Atheism not a Belief System?

[festeringZit]

Preussen claims that atheism is not a belief system. I contend that that
is a ridiculous statement. Let's try to keep this thread civil. I will
honestly try to hear out those who hold this view, but I just don't
see how it holds any water, in theory, and in practice/reality.

Defining Atheism


The "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism."
-Jeff Jay Lowder
​

A comic strip on this controversy.

The real definition of atheism: the belief that there is no God.
The fake definition of atheism: the lack of belief in God.

Proof:

A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos = Without God
Thus
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

The references state what the real definition of atheism is:
​

• "Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).
• "Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
• "Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).
• "Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
• "Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
• "Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
• "According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…"(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
• "Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
• "Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
• "Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).

Furthermore, I went to my local library and randomly picked out a dictionary to see what atheism meant. This is what I found from this dictionary.

----------------

Real atheists who are... well, real atheists
​

Also, there have been real atheists who define the real definition of atheism as a belief that there is no God. That would be people like:

Julian Baggini - "Atheism is in fact extremely simple to define: it is the belief that there is no God or gods." (from Atheism: A Very Short Introduction)

Paul Edwards - "[An atheist is] a person who maintains that there is no god." (from Encylopedia of Philosophy)

Doug Krueger - "Atheism - the belief that there are no gods." (from What is ATHEISM?)

Jeff Jay Lowder - After saying that atheists would be under the heading of "naturalism", he defines it as someone who belives that "[t]here are no supernatural beings. If naturalism is true, there is no God, no devil, no angels, no heaven and no hell." (from Jeff Jay Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes)

David Mills - "Essentially, an atheist is a person who rejects the concept of god." (from Atheist Universe)

Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenbergjust are also real atheists... this is just to name a few. As far as I can tell there have been no fake atheists who had the courage to say that these real atheists were wrong about the definition of atheism.

----------------

Even Charles Darwin (an agnostic) knew the real definition of atheism:

​

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
- Letter to Rev. J. Fordyc, July 7, 1879.

----------------

However fake atheist, Michael Martin, uses the fake definition of atheism:
​

"In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."​

Shandon Guthrie rebuts the definition:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

In this case another "bait and switch" method is being employed but in a more obvious contradictory setting. On the one hand we are to concur that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" On the other hand we are supposed to conclude from this that "without a belief in God" is what the term means. This is perhaps to the hope that the reader will not see the imported word "believe" from one sentence to the next. I do agree with Martin that the term is certainly a negative view in that it negates something. But, as Martin unwittingly admits or intentionally distorts, it is the negation of God himself not a negation of a belief in God given Martin's comment that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" Wouldn't this suggest that atheism is to be etymologically understood as without/no - god?

Due to the disparity between conventional and contemporary understandings (revisionist views?) of atheism, philosophers have attempted to branch atheism into two separate categories: positive atheism and negative atheism. Positive atheism is the classical understanding contra Martin. It is the definitive view, the strong view, that God (or any god) does not exist. Negative atheism, the weak view, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any divine being - sometimes it serves as a synonym for naturalism). In this relatively new understanding atheism enjoys a category split so that both definitions can maintain their place amongst their parent heading atheism. However, this amounts to reducing atheism to nothing more than agnosticism. Agnosticism was originally coined by the 19th century lecturer at the School of Mines in London, Thomas Henry Huxley. He is best noted as being "Darwin's bulldog" since he adamantly defended Charles Darwin's infant theory of evolution. Huxley himself, concerning his adoption of the term agnostic, writes:

Huxley wrote:
"Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence...It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."​

"Soft" agnosticism, shall we say, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any deity) since it suspends judgment about matters of metaphysics and theology. The more appropriate epistemological position that Huxley may of had in mind is what is known as "hard" agnosticism - it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists. In either case, agnosticism neither confirms nor denies any epistemological claims about God and thus it properly satisfies the status of being a default position. In a sense, the agnostic places phenomenological brackets around the propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" to explore unchartered areas of research that may offer insight toward reaching a conclusion.

Despite the historical and philological difficulty with deviating from the roots of atheism and its mainstream approaches to it, perhaps we shall have to consider the matter open to the atheist who wears the label negative or positive atheist. In the spirit of charity, we may be forced to acknowledge against the most reliable and broadest understanding of atheism to include mere deniers of belief in any god in our casual encounters and dialogues. But it should not cause us to go astray from the conventional and usual meaning of the term from which many modern atheists have deviated.

***END QUOTE***

----------------

Why then do fake atheists chump out and use the fake definition of atheism?
​

Ken Samples explains:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence.

