What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

[quotlikeiginally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Ghost147

I have found I am incorrect. It is not a belief system either. But, I was given 2 things to pick from.What is Atheism

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist" source


""OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?"

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that skeptical atheism is something one actually believes in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith," then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain." This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist."

source

Yeah but experimental data is theory. Christians can use (or mostly misuse) the finely tuned universe theory. God in the new physics is a good start to see rational god debate.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

I always struggle to see the point of trying to prove that Atheism is a faith or a belief system.
Perhaps the motivation works like this;
I think people using this argument are unconsciously defining Atheism as "the conviction that all faith is wrong, or that belief-systems are wrong".
Then if the conviction that "all faith is wrong" turns out to be a faith in its own right, it is proved to be self-contradictory and therefore defeated.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

originally posted by: luthier
[quotlikeiginally posted by: reldra



Yeah but experimental data is theory. Christians can use (or mostly misuse) the finely tuned universe theory. God in the new physics is a good start to see rational god debate.

This is not a God debate though.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Ghost147
Dictionary.com defines "Belief System" as 'faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion'

There is no "faith" or "series of beliefs" in atheism. There is ONE belief. We have nothing else in common.

Of course, who would listen to the religious when it comes to explaining atheism? LOL!

So without further adieu, I would like to know why some of you feel Atheism is a Religion or a Religious-Belief System?

Who cares? No one can describe my belief better than me, least of all those who claim to know about it!

For the record I agree with your post, but does that then question posts on ATS that makes comments such as "Atheists believe war is bad", "Atheists believe (insert meme of the day)" when in actual fact the belief in any such thing has nothing to do with someone being an atheist? It gets tiresome responding to posts like that asking for a copy of the rule book, but can sometimes be fun.

a reply to: reldra

Science is not an act of faith, it is a methodology - an activity. It continually updates itself, and is open and encouraging of new data and perspectives.

To use a simplified analogy:

Most folks know how a door knob works, and what the inputs, techniques, and outcomes are. You twist the knob one way, push, pull, twist the other way, push, pull, etc.

Did the door open? Maybe the door is locked? Maybe the lock is broken? Maybe the door is nailed shut? Well, lets figure this out.

The door knob methodology/activity is based upon repeatable experience. It is not based on faith or unprovable assertions.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

Agnosticism Atheism

They certainly are different.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Ghost147

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evangelical Atheist: An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of).

When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their prerogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.


The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism. We see a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely.

Yeah...that kind o' describes how these ubiquitous and somewhat "panicky" threads (imo) come off: Evangelical. And pissy.

Philosophy--as the "new scientist" and atheist often forget--is its father. Without philosophy you basically ignore the very informing contemplation of paradox. Agnosticism, then--the natural or beginning state--does understand philosophy. Of course atheism becomes a functioning religion for some. The Evangelicals.

Thanks infolurker, I'll be giggling at how right on that is all day.

Explain it don't just google it.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Here is a simple tip ghost

Google

Why atheism is the new religion

Let that answer your query rather than playing games
Its all there on the net
Argue with the collective who disagree with you
Your unbelief is a belief in un

christians are scared of the dark, you are scared of the light

I beg to differ. I am not afraid in any way of the "light". I just dont belive in fairy tales. Show me a shred of proff of the existence of any sort of deity and i assure you i will not fight it, and will happily believe. And most reasonable atheists think this way.

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: reldra

Science is not an act of faith, it is a methodology - an activity. It continually updates itself, and is open and encouraging of new data and perspectives.

To use a simplified analogy:

Most folks know how a door knob works, and what the inputs, techniques, and outcomes are. You twist the knob one way, push, pull, twist the other way, push, pull, etc.

Did the door open? Maybe the door is locked? Maybe the lock is broken? Maybe the door is nailed shut? Well, lets figure this out.

The door knob methodology/activity is based upon repeatable experience. It is not based on faith or unprovable assertions.

You didn't include what you were replying to, so I just saw a brief description of science.

originally posted by: luthier
Explain it don't just google it.

Who are you saying that to? And how is it that you are telling people how to post answers and by what means?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Explain it don't just google it.

Who are you saying that to? And how is it that you are telling people how to post answers and by what means?

When you turn in paper do you just cite sources? No you have to explain and show you understand them and what you are talking about and use them to support your own idea.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

Though they are close, there IS a difference. An atheist lacks any belief in deities. An agnostic doesn't claim lack of belief, or disbelief. Only that they have no knowledge either way. There is often confusion between the two.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: borntowatch
Here is a simple tip ghost

Google

Why atheism is the new religion

Let that answer your query rather than playing games
Its all there on the net
Argue with the collective who disagree with you
Your unbelief is a belief in un

christians are scared of the dark, you are scared of the light

I beg to differ. I am not afraid in any way of the "light". I just dont belive in fairy tales. Show me a shred of proff of the existence of any sort of deity and i assure you i will not fight it, and will happily believe. And most reasonable atheists think this way.

Again how is that not agnostic?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

You could look for some facts, about anything.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

Though they are close, there IS a difference. An atheist lacks any belief in deities. An agnostic doesn't claim lack of belief, or disbelief. Only that they have no knowledge either way. There is often confusion between the two.

Yes there is. Your definitions and there logical outcomes to me are proof of that.

If you don't believe a god could exist then you believe something you can't prove.