My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

I think specific concepts of god are “probably false”. But not ‘god’ as a wider concept.

Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

I mean if they do, they can still engage in it.

Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me.

Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it?

I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself?

There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically “the existence of god”. Some people might just find it fun for its own sake.

The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance.

Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest?

Did you mean to reply to the other user?

I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism.

What do you mean “no stance”? I agree that most atheists aren’t especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism.

How do you work that out?

All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly.

What do you mean by “self-proclaiming”? I am an atheist because I don’t believe in a god(s). That’s it.

If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs.

By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here.

!south_asia_bazaar@feddit.online

OP, may I also suggest promoting this on !communitypromo@lemmy.ca. It’s another community advertisement instance that can get you more visibility.

The focus here is discussion, not link-sharing. It’s modelled on r/letstalkmusic I suspect.

!NewCaliforniaRepublic@Lemmy.world

Well there will always be instances that defederate almost nothing. There are now.

You can speculate another platform might come up that some hardcodes in it the impossibility to deplatform other instances, but all I’m saying is that Lemmy and Piefed will not do it.

But even then, it’s a stretch because the tools required to remove seriously illegal content are the part of the same tools that would function as defederation tools. So it probably can’t be hardcoded out.

It is 100% impossible lol. Rimu won’t do it. Lemmy devs won’t do it.

They can block for themselves. This for me comes down to a thing I have not talked about in a awhile but what I would like to see in the federation. I would like no defederation or unreversable domain blocking.

This will never ever happen.

Why are you doing this to yourself?

!youraislopboresme@lemmy.blahaj.zone

No. That user chooses to use that instead of “th”.

!howlingmutant@lemmy.world

!promotion@lemmy.world

Fluxer app is for the entire app - this is for a specific instance of it.

My point here is that they won’t be able to stop people with ‘unverified’ OS accessing the internet.