Infideism

It has come to my attention that the so-called "atheists" of IQfy and other media are not actual atheists in the strict sense of the word, yet they continue to engage in conversations as if they were in fact atheists. They do not make a claim about the existence or nonexistence of gods, but simply state their belief or lack thereof. In order to avoid this confusion due to poor terminology, I propose a new categorization method:

Theism: The claim that a god exists (with supporting reason and evidence).
Atheism: The claim that no gods exist (with supporing reason and evidence).
Weak theism: The claim that there might be a god (with supporting reason and evidence), but we don't know.
Weak atheism (Agnosticism): The claim that there might not be any gods (with supporting reason amd evidence), but we don't know.
Fideism: The claim of belief in a god (without supporting reason or evidence).
Infideism: The claim of nonbelief in gods (without supporting reason or evidence).

Modern "atheists" are not only unwilling to defend the claim "there are no gods" with supporting reasons and evidence, they even go so far as to avoid making the claim itself in order to avoid having to defend the claim. These people are not properly "atheists" (people who make the claim that "there are no gods"), but are actually stating a position of infideism (people who claim nonbelief in gods). These people add nothing to theistic / atheistic debate other than stating their personal "nonbelief" with no supporting arguments. When asked to defend their "nonbeliefs", they simply refuse to defend them, or restate their belief. So from now on, whenever I see one of these "atheists", I will inform them that they are actually infideists, in that they merely posit an unsubstantiated lack of belief.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Weird you didn’t prove your god exists here. If I believed in some god I would focus on doing that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't the point of the post at all, but if you are intersted in defending atheism with reason and evidence, I welcome your attempt.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That’s like asking me to defend disbelief in goblins

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, but don't call yourself an "atheist" if you aren't willing to substantiate your claims.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t think I ever use the word atheist to describe myself. If people ask I just say I don’t believe in gods. Doesn’t really come up because it’s 2024 we’re all on the same page and I don’t congregate with trailer trash

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Atheism: The claim that no gods exist
    Look up the definition of atheism. I'm sorry the term is more nuanced than you'd like it to be, moron

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you just don’t believe in gods you’re an atheist. It’s literally in the image you posted.

      I'm talking about the strict philosophical definition of the word. You're just upset that I nailed your amorphous blob of a definition to the wall harder than Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Church doors in Wittenburg. If you don't believe that no gods exist, you shouldn't call yourself an atheist. You're just LARPing as one.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon I guarantee Christians use the word way way way more than any secular people on this board. I barely ever see anyone call themselves an atheist here. I’ve literally told people I’m agnostic here and they keep calling me an atheist.
        No one is super attached to that label except for people like you

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't care about the way non-philosophical people use the word. I'm talking about the strict philosophical definition.

          >You can't liberally define that word because.. YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY!!?
          Cope

          Do you believe the claim that there are no gods?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The strict philosophical definition of atheist is the image you posted. If you don’t believe in gods, you’re an atheist.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But do you believe that there are no gods? If "no", then you're not really an atheist in the strict sense of the word. It's amazing how cowardly you "atheists" are to defending your beliefs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who cares aside from you? It's not like these people believe atheos will send them to hell for actually being agnostics lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea how little I care what category my secular beliefs fall under. I’m not religious, I don’t believe in gods.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't have any reasons or evidence to back up your beliefs, then why should I care what you believe? You just told me that your belief is irrational. What is the purpose in telling me this?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon no one needs reasoning not to believe in something unless there’s proof for it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is being open-minded a bad thing to you?
            What's so upstanding about blind faith? All the other religions you hate have blind faith too

          • 2 weeks ago
            Schizoidberg

            I don't care about philosophical people

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You can't liberally define that word because.. YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY!!?
        Cope

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you just don’t believe in gods you’re an atheist. It’s literally in the image you posted.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares? You can call me a "doesn'tbelieverabbisflyist" if you want, lol.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know for absolute certain that there is no God.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know for absolute certain that there is a God.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We don't know if we're right we just know your particular religion is wrong
    Any religion that claims to have all the answers is filled with lies and things like the epicurian paradox disproves them.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Disproving a diffenet claim does nothing to prove that your claim (atheism) is true. But please go ahead and tell me how the "epicurean paradox" disproves all religion.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Trying to act smug while you believe a rabbi flew into the sky like a hot air balloon is bit cringe.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wow, you abandoned that argument instantly, it seems.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't abandon any argument, I'm not the guy you were initially responding to.
            Don't you think it's a bit silly to try to act smug while you believe in a ravbi flying like a hot air balloon?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you think it's a bit silly to call yourself an "atheist" when you don't believe the claim that "no gods exist"?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that would be silly, it's just a matter of different people using slightly different definitions.
            It's nothing like believing in a rabbi flying like a hot air balloon. Now THAT would be silly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, so is it safe to assume that you believe the claim that "no gods exist"?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure, I flip flop a lot on that point. I don't call myself an atheist, but christians sometimes call me that.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Disproving a diffenet claim does nothing to prove that your claim (atheism) is true.
        I made no such claim. I'm more interested in figuring out what is wrong because I will never know for sure what is right. I know you see religion and atheism as essentially football teams that you're loyal too but to me that's pretty goofy.
        There are some religions that I can see being true like Deism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, some sects of Hinduism. I just have no real evidence at this point. Abrahamic religions are pretty easy to disprove though, partly because of the epicurian paradox, people should really be ashamed for falling for them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I ask a second time, what specifically about the "epicurean paradox" supposedly disproves "Abrahamic" religion?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We've had that thread so many times. The epicurian paradox is the problem of evil. God cannot be all powerful, all knowing, and fully good.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God cannot be all powerful, all knowing, and fully good.
            Why not?

