Atheism Should Leave Its Transphobia Behind in the New Year
Atheism Should Leave Its Transphobia Behind in the New Year
Not that there's anything good about this, but hearing that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins "resigned" from whatever honorary positions they had with the FFRF rather made my heart sink.
I was a linguistics student for a time, and Pinker's books always had a sociolinguistic aspect to them, but I never saw transphobia. It was admittedly a while back, so it really wasn't yet settling into the national consciousness.
I also admired Dawkins' writing style; again, I saw nothing transphobic.
So for both of these guys to be like "nope, you should have totally kept a piece up that says transwomen should have fewer rights and options" is, maybe, the final insult of 2024.
You're viewing a single thread.
As an atheist, I don't follow a single famous atheist because then it feels like preaching and that just reminds me of religion
I can never remember which one between atheism and agnosticism is the one where you just don't give a fuck, that's the one I am.
It seems neither atheism nor agnosticism, it's actually closer to apatheism. According to Wikipedia:
Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/; a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.[1][2][3] The term was coined by Canadian sociologist Stuart Johnson.[4]
An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods do exist or do not exist. The existence of a god or gods is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant. One of the first recorded apatheists was arguably Denis Diderot (1713–1784), who wrote: "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God."
Atheism regards the non-existence of deities, whereas agnosticism regards the uncertainty, doubt and possiblity of the existence.
Questioned with "Does God exist?", an atheist would straightforwardly reply "No, God doesn't exist", an agnostic would reply "I don't know, maybe" and an apatheist would reply "It doesn't matter to me, I'm not interested whether deities exists or not".
Agnosticism and gnosticism are actually not so much about doubt, but whether it is possible to know.
An Agnostic says it's not possible to know whether there is a god or not.
A Gnostic says it's possible to know whether there is a god or not
An Atheist says they don't believe a god exists
A Theist says they believe a god exists.
You can be an Agnostic Atheist. "I don't believe in god, but I don't think it can be proven god doesn't exist."
Or a Gnostic Atheist. "I don't believe in a god, and I think we can prove God doesn't exist."
Or an Agnostic Theist. "I think God exists, but I don't think we can prove it. You just have to believe"
Or a Gnostic Theist. "I think God exists, and I think we can find proof."
That would be apatheism. It's not an alternative to the other claims but a disinterest in the problem space itself.
Atheism is a spectrum of opinion ranging from "I neither accept claims including gods nor put forward alternatives" to "I claim no gods can exist and here's why" with some wiggle room on both sides as the arguments devolve or extremify.
Agnosticism is a strange participant as it lacks a cohesive definition. It's more like a spectrum of reasons "adherents" think the claims made by others aren't valid. It's the last port of call for participants embroiled in philosophically rigorous metaphysical tedium and first stop for apatheists so disaffected they've never read a relevant text.