I'm a soft atheist - ask me anything
-
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 13, 2025 12:52 AM)
What is a soft atheist?
Someone who does not believe in God but does not go on assert that one does not exist. (The first thing being not contingent on the second).
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 12:07 PM)
A hard (or positive) atheist asserts there is no god which, since such a negative cannot be proven, is essentially a belief. A soft (or negative) atheist simply lacks belief. In my own case while I don't assert, or believe there is no God, I have my strong suspicions. And just because something is possible, it does not mean it is likely.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
maul — 5 months ago(October 15, 2025 01:03 AM)
What crosses the threshold for you between a lack of belief and an assertion of nonexistence? Angels, demons, dragons, unicorns, leprechauns… these things can't be definitively "disproved" either, and if motivated, you could conjure up ways to insert their existence into the gaps of our knowledge in a similar manner that some specific deity could be. Do you simply "lack belief" there as well?
-
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 15, 2025 10:46 AM)
What crosses the threshold for you between a lack of belief and an assertion of nonexistence?
An interesting question, I am not sure it is so much a threshold as epistemological preference. Some people like to claim what they think as being as certain others, like myself, are more circumspect. Personally I believe it is perfectly possible that God's existence could be proven, by legs growing back at Lourdes for instance (which would be enough to compel my conversion). But on the other hand, as you say above, it remains the fact that it is impossible to prove some absolute negatives.
Do you simply "lack belief" there as well?
It is certainly true that some things are harder to believe in than others. I suppose the observation would be that the 'supporting structures' behind the idea of God are more profound, deep set, and wide spread than those for leprechauns, which means one is perhaps more hesitant in writing off a deliberate supernatural Creator so readily. That is, unicorns still await their Aquinas to show their existence as supposedly necessary.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 12:25 PM)
what's a soft atheist?
One who does not believe in a deity, but makes no assertion that a god does not exist.
are soft atheists those leftoid retards I see online making excuses for Islamic terror while bashing Christianity for not being gay enough?
Even if I accept this characterisation, the answer is no. A simple lack of belief in a god is not a political or social position.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 06:01 PM)
An agnostic does not believe in God because it is felt that it impossible ever to know if one exists. The core difference is that agnosticism is a position on knowledge, while soft atheism is a position on belief. The two are not mutually exclusive, and in practice, most soft atheists are also agnostics.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 06:29 PM)
Correct in what respect? Personally I define myself by a lack of belief in a god, which is what commonly defines an atheist, not by what one can or cannot know (although that is one reason for my position).
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
BOOMSHIT — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 08:03 PM)
because agnostics acknowledge that humans can't possibly prove or disprove the existence of a god being while also choosing not to believe. it's like taking it a step further to conclude that it's a total waste of time to contemplate the existence of a god being.
jestergooning -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 08:18 PM)
It is a slightly different but significant position. I fully admit that I have a lot in common with agnostics, but as I say I am defined by my lack of belief, not by stressing that final knowledge of such things as the existence of a god is impossible.
Whether one position is more 'correct' than the other, I think is a matter of subjectivity.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 12:02 PM)
It is best practice to take the religious at their word in that what they say is what they really think, so in that regards I would say I take them seriously. But that does not mean one cannot ridicule their ideas.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.