*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists to advocate what I call defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.

Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence." For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God (or any other God) lacks logical consistency.

An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that defensive atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?

***END QUOTE***

----------------

There you have it. The smoking gun on the real definition of atheism. With all the evidence right in front of their faces the fake atheist will never concede the real definition of atheism.

 

[festeringZit]

<center> The Correct Literal Meaning </center> Etymology is the study of words, there origin and development. In ancient Greece, the word for "god" was "theos". Obviously, if "theos" meant god, then there would need to be a word that meant the opposite. By putting "a" in front of "theos" the word "atheos" was formed, which means "no god". In Greek "a" can also mean "without", although I think in this case "no" makes more sense. Taken this way a person that says, "no god(s)", is making a denial of the existence of god(s). Any confusion about whether it meant "without belief in god(s)", as modern atheists claim, would not have been a consideration at this point in time. It was simply a denial of god(s) existence.
These two words, "theos" and "atheos" are the root words from where we get "theism" and "atheism": "ism" means; "Greek -ismos; orig. suffix of action or of state, forming nouns from verbs." It's usage today is a "doctrine, theory, system, etc." (Webster's).
At the time "theos" came in to existence, there was no formal "doctrine of god" so "theism" developed sometime later, most likely during the (French) Enlightenment. This period of time is also when the modern form of "atheism" came into existence as well. This tracing of the development of a word is also part of etymology.
Once more formal doctrines came into being, then the word "theism" was created."Theos" god; "ism", belief or doctrine. Thus, the modern use of the word "theism", belief in God. We must remember, however, that the literal, Greek root for "theism" is "theos". "Atheos" then, in modern usage, means "no/without belief in god". But just like the word "theos" (god) is the root, literal meaning of "theism", so too, "atheos"(no god), is the root word for "atheism". That's why when you look in a dictionary, or encyclopedia under the word "atheism", they list the Greek, literal meaning as, "a denial of god(s)."
The following are the definitions offered by two dictionaries of Etymology. The word is followed by the accepted literal meaning from the Greek root word.

Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966).Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958).
​

As we shall see, current Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Philosophical Sources, follow the literal meaning when giving the standard usage of the word. Since many of the following definitions use the word "disbelief", we need to have a correct definition of that word as well.

Disbelief: The refusal to believe that something is true (Cambridge International Dictionary of English-1995).Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe (American Heritage Dictionary of English Language-1996).
​

<center> The Historic Usage of Atheism</center>

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia). Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).
Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
Atheism is disbelief in God (Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University Press-1986).
Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, HumanitiesPress-1996).
Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
Atheism, Greek atheos-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God (Oxford English Dictionary-1989)
Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993).
According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
​

Atheist philosopher Michael Martin disagrees with the definitions used above:

If you look up 'atheism' in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God (Michael Martin).​

Mr. Martin has taken the Greek word and tried to make it say something it does not, as all the sources above clearly show. Before looking at this new definition of atheism, let's see how atheists have generally defined the word.
Here's an example of traditional atheist comments from the book Critiques of God concerning the meaning of the word "atheism". First, a short review of the book from the Secular Web:

"_Critiques of God_ is a hard-hitting, comprehensive anthology of essays by leading atheist philosophers. My only complaint is that Prometheus Books should have updated this book to reflectrecent developments in the philosophy of religion since the book's original publication in 1976 (e.g.,the kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the evidential argument from evil, etc.)."-- Jeffery Jay Lowder ​

In the chapter Philosophical Concepts of Atheism, atheist philosopher Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism":

Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he his not denying any theistic claims As I see it, atheistic philosophers fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless , but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals.
It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group.
​

As the above quote points out, the historic use of the word "atheism" has meant the use of evaluation and reason in the rejection of theism. So we see that even atheists traditionally followed the literal meaning of the word "atheism".

<center>The Modern Usage Of Atheism</center> The earliest source that I have been able to find that slightly resembles modern usage, is by Charles Bradlaugh, an agnostic.

The atheist does not say, 'There is no God,' but he says, 'I know not what you mean by God; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.' (A Plea for Atheism-1864). ​

It should be noted that this was the definition that Kai Nielsen used when debating J.P. Moreland in the book, Does God Exist?. The Secular Web has this to say regarding that book:

This book is divided into three sections: (i) the transcript of the oral debate on the existence of God between Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland and atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen; (ii) commentaries on the debate by two Christian philosophers (William Lane Craig and Dallas Willard) and two atheist philosophers (Antony Flew and Keith Parsons); and (iii) concluding thoughts by Moreland and Nielsen. I agree completely with the conclusion of Craig's flow of the debate, that Moreland won the debate. In fact, Moreland's victory in the debate was so decisive I am left wishing that Keith Parsons had been Moreland's opponent; I wonder if Nielsen even took the debate seriously. In light of this, I am baffled why a secular humanist publisher like Prometheus Books would choose to pubish this particular debate, given how pathetic Nielsen's performance truly was. (Jeffery Jay Lowder)​

As far as I have been able to determine, the modern usage of the word "atheism" has been around, only, since 1979. The first usage of this definition seems to have appeared in, Atheism: The Case Against God", by George H. Smith, one of the Secular Web's top ten atheist books. Here's how Mr. Smith defined the word "atheism":

Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief...in its main form, it is not belief; it is the absence of belief. ​

A year later Prometheus Books released, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein. This book had the following definition:

...an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important...To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'God' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is a lack of belief. ​

Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism (1984) concurs with the above, although acknowledging this as a "new" definition:

…we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. ​

In the last twenty years or so atheists and theists have taken to debating on college campuses, and in town halls, all across this country. By using the above definition, atheists have attempted to shift the burden of proof. In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder admits that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." However, no assertions, no facts need be offered. Again, George Smith:

If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed.
​

Also from An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism:

If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him…Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God. ​

If I asked you to state your beliefs about "blictopre" you would understand what it really means to have "an absence of belief" (AOB). What AOB means to an atheist is, not only is the burden of proof squarely placed on the theists shoulders, but the type of evidence that constitutes "proof", is also defined by the atheist. Most atheists claim that they need some type of "empirical" proof of God's existence, but one popular atheist web page comments; "Let's suppose that God exists and wants to prove to you that he exists. What can he do to prove it? Suppose he suddenly reveals himself to you and says, "Behold! I am God!" Would this prove that God exists? No, it would not." The Bible makes the same point in that even though the fleeing Hebrews witnessed the "actual" presence of God in there midst, many still doubted.
Atheists have rigged the outcome in support of their own unbelief, all the time giving the impression of being open to the evidence. In addition, the AOB claim has negated the meaning of the word "atheist" because their "lack of belief" means that they cannot even state whether or not God exists, making them, in reality agnostics, a term most atheists despise.

In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists, while the atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, the common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if we assume that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism is compatible with negative (weak) atheism. Since negative atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God (Michael Martin in Atheism-A Philosophical Justification). ​

One of my main points of contention with the AOB position is that one would have had to have no contact with any theist to truly not have any beliefs about God. After just one such interaction, the atheist would have started to form beliefs in relation to the existence/ nonexistence of God, and once the atheist begins to examine the evidence, beliefs would exist.
Atheists also state that the AOB claim means that atheism is the "default" position. If a person "has no beliefs," or if the theist doesn't present convincing evidence, then atheism wins by default. When Antony Flew used the term "negative atheist" in a debate with theologian Terry Miethe, this was Mr. Meithe's response:

…the "negative atheist" ends up denying God's existence just as much as the "positive atheist." For the believer (and in reality) to deny the idea of God is to deny the actual existence of God no matter what language game you want to play. Remember, Hans Kung is quite correct in pointing out that there is also an "atheistic language game" that is not self-justified…We must not---cannot---arbitrarily "define" out of existence vast ranges of reality simply because they do not meet our predetermined definition. It is not good enough to say that I have no idea of God therefore I am denying nothing about "his" actual existence. You must examine all of reality and answer or explain why millions have had what they thought was an adequate idea or concept of God, from great philosophers to the "common folk." ​

Another problem with AOB theories is that this is not they way atheists (or anyone else) decides issues. For example, in a debate I had with an atheist, in response to something I had said about evidence, he made the comment, "Yea, I had a vague sense that there were monsters under my bed at night --- I looked and didn't see any." So my response was that if he had indeed looked under his bed and found no evidence of monsters, would the natural response be to (1) Have an "absence of belief" about the monsters, or (2) Actively deny the existence of the monsters?
Finally, atheists use the AOB claim to state that atheism has no worldview, or has no bearing on any other perspectives that an atheist might hold. This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having their own beliefs critically evaluated. Everyone has a worldview (way of looking at the world), no matter what they might claim.

 

[festeringZit]

Find me an Atheist that is not a Naturalist.

6 Tenets of the Naturalistic Belief System:

[FONT=Arial,helvetica]1. Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity, and no supernatural God exists in reality.
To the naturalist, reality does not include any "spirit" beings or supernatural God "above nature", ...but the prime reality is only the material cosmos (possibly in the form of energy) with all its forces, functioning according to unalterable "laws" of physics and chemistry. Naturalism is actually Atheism. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]2. The universe is a closed system which functions only by cause and effect.
Seeing the universe a "closed" system, means that it is never changed or acted upon by anything from the "outside". So, to the naturalist, there is no such thing as a transcendent being, or "God", above or outside the cosmos ----there is no "supernatural"---- nor does man transcend the material/energy universe in any way, but he exists totally within the realm and reality of that universe of matter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]3. Man is a "machine", whose personality and thinking are merely a result of matter's properties.
Man does not "transcend" the material cosmos by possessing a "spirit"; rather, all that man is, comes from the properties and forces of matter, evidently organized by the processes of natural evolution. Man is basically a highly evolved animal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]4. Human death is merely the ceasing of biological life, including the extinction of personality.
In this view, no human spirit, personality or mind continues beyond the death of the body. At death, human existence ends totally, except perhaps figuratively in the memory of others, and in genes passed down to offspring. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]5. Ethics and morality ---any sense of right and wrong--- are only inventions of man's thinking.
All values are self-determined by man, and only exist in the mind of man. There is no natural moral law, and no absolute standard of right and wrong. Instead, as the Humanist Manifesto II states: "Ethics isautonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest." Perhaps human survival defines what is "good". [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]6. History is an unrepeated line of events related by cause and effect, without a real purpose.
Exactly how or if the universe came to be, is unknown, ...and it will apparently go on forever. There is no overall purpose or meaning to the course of history, and no goal to which it is heading. History and human events only have whatever meaning humans may give to them. [/FONT]

 

[barman]

I don't believe Santa Claus is a real live person living at the North Pole and manufacturing and distributing toys worldwide on Xmas.

I guess that means I am part of the AntiSanta Belief System



or lese it simply means I don't believe in Santa Claus

 

[nimue77]

Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than the belief that no deity exists.

 

[koidog]

I don't get the in depth posts of 1 and 2. I think the definition difference is splitting hairs.

I am an Athiest, I don't hate religious people, and I'd readily admit many athiest make athiesism a believe system.

Not for Me, I just don't believe there is a god...Period.

 

[koidog]

Find me an Atheist that is not a Naturalist.

6 Tenets of the Naturalistic Belief System:

[FONT=Arial,helvetica]1. Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity, and no supernatural God exists in reality.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]To the naturalist, reality does not include any "spirit" beings or supernatural God "above nature", ...but the prime reality is only the material cosmos (possibly in the form of energy) with all its forces, functioning according to unalterable "laws" of physics and chemistry. Naturalism is actually Atheism. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]2. The universe is a closed system which functions only by cause and effect.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]Seeing the universe a "closed" system, means that it is never changed or acted upon by anything from the "outside". So, to the naturalist, there is no such thing as a transcendent being, or "God", above or outside the cosmos ----there is no "supernatural"---- nor does man transcend the material/energy universe in any way, but he exists totally within the realm and reality of that universe of matter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]3. Man is a "machine", whose personality and thinking are merely a result of matter's properties.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]Man does not "transcend" the material cosmos by possessing a "spirit"; rather, all that man is, comes from the properties and forces of matter, evidently organized by the processes of natural evolution. Man is basically a highly evolved animal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]4. Human death is merely the ceasing of biological life, including the extinction of personality.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]In this view, no human spirit, personality or mind continues beyond the death of the body. At death, human existence ends totally, except perhaps figuratively in the memory of others, and in genes passed down to offspring. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]5. Ethics and morality ---any sense of right and wrong--- are only inventions of man's thinking.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]All values are self-determined by man, and only exist in the mind of man. There is no natural moral law, and no absolute standard of right and wrong. Instead, as the Humanist Manifesto II states: "Ethics isautonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest." Perhaps human survival defines what is "good". [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]6. History is an unrepeated line of events related by cause and effect, without a real purpose.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]Exactly how or if the universe came to be, is unknown, ...and it will apparently go on forever. There is no overall purpose or meaning to the course of history, and no goal to which it is heading. History and human events only have whatever meaning humans may give to them. [/FONT]

You found one.... me. I mean I guess technically, not believing in God, means I am with these somewhat, but there is a lot in this 6 "tenets" that I don't buy whole heartidly.

Especially 5, No way is that how I'd define My Morality.

 

[Stocks]

Whats the arguement here I dont believe in god so that makes me whatever it makes me call it what you want it is what it is.

 

[D2bets]

Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than the belief that no deity exists.

Exactly. Unlike all other religions that have a laundry list of tenets that members must adhere to, atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. No other like beliefs are required.

 

[sumday]

Atheism is not a religion. You don't worship anyone. You don't believe in anything. It is not a belief system.

 

[roadreeler57]

Definition of an Athiest is an evil selfish arrogant person that tries to elevate themselves higher by trying to push that no higher power than themselves exists & created everything....I think some of them think either they are God or they are simply posessed by some evil force that anybody with a lick of common sense cannot understand nor tolerate. Atheists> :finger:

 

[fletchisrhsm]

Go to love people from other beliefs trying to give someone elses rules to make them another said religion. LOL.

Comedy gold. Obviously Zit has an agenda or too much time on his hands. In any event i went 3-0 today in the NFL and got a blow job from a deist and ate a nice meal and drank a few beers. Life be good.

 

[Preussen]

Zit - this sorry cut-and-paste job is supposed to "tear to shreds" my statement that atheism is not a belief system, a statement that in your words is "one of the stupidest things [you]'ve ever read on here" (quite some assertion, I'd say)??

The only thing you achieved with this is showing that atheism is the denial of the existence of a Higher Being and not only the lack of belief in it, but I never disputed that (actually I, probably like most people, think finding a difference between those position is splitting hairs anyway).

You utterly failed to explain why the simply denial of the existence of God should be a belief system. Actually it will be hard to show that any sort of denial can be a belief system.


I won't bother to comment on all the pasted articles but I'd like to take one part that nicely demonstrates the methods of people like Zit:

... The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable...

So it is (correctly) shown that proving beyond all doubt the non-existence of God is practically impossible, but the conclusion drawn from this is not that the atheists' claim is unprovable, but that it's unjustifiable. Zit, it's 'logic' like that which makes people like you lose all credibility.

 

[tiznow]

Atheism is not a religion. You don't worship anyone. You don't believe in anything. It is not a belief system.

athiests as far as strict definition goes

believe there isn't a god period....they aren't saying maybe....they are saying there is no god since it cannot be proven scientifically or whatever

i wouldn't really call it a "belief system" since its pretty simple idea they don't believe their is a god no "system" necessary

what bugs me about athiests is in some sense even science is a religion of sorts....for instance the world used to be flat now its round.....the smallest particle used to be an electron now its a quark....and many other commonly accepted things in science will be disproven or modified over time

i'm personally agnostic which basically can be summed up with the following words regarding religion and gods and heavens and reincarnation and all that stuff

i don't fuckin know :lolBIG:

 

[guitarjosh]

Atheism is not a religion. You don't worship anyone. You don't believe in anything. It is not a belief system.

No, they worship their own smug belief that they've got everything figured out.

 

[Preussen]

No, they worship their own smug belief that they've got everything figured out.

Nonsense. Atheists most certainly do not believe believe they have everything figured out. We know very well that there are still things science cannot explain yet. But we are convinced that this is because our knowledge is limited, not because there is some Higher Being. We can accept not being able to thoroughly explain everything yet and don't feel the need to fill the holes with a God.

 

[guitarjosh]

Nonsense. Atheists most certainly do not believe believe they have everything figured out. We know very well that there are still things science cannot explain yet. But we are convinced that this is because our knowledge is limited, not because there is some Higher Being. We can accept not being able to thoroughly explain everything yet and don't feel the need to fill the holes with a God.

Right, you've figured out that it can't possibly be some Higher Being.

 

[Preussen]

Right, you've figured out that it can't possibly be some Higher Being.

We think the information available to us doesn't support the existence of a God, yes. So in what way does that make us people who "worship their own smug belief that they've got everything figured out"?

 

[guitarjosh]

We think the information available to us doesn't support the existence of a God, yes. So in what way does that make us people who "worship their own smug belief that they've got everything figured out"?

The only truly logical belief about a higher power is to be agnostic. But to rely on science while not fully pursuing all avenues because they don't think it exists is in fact smug.

Do you believe in parallel universes?

 

[Preussen]

The only truly logical belief about a higher power is to be agnostic. But to rely on science while not fully pursuing all avenues because they don't think it exists is in fact smug.

For basically the same reasons that atheists cannot disprove God they cannot entirely disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Does that mean we should be agnostics as to Santa Claus?

Do you believe in parallel universes?

I have no problem to admit that many parts of astrophysics go way above my head. If scientists say that the multiverse is a legit theory then I accept that, not more and not less. Why do you ask?