Atheism is a belief.

[Repo Man]

The really hilarious thing here is that even if everyone agreed that atheism was a belief, all the people who simply lack a belief in god would just make up a new term and start calling themselves "nontheists" or something, and everyone would still have the same beliefs and same arguments. Why are so many people here obsessed with the labels that people use for their beliefs and lack of beliefs? Why not try to address what people actually believe and lack belief in, rather than playing around with the semantics of labels? When someone says that they are an atheist, just ask “Do you mean you are sure that god doesn’t exist, or do you just mean that you aren’t convinced that god exists?” and move on with the discussion from there.

Because theists are constantly using projection to try and portray atheists as members of a rival religion, rather than lacking one entirely. Let the theists define theism, let the atheists define atheism.

[S.A.M.]

Athiests cannot define athiesm; its a follow on.

[ashura]

Depends on your reasons for that argument. For example, if I were to come across a house in a desert, I would not consider it a random formation of molecules that spontaneously generated a house like structure. I would recognise that it showed order and logic and followed known rules of building. Similarly, it seems to me that we take for granted that the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness. It makes no sense to me to hold that opinion. If it satisfies you, thats the argument for you. It does not satisfy me.

A variation of William Paley's Watchmaker argument. Suppose instead of saying "the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness", we said "the universe has rules and laws, we don't know where they came from." Would you find that acceptable?

[Simon Anders]

Because theists are constantly using projection to try and portray atheists as members of a rival religion, rather than lacking one entirely. Let the theists define theism, let the atheists define atheism.

Would this include definitions by atheists of theism as belief in a non-existant being and the like?

[wesmorris]

Thats okay, I believe all atheists are highly confused.

As confused as someone who did not willingly choose their religion?

I mean, if you're not confused - you would be able to choose whatever religion you like. Of course you're bound by islam to say islam no? Meh. Something like that. Most athiests are brought up exposed to religion and consciously choose to reject it, as they find it unnecessary for them.

That's confused?

Oh certainly far more confused that "submission". Far more indeed. Instead we should all get on our knees five times a day and point some random direction because that's what makes a lot of sense.

sheezus.

[Repo Man]

Would this include definitions by atheists of theism as belief in a non-existant being and the like?

An atheist who makes such a statement is either being careless, or deliberately provocative. And you well know it. See Russell's Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

[Enmos]

Well, clearly, otherwise, it would make very little sense to be a theist.

Good night.

Exactly my point

[Nasor]

Depends on your reasons for that argument. For example, if I were to come across a house in a desert, I would not consider it a random formation of molecules that spontaneously generated a house like structure. I would recognise that it showed order and logic and followed known rules of building. Similarly, it seems to me that we take for granted that the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness. It makes no sense to me to hold that opinion. If it satisfies you, thats the argument for you. It does not satisfy me.

The problem here is that no house has ever been observed to create itself. Since we have seen many houses come into existence, and all of them were built by people, it is reasonable to conclude that all houses are probably built by people and that houses can't appear randomly.

With the universe, on the other hand, we are dealing with a sample size of 1. We have never observed any other universes being created, and we don't actually know how a universe comes to exist - so the same set of assumptions that work for a house do not work here.

Rather than a house, a better example would be to come across something that was completely new and unprecedented, that was made of materials you have never seen before, and that didn't have any clear purpose. Given that scenario, you would probably agree that simply assuming that a person made it would be much less reasonable.

[sniffy]

Apparently according to some atheists, theism != religion, since communism is an atheist religion.

communism is a political system

atheism is a lack of belief in trancedental/supernatural being/s and the religious expression of such

agnoticism is an expression of uncertainty in ever finding proof of trancedental/supernatural being/beings

theism is a belief in trancedental/supernatural being/s

religion is an expression of a belief in trancedental/supernatural being/s

crikey it's not rocket science

[Tht1Gy!]

STOP DODGING THE FUCKING ISSUE.

"Self, Wait. calm down."

Look people, It's simple; just go to the fucking dictionary and look it up.
That's what most educated people do when they want to know what a word means. And, if they find that more than, oh, let's say 4 dictionaries say the same thing and it's different then what they had thought, they are likely to realize that what they thought IS WRONG.
If on the other hand they go on insisting that the dictionaries are the ones who are wrong, and only they, and their ilk, are privy to the true meaning of the word, and spend pages upon pages saying so... Well that's often called- CRAZY. Or at the very least- delusional.

Hhummm?

