Dude. No. My atheism is a rejection of a proposition that god exists. Nothing more and nothing less.
My strong/gnostic atheism is a rejection of the concept that gods could exist, based on my rejection of the concept of the supernatural based on my conviction of the intellectual importance of methodological materialism and scepticism in everyday epistemology.
But atheism does not have to include ANY of the second paragraph, it is NOT identical with scepticism, nor with the rejection of everything supernatural, even if those often coincide.
And you are muddying and diminishing atheism by "no true scotsman"ing it here.
Falsifiability is a methodological preference for many atheists but not a requirement since, at its core, atheism is the lack of belief in deities rather than a comprehensive epistemological doctrine.
The takeaway being you may define atheism in a more narrow sense but its not wrong to define it more broadly.
Karma and Samsara are indissociable from a higher power, regardless how anyone decides to portray it. That is incompatible with atheism. Agnosticism, totally, atheism, absolutely not.
If one believes in the supernatural (which I don’t) Karma and Samsara don’t stricly need agency. They could be emergent properties of underlying supernatural laws/processes.
They absolutely are incompatible with a rejection of the supernatural, but not with the simple rejection of the existence of a god (as in: a supernatural force with agency)
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. You can believe in these concepts without believing in a God.
You have your own definition of atheism and that’s fine but its just not broadly accepted. You seem to be following a specific sect or denomination of atheism that not only rejects god but all conceptualizations of spirituality or the soul. Which is totally fine but not the definition is broader than you portray it.
I think we can agree that this comes down to semantics but yours is a Western centric point of view. In Hindu philosophy one can believe in Karma and Samsara while ascribing to Advaita Vedanta which treats Brahman (the ultimate, infinite reality underlying everything) as impersonal and not tied to a deity. These individuals refer to themselves as Hindu Atheists and have so for thousands of years. You can No True Scotsman it as much as you’d like but atheism is defined as not believing in a deity and those that ascribe to this worldview do not believe in a deity.
I think the major semantic holdup here is due to a Western centric equivocation of higher power with God due Abrahamic monotheism. Does a higher power / laws of the universe have to be or come from a God? Several conceptualizations in Eastern religious philosophy would answer no to that question.
I think its best that we leave it at your perspective on atheism being specifically exclusivist/Western centric.
No, in human philosophy, if one believes in karma and samsara, one believes in non human agency, which is believing in god with extra steps. You’re welcome to do so, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too, by calling yourself atheist. It’s quite simple.
Also, calling me a “western settler colonialist” (as you did in your mod removed reply) because your arguments hold no water is tantamount to your acceptance of that lack of substance.
If you believe in Karma you are, per definition, not an atheist.
deleted by creator
Karma isn’t a god
Only a theist thinks of atheism as strictly the rejection of god. Karma is non falsifiable thus incompatible with atheism.
Dude. No. My atheism is a rejection of a proposition that god exists. Nothing more and nothing less.
My strong/gnostic atheism is a rejection of the concept that gods could exist, based on my rejection of the concept of the supernatural based on my conviction of the intellectual importance of methodological materialism and scepticism in everyday epistemology.
But atheism does not have to include ANY of the second paragraph, it is NOT identical with scepticism, nor with the rejection of everything supernatural, even if those often coincide.
And you are muddying and diminishing atheism by "no true scotsman"ing it here.
Falsifiability is a methodological preference for many atheists but not a requirement since, at its core, atheism is the lack of belief in deities rather than a comprehensive epistemological doctrine.
The takeaway being you may define atheism in a more narrow sense but its not wrong to define it more broadly.
Karma and Samsara are indissociable from a higher power, regardless how anyone decides to portray it. That is incompatible with atheism. Agnosticism, totally, atheism, absolutely not.
If one believes in the supernatural (which I don’t) Karma and Samsara don’t stricly need agency. They could be emergent properties of underlying supernatural laws/processes.
They absolutely are incompatible with a rejection of the supernatural, but not with the simple rejection of the existence of a god (as in: a supernatural force with agency)
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. You can believe in these concepts without believing in a God.
You have your own definition of atheism and that’s fine but its just not broadly accepted. You seem to be following a specific sect or denomination of atheism that not only rejects god but all conceptualizations of spirituality or the soul. Which is totally fine but not the definition is broader than you portray it.
This is false. It’s precisely my point. A god like power is indistinguishable from the concept of god, the rest is semantics.
I think we can agree that this comes down to semantics but yours is a Western centric point of view. In Hindu philosophy one can believe in Karma and Samsara while ascribing to Advaita Vedanta which treats Brahman (the ultimate, infinite reality underlying everything) as impersonal and not tied to a deity. These individuals refer to themselves as Hindu Atheists and have so for thousands of years. You can No True Scotsman it as much as you’d like but atheism is defined as not believing in a deity and those that ascribe to this worldview do not believe in a deity.
I think the major semantic holdup here is due to a Western centric equivocation of higher power with God due Abrahamic monotheism. Does a higher power / laws of the universe have to be or come from a God? Several conceptualizations in Eastern religious philosophy would answer no to that question.
I think its best that we leave it at your perspective on atheism being specifically exclusivist/Western centric.
No, in human philosophy, if one believes in karma and samsara, one believes in non human agency, which is believing in god with extra steps. You’re welcome to do so, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too, by calling yourself atheist. It’s quite simple.
Also, calling me a “western settler colonialist” (as you did in your mod removed reply) because your arguments hold no water is tantamount to your acceptance of that lack of substance.
Whatever man I’m not arguing with reddit atheism dogma, someday you’ll grow up
Yes, believing in Karma is very grown up and not primitive at all, it’s everyone else who is wrong.
r/atheism is leaking…
deleted by creator