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?

    • eldain@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

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