Imagine a world without organised religion, where it doesn’t affect people’s lives, but atheism still exists. What purpose would atheism fill in this scenario?

  • czech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Atheism isn’t serving a purpose. It’s an evidenced-based reality.

    Why do you feel it must serve a purpose?

      • eldain@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Because religious people needed a word for the unimaginable absence of their favourite hobby in other people. Non-believer was already used for people who believe differently relative to them, so a different word was made for those who are even worse and defy divinity. It is useful to sum up your stance towards religion for religious folks but indeed carries no meaning in non-religious contexts.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        What is termed “militant” atheism, where someone argues against religious ideas or actions, wouldn’t exist because there wouldn’t be anything to argue about. But atheism itself would exist as a default, and already does in reality. No baby is born with a belief in any religion. So the only thing that changes in your hypothetical is the baby never gets indoctrinated with such beliefs.

        • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          …and I wasn’t sure on that and wanted to find out why it wouldn’t exist.