Why atheism is a belief.

[JoopWoop]

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

Well, wouldn't it be right if I said that atheism is simply a disbelief in God? And if so, then do you think that such a "disbelief" is equal to a "belief"?

Both are beliefs albeit with a different conclusion, both have the same amount of evidence as a basis. That these conclusions differ between disbelief and a belief in something is immaterial.

Edit: Actually, I think it would be valid to say that atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God, which is the same thing as saying that atheism is a lack of belief in God. So, atheism is a belief only in the sense that it is a "stance" or a "position" of an atheist. So I think that atheism is indeed a belief. But it's a belief in the non-existence of something (i.e. that of God).

I agree, although I’d be surprised if many atheists viewed their position as “belief in the non-existence of God”. As soon as the term “belief in” is used they tend to get very annoyed, but without knowing there is no god, that is all their position can ever be.

This thread explains the issue better: Please stop equating 'belief' and 'faith'

---

what evidence do you have to disregard a god?

The lack of evidence to support a god. Simple really.

It is simple. Your belief determines what this evidence is or should be. Without some knowledge of what this evidence should be you’re shooting in the dark.

---

You stand in the dock, charged with a murder you know beyond all doubt you did not commit. What evidence do you have that you are not guilty?

You’ve just assumed your conclusion. If you didn’t know whether you did it that would be a fair analogy.

---

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

Agnostic atheists are ikely to say that, yes.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Most of us do think that a lack of evidence that something is true is a good reason not to believe it's true, go on.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

So you're saying that our problem is not believing in something because the evidence is not only not available but may in fact be unobtainable? Would you elaborate on that please? It sounds like a strength rather than a flaw.

If the evidence is unobtainable to prove something then using evidence as a basis to determine it is pointless. You seem to be applying an almost judicial process to something possibly beyond our current and potential understanding. Why commit to a decision without evidence?

So basically, you're saying that not believing is the same as believing. Are you sure you thought that through?

Unless you can apply some valid alternative to justify your not believing, then yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. Simply saying “are you sure you thought that through” does not rationalise your disbelief to not be a belief.

The sufficient cause is that the people who are trying to convince us there is a God cannot provide evidence sufficient to back up their contention. Evidence of anything supposedly supernatural that can stand up to scrutiny would be a start: prove demons or ghosts or clairvoyance or miracles are real and you will have a starting place to build a case for God from.

It does not provide sufficient evidence for you, do you know the evidence you’re looking for or whether sufficient evidence is obtainable. Do you know what evidence you’re looking for? If you’re looking for some hard evidence you need to know what evidence is required and how it can be obtained.

If I find a coin on the street my inferences (not assumptions) about how it got there will be based on what I know about coins, how they're made, and how they can wind up on streets. Mathematically, existence is the set of everything. Everything requiring a cause is a property of things that exist. It is not necessarily a requirement that the set of all things that exist be subject to the same limitation. What's illogical is assuming anything about the origin of existence that isn't based on physical evidence. So far, the only causes for anything we've ever been able to figure out the cause for have been natural causes, and it is inductively sound to conclude it's natural causes, all the way down.

Ok then I refrained from using the rock instead of a coin but the same principle applies, it applies on any scale. The point is that it was created, that we have the benefit of knowing how is not relevant in this instance.
If you look inside existence for evidence of its cause, this would imply you believe that the sum of parts is equal to the whole.

We don't argue atheism isn't a belief because we have a personal preference for no god. We argue atheism isn't a belief because in the West, there is a tendency for atheists to be grammar nazis.

What are you saying? That you use dictionary definitions? I think it’s fairly widely accepted that atheists think they have no belief, while others tend to consider them to hold a belief foundation. There may be affair amount of variation amongst atheists however this does not detract from how non-atheists will view the existence of a belief.
My view is based on, if you cannot prove it, it’s a belief.

No point in waiting for our response to mock the weakness of it, eh?

Just heading some of the people off at the pass.