Look, atheists, I have no problem with what you believe. That there is no god. Maybe not. I can't prove one exists. I'm certainly not going to waste my time or yours in the attempt. But then, neither can you prove there isn't one.
The only rational position is to be agnostic.
BUT, too much of life is irrational for that to be a marker, as far as I'm concerned.

Just realize that as I said in the Opening Post "Atheism is a Belief" and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

[Enmos]

STOP DODGING THE FUCKING ISSUE.

"Self, Wait. calm down."

Look people, It's simple; just go to the fucking dictionary and look it up.
That's what most educated people do when they want to know what a word means. And, if they find that more than, oh, let's say 4 dictionaries say the same thing and it's different then what they had thought, they are likely to realize that what they thought IS WRONG.
If on the other hand they go on insisting that the dictionaries are the ones who are wrong, and only they, and their ilk, are privy to the true meaning of the word, and spend pages upon pages saying so... Well that's often called- CRAZY. Or at the very least- delusional.

Hhummm?

Look, atheists, I have no problem with what you believe. That there is no god. Maybe not. I can't prove one exists. I'm certainly not going to waste my time or yours in the attempt. But then, neither can you prove there isn't one.
The only rational position is to be agnostic.
BUT, too much of life is irrational for that to be a marker, as far as I'm concerned.

Just realize that as I said in the Opening Post "Atheism is a Belief" and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

It's really simple though.
If the dictionary says that atheists believe that there is no God, then I am not an atheist.
Maybe then there isn't a term for me..
I don't want to be an atheist.. theists labeled me like one.

[Simon Anders]

One could also say that atheism is a conclusion drawn
based on a network of beliefs.

[Enmos]

One could also say that atheism is a conclusion drawn
based on a network of beliefs.

I have decided not to argue anymore about how atheism is or should be defined.
I do not believe in God.. call me whatever you want.

[Yorda]

Atheism is not a belief. To say that it's a belief is like saying that NOT believing in Santa Claus is a belief. It's not a belief, it's knowledge.

[Simon Anders]

Atheism is not a belief. To say that it's a belief is like saying that NOT believing in Santa Claus is a belief. It's not a belief, it's knowledge.

Now you are making a claim that other atheists here SHOULD disagree with.

Most are saying that it is a lack of a belief.
Now you are saying that it is actually stronger than a belief, that it is knowledge.

You and the other atheists now have a disagreement. I hope you have the integrity to hash this out.

[Enmos]

Now you are making a claim that other atheists here SHOULD disagree with.

Most are saying that it is a lack of a belief.
Now you are saying that it is actually stronger than a belief, that it is knowledge.

You and the other atheists now have a disagreement. I hope you have the integrity to hash this out.

What objective knowledge can you present about the existence of God ?

[Simon Anders]

An atheist who makes such a statement is either being careless, or deliberately provocative. And you well know it. See Russell's Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

Well, if something careless happens a lot, I think it is reasonable to treat it as intentional. If something is being said to be provocative, it is also reasonable to respond to that provocation as if it is a serious position.

The person I was responding to is welcome to respond with his rule to BOTH atheists and theists. My response was basically suggesting this to him or her. My guess was that he or she would only aim it at theists. I am happy to be wrong about that.

Russell's position is not necessarily the position of other people who call themselves atheists.

[Nasor]

STOP DODGING THE FUCKING ISSUE.

"Self, Wait. calm down."

Look people, It's simple; just go to the fucking dictionary and look it up.
That's what most educated people do when they want to know what a word means. And, if they find that more than, oh, let's say 4 dictionaries say the same thing and it's different then what they had thought, they are likely to realize that what they thought IS WRONG.

Okay. Under "atheist" the Oxford English Dictionary says:

"One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."

Under "disbelieve" it says: "To not believe or credit"

So, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, an atheist can be a person who denies god or a person who does not "believe or credit" god. Sounds like a person who simply does not believe in god is an atheist to me. Or do you now want to start arguing about which dictionary is "correct"?

[Simon Anders]

Under "disbelieve" it says: "To not believe or credit"

So I assume you would disagree with Yorda's

It's not a belief, it's knowledge

I keep hoping for the day the two groups of atheists will hash this issue out. Those who believe they know there is no God and those who say their atheism is a lack of belief. Theists can watch this discussion and use it as a kind of role modeling of rational discourse and integrity.

[Enmos]

So I assume you would disagree with Yorda's



I keep hoping for the day the two groups of atheists will hash this issue out. Those who believe they know there is no God and those who say their atheism is a lack of belief. Non-theists can watch this discussion and use it as a kind of role modeling,

What can non-theists be other than atheists ?