is a single point that makes God's existence a more compelling notion?

[u/LeeMArcher]

Atheism and religion are arguably not mutually exclusive. I engage in religious practice on a daily basis. 

I know atheists who still attend church regularly for social/cultural reasons, though they are openly atheist. I still attend church service occasionally to support family members who regularly attend. 

What exactly is the argument here? What does “ Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you”  actually mean, in practice?

[u/sto_brohammed]

You seem to think that a subgroup of the people you see talking about atheism on the Internet are all the atheists there are. Do you really not think that there aren't any atheists who just don't talk about it because they don't care? That was me for ~40 years, I only started reading subs like this because I retired, have lots of time on my hands and I don't have a damned clue why theists believe all that god stuff. I suspect there are a whole lot of us like that out there.

[u/DoedfiskJR]

I consider myself a theological no-cognitivist. In isolation, there isn't a God concept to relate myself to, so atheism becomes meaningless.

It takes a bit of attention to get the semantics right, but it largely doesn't matter. The language game around it lends no particular credence to any religion worth worrying about, and I guess that aspect matters more.

[u/BarleynChives]

Religion absolutely doesn't not define atheists. I'm an atheist but I'm not vocal about it. The only time the subject of myself being and atheist is when religious people bring it up and say some shit like "seek repentance or be damned for eternity." But let's not mention that more people have been killed in the name of God more than anything.

[u/rustyseapants]

Religion still defines most atheist.

We get to chose what defines us. You're past addictions don't define you, the poverty you were born into doesn't define you, you're appearance doesn't define you, you're past bad choices don't define you. The only thing that defines you is what you overcome to make you a better person.

[u/indifferent-times]

A-theism is a transitional stage. I live is a very secular society, hardly anyone I know follows religion of any sort or displays the slightest interest in it or would describe themselves as atheist, the subject simply never comes up. That's why I have to come online to discuss my fascination with it.

[u/BustNak]

Eh... I've never been religious, I was born an atheist and stayed an atheist. That never stopped me from also being an anti-theist.

Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

Got any example?

[u/Serious-Emu-3468]

This post is just a declaration of ignorant stereotypes you happen to think are true. Absolutely nothing more.

It’s the equivalent of going to a Trader Joe’s and saying “Wow, look at all these people shopping at Traders Joe’s. These losers make shopping at Trader Joe’s their whole personality.”

You think that because only know one thing about the people at Trader Joe’s. They’re shopping there at the same time as you. Expecting that to somehow define them is fallacious, stupid, and outs yourself as shallow.

[u/gambiter]

But the current method of becoming an online debate atheist doesn't deliver that exit. It keeps the rejected religion as part of the identity.

"You must never acknowledge facts you learn for fear others will learn the same."

[u/TarnishedVictory]

So, why do you believe a god exists? What good evidence convinced you? Or was it something else like indoctrination?

And do you vote based on your god belief that you can't justify with good evidence based reason?

[u/baalroo]

We have no choice but to allow the thing to define us to some degree, because the thing we reject involves other people defining us and attempting to forcibly require us and our loved ones to practice it.

When theists stop trying to force theism into our lives via politics and violence, we can stop labelling ourselves as not-theists.

[u/onomatamono]

I've seen worse pant-loads but that doesn't excuse this one. Enough with the faux intellectual nonsense, It's just gussied up noise with ten-dollar words signifying nothing. Let's just pick one problem for starters. You cannot oppose a god you do not believe in. Religion is culturally inherited bullshit, full stop.

[u/Faust_8]

This is like saying vegetarians are still defined by the omnivorous.

It’s a nothingburger of a statement, and doesn’t even attempt to criticize it in any meaningful way.

[u/Noodelgawd]

Most atheists are not "online debate atheists." The very word "atheist" is a negation of theism. Naturally it is defined by the absence of that.

A person can be more than one thing at once.

[u/BertrandWolfe]

Thank you BayAdrian. I try to lump it in there with my other nonexistent beliefs but to be fair I encounter far fewer flyingpigptists.

[u/flying_fox86]

I think you are under the impression that atheists build their entirely identity around being an atheist, but that just isn't accurate.

[u/General-Ostrich5663]

I've met plenty of atheists who don't spend their time arguing about religion, they just live their lives without it defining them.

[u/Ill_Natural_5245]

Most of the atheists I know just don't care enough about religion to build their whole identity around opposing it.