            I'm not sure, I flip flop a lot on that point. I don't call myself an atheist, but christians sometimes call me that.

            Weird, because you were just saying how even the mere idea of a god existing was silly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you were just saying how even the mere idea of a god existing was silly
            When did I say that? As far as I know, I was saying that the idea of a rabbi floating into the sky like a hot air balloon was silly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >As far as I know, I was saying that the idea of a rabbi floating into the sky like a hot air balloon was silly.
            Then we must be referring to different "rabbis", since I assumed that by "rabbi", you were implying "Jesus Christ", and by "floating into the sky like a hot air balloon", you were implying "was bodily assumed into Heaven", beacuse otherwise, I have no clue what you are trying to say. If that is what you qre referring to, then what is "silly" about Jesus (who is God) being assumed into Heaven?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because evil exists newfriend

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right. Now this is the part I restate the question to explicitly ask the same question that I already asked implicitly with the previous two questions. Namely, how does the existence of evil prove that God cannot be all powerful, all knowing, and fully good? I hope you have a good answer prepared after all of this waiting, since this is supposed to disprove "Abrahamic" religion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because evil exists
            I'm sorry you don't get it
            So many theologians like Iraneus and St Augustine and and have tried to address this and failed but I'm sure your smarter than all of them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh wow, you didn't even try to make an argument. How disappointing!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I did. A good, omnipotent and omniscient God cannot exist because evil exists.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why not?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because God would have to have either created evil or allowed evil to be created and evil is the opposite of good

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's wrong on multiple levels. First, evil is not the "opposite" of good, it is the absence or privation of good. Evil is not a "thing" that needs to be created. It's entirely reasonable that God permits evil in such a way that good may come out of it due to his omnipotence. If I wanted to be facetious, I could just say that God's omnipotence makes him capable of both being good and causing evil, but it's an unnecessary argument for most.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good and Evil have to exist as abstracts and have to have been created by someone. One could argue that humans created it but an all-powerful and all-good god could and would stop it.
            >God's omnipotence makes him capable of both being good and causing evil, but it's an unnecessary argument for most.
            Right but he could also create good without creating evil which would be more good.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Good and Evil have to exist as abstracts and have to have been created by someone
            No they don't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then they wouldn't exist
            They were either created by God or humans you pick

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Evil doesn't "exist". We already covered this ground.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao you just outed yourself as a heretic. Good and evil are a huge part of abrahamic religions. If they are wrong about one thing when they claim to be the one and only truth what else are they wrong about? And abstract concepts do exist, just not physically. Put down desert fairy tales and pick up Plato.

            We make good and evil exist based on our values. That’s why something like slavery might be neutral or even “good” for thousands of years and now it’s evil. We made the change based on our values.

            Good and Evil arise from free will. It’s a classification we invented to weigh the relative value of a given thought/action/event on its intent and outcome. From that, we then apply it to natural things like an earthquake that kills thousands of people “evil” or a 5 year old child who gets brain cancer (evil). God set the parameters, but didn’t set the values or morality. That’s on us.

            You are claiming that morality is subjective which is again, contrary to abrahamic religions. See how foolish they are? You can't even reply to my argument without completely abandoning fundamental abrahamic beliefs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >evil is not the "opposite" of good, it is the absence or privation of good.
            BS cope

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No one gives two shits about your fricking reorienting terms, dickhead.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We make good and evil exist based on our values. That’s why something like slavery might be neutral or even “good” for thousands of years and now it’s evil. We made the change based on our values.

    Good and Evil arise from free will. It’s a classification we invented to weigh the relative value of a given thought/action/event on its intent and outcome. From that, we then apply it to natural things like an earthquake that kills thousands of people “evil” or a 5 year old child who gets brain cancer (evil). God set the parameters, but didn’t set the values or morality. That’s on us.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone in the world falls into one category of atheism or another.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      a lot people have what I would call "soft spiritualism" where in they do kinda believe there might be some God or Gods that punish and reward and that there might be some kind of afterlife but they just never think any deeper than that so it's like some vague outline of agnostic theism where there isn't any specific god or religion that is real

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *