this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
489 points (96.0% liked)
Greentext
8453 readers
890 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not surprising that academic theological philosophy uses atheism as a strict position that there are no gods, inferring the claim, but even your source states the widely accepted definition is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods before choosing the previous definition for the purposes of the paper. Academic usage that acknowledges they're not using the widely accepted usage isn't super relevant unless you're having academic discussions with academics in academic contexts. I understood the picture fine, it's just wrong.
what’s wrong about the picture?
Did you not see the gnostic and agnostic in front of atheist and theist?
eg. you are aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism