Is atheism a belief?

[Simon Moon]

Atheism is absolutely a belief.

Nope. Atheism is simply not being convinced that gods exist.

SOME atheists may go further, and claim that gods don't exist. But I think that is the minority position.

Those who say it is a mere "lack" of a belief do not know what they are talking about. Actually, atheism can be just as dogmatic as religion if not worse. If we lived in a universe, in a Reality, in which there was no God, no religion, no theistic notions of any kind, then perhaps people there could be said to be atheists in the sense that they lack belief in a God.

There are some atheists that do not have good reasons for their disbelief, but there is no way that they, or any other atheists can be as dogmatic as the religious.

Atheism is a single position on a single claim. Religions have the belief in gods, AND a whole lot more dogmatic beliefs piled on top of that. Like: miracles, resuractions, virgin births, world wide floods, sacredness of certain texts, afterlives etc.

Problem is, this isn't that kind of universe.

Instead, we live in a universe where we have to "pick a side" in a sense, and order our belief systems accordingly. Those who adopt atheism, adopt also the things which go along with atheism and the rejection of beliefs and values that don't go along with it. Now, I'm not saying that materialism and atheism, for example, go hand in hand by a strict logical necessity, but a disbelief in God still carries with it a "casting off" of many notions which "gell" with it.

I do not have to 'pick a side'. What side am I picking by not being convinced that gods exist?

My lack of belief is purely based on the lack of demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic, theists present to support their claims that gods exist.

My position is a provisional one, not a dogmatic one. As long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, I will continue to not be convinced that gods exist.

I would also say that atheism in itself is not religious in anyway, but in it's relationship and application to people, it has religious overtones. At least in potential.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most humanists are also believers, by brute force of demographics.  You're not going to have to look very far to find a faithful person who insists..for example..that god is not going to swoop in and save us from the destruction we're causing here on this rock.  That we have to do that work ourselves.  

As far as atheism and theism are concerned, it's not really an issue of choosing - we either do or don't believe in gods..for whatever reason or no reason at all.  There's absolutely no necessity of a choice between things beyond that, though.  The faithful can (and often do) agree with the fundamental underpinnings of whatever worldview a given atheists holds. Secularism, for example..like humanism (and secular humanism, lol) is mostly filled with the faithful. A person who believes in a god can quite clearly see why we shouldn't base our laws on the commands of a god...whenever they consider some Other™ religious nutballs gods.

The question under all of this, Dimmes, is what you think has to be "cast off" on account of a disagreement on a single line item concerning the divine? Additionally, why you feel compelled to characterize atheism as a belief when it isn't or doesn't have to be. "Positive" or "strong" atheism is a thing, sure, gnostic atheism. I'm one of those atheists...but that's a minority position in life and here on the boards as well. Most of these folks are agnostic atheists. What's the point of mis-categorizing all of them as though we held the same position when we don't? If you wanted to have a discussion with a gnostic atheist you could just find one and ask them whatever question you have, rather than attempt to produce them and then lob objections that don't apply to them...at them.

For example..we do live in a reality in which there is no god. In our reality, however, there are people who do believe in gods..and that's the long and short of why atheism is a thing. If there were no one who believed in gods we wouldn't have a term or concept for those that didn't as opposed to those that did...and this..regardless of their actual existence. Interestingly enough, the term "atheist" has it's origins in an application to people who did believe in gods..just not The Right Gods™. The pagan romans considered christians atheists, for example. Jut goes to show how long the faithful have been fucking the pooch on this word.

[Bucky Ball]

This discussion has a subliminal assumption that somehow belief in the gods is "optional" or somehow a "choice".
It is not.

We know that the overwhelming reason humans associate with a given religious system is due to their birth culture.
Christians claim that faith is a "gift" (not under rational control) and Dim-wit-dale seems to think if one honestly cannot see the claims of any religion have any merit,
that "cannot see the claim to have merit" is it self equivalent to a "god-granted" faith. .... Doesn't say much for what religionists think about their faith, now does it.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Most humanists are also believers, by brute force of demographics.  You're not going to have to look very far to find a faithful person who insists..for example..that god is not going to swoop in and save us from the destruction we're causing here on this rock.  That we have to do that work ourselves.  

As far as atheism and theism are concerned, it's not really an issue of choosing - we either do or don't believe in gods..for whatever reason or no reason at all.  There's absolutely no necessity of a choice between things beyond that, though.  The faithful can (and often do) agree with the fundamental underpinnings of whatever worldview a given atheists holds.  Secularism, for example..like humanism (and secular humanism, lol) is mostly filled with the faithful.  A person who believes in a god can quite clearly see why we shouldn't base our laws on the commands of a god...whenever they consider some Other™ religious nutballs gods.  

The question under all of this, Dimmes, is what you think has to be "cast off" on account of a disagreement on a single line item concerning the divine?  Additionally, why you feel compelled to characterize atheism as a belief when it isn't or doesn't have to be.  "Positive" or "strong" atheism is a thing, sure, gnostic atheism.  I'm one of those atheists...but that's a minority position in life and here on the boards as well.  Most of these folks are agnostic atheists.  What's the point of mis-categorizing all of them as though we held the same position when we don't?  If you wanted to have a discussion with a gnostic atheist you could just find one and ask them whatever question you have, rather than attempt to produce them and then lob objections that don't apply to them...at them.

For example..we do live in a reality in which there is no god.  In our reality, however, there are people who do believe in gods..and that's the long and short of why atheism is a thing.  If there were no one who believed in gods we wouldn't have a term or concept for those that didn't as opposed to those that did...and this..regardless of their actual existence.  Interestingly enough, the term "atheist" has it's origins in an application to people who did believe in gods..just not The Right Gods™.  The pagan romans considered christians atheists, for example.  Jut goes to show how long the faithful have been fucking the pooch on this word.

Most of this is just an opinion. Holds no weight beyond you or those you can convince of your position on these things.

Also, your "origins" statement is incorrect. "Atheists" was a term originally used by believers in the Judeo-Christian God to tag those who didn't.  However, later on it did change, and became a derogatory term that anybody could be tagged with.  At that point it was sometimes applied to theists.  It was more or less a way of calling someone else "ignorant."

[The Grand Nudger]

You need to learn a new trick. While you're busy doing that, get a little Celsus in your life. Recall that both secularism and humanism were conceived of by the faithful, and that the majority of human beings are still believers. Maybe just ask some of these other atheists whether they're gnostic atheists, like I am?

I jest, ofc..we know that these are the things you simply won't do, now don't we.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You need to learn a new trick.  While you're busy doing that, get a little Celsus in your life.  Recall that both secularism and humanism were conceived of by the faithful, and that the majority of human beings are still believers.  Maybe just ask some of these other atheists whether they're gnostic atheists, like I am?

I jest, ofc..we know that these are the things you simply won't do, now don't we.

Secularity (derived from the word "secular" which comes from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years) is the state of being separate from religion[/url], or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion]religion. Historically, the word secular was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavour.  Source


When you say "humanism", it's important to define what you mean by it because the term is often used loosely.  The dictionary has nine definitions for it.  Many of them are closely related, but not in totality.

[Angrboda]

You need to learn a new trick.  While you're busy doing that, get a little Celsus in your life.  Recall that both secularism and humanism were conceived of by the faithful, and that the majority of human beings are still believers.  Maybe just ask some of these other atheists whether they're gnostic atheists, like I am?

I jest, ofc..we know that these are the things you simply won't do, now don't we.

Secularity (derived from the word "secular" which comes from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years) is the state of being separate from religion[/url], or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion]religion. Historically, the word secular was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavour.  Source


When you say "humanism", it's important to define what you mean by it because the term is often used loosely.  The dictionary has nine definitions for it.  Many of them are closely related, but not in totality.

The number of non sequiturs which drip from your capaciously ignorant maw is astounding. This is related to the use/mention error. That secular means non-religious does not at all imply that the origins of secularism weren't religious people. That simply doesn't follow. How one person can contain so much stupid, yet be so confident... oh wait, I forgot about Drich. I guess this kind of arrogant stupidity is a religious specialty, certain atheist morons notwithstanding.

[Bucky Ball]

You need to learn a new trick.  While you're busy doing that, get a little Celsus in your life.  Recall that both secularism and humanism were conceived of by the faithful, and that the majority of human beings are still believers.  Maybe just ask some of these other atheists whether they're gnostic atheists, like I am?

I jest, ofc..we know that these are the things you simply won't do, now don't we.

Secularity (derived from the word "secular" which comes from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years) is the state of being separate from religion[/url], or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion]religion. Historically, the word secular was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavour.  Source


When you say "humanism", it's important to define what you mean by it because the term is often used loosely.  The dictionary has nine definitions for it.  Many of them are closely related, but not in totality.

It's important to declare the period you are talking about, and in YOUR source, it says "It was in Christian Latin of medieval times, that saeculum was used for distinguishing this temporal age of the world from the eternal realm of God.[14] The Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led medieval Western culture to use secular to indicate separation from specifically religious affairs and involvement in temporal ones."

Best to read ALL of your WIKI article and not cherry-pick from the paragraph you post PART of.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Secularity (derived from the word "secular" which comes from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years) is the state of being separate from religion[/url], or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion]religion. Historically, the word secular was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavour.  Source


When you say "humanism", it's important to define what you mean by it because the term is often used loosely.  The dictionary has nine definitions for it.  Many of them are closely related, but not in totality.

It's important to declare the period you are talking about, and in YOUR source, it says "It was in Christian Latin of medieval times, that saeculum was used for distinguishing this temporal age of the world from the eternal realm of God.[14] The Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led medieval Western culture to use secular to indicate separation from specifically religious affairs and involvement in temporal ones."

Best to read ALL of your WIKI article and not cherry-pick from the paragraph you post PART of.

What are you talking about?  Do you even know?  I didn't declare any period, nor did I feel the need to.  It was a term used to "distinguish."  With the exception of the bold, the source was stated exactly as it appeared in the source verbatim.  There is no requirement for me to look for bits and pieces to mine to make you happy, and the statement quoted was the opening in the reference establishing the overall work.  I have no requirement to quote the entire work, and the linked citation is sufficient to generate further discussion if you have questions or concerns.  That is not cherry picking.  Unless you are suggesting the overall reference was cherry picked to create bias.  Is that what you're doing?  If so, I would be happy to delve into it further with you

Seriously, wake up dude.  I expect people to disagree on certain things here, but what you do is beyond that.  You constantly jump to nonsensical conclusions about things.  Once again...

Derp!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts...troversies



Because you're no longer talking about the same thing, those are systems of government, not a group of people practicing an ideology. Now I'd make a case that Nazis were part of a religion.

Nope. I'm talking about groups of PEOPLE who believe in in ideology. They may or may not be "systems of government".

But they don't have to be any you recognize.