Why atheism is a belief.

[JoopWoop]

Atheists state that there is no evidence for any of the mystical or supernatural claims made by any religion including but not limited to one or more gods.

It looks as though you’re trying to claim impartiality under the guise of ‘no evidence’.

Actually, we state that belief is required because there is no evidence. Evolution can and has been proven to whatever extent beyond a reasonable doubt. God and Jesus have not. It's as simple as that.

So you have assumed the absence of available evidence constitutes no belief. What do you consider to be viable evidence and how do you reconcile the possibility of all required evidence being unobtainable?

The only person to have made 'assumptions' about evidence is you.
You can't discredit science to advocate religion for the same reason I can't personally attack you to discredit religion as a whole.
You've already set up a gaggle of presumptions and are responding to things I've never heard any atheist state nor have I, as an atheist, believe or otherwise assume.
You're already off to a bad start.

I’m not concerned what you consider your position to be, I’m interested in the rationale behind it which you seem incapable of presenting. I haven’t discredited science, is this your attempt to divert attention elsewhere?

On a scale of 0-10 on the give-a-fuck meter of my “start” I would be around 0.

Atheists don't believe in science like you believe in whatever ridiculous faith you hold dear to yourself. Atheism is a term coined to represent a group of people with precisely one thing in common: we don't believe the claims from any religion.
That's it. The fact that you assume otherwise is why your entire presumption has failed.

And off you go again, assuming I’m somehow attacking science. I'm questoning your rationale ,not science. I hate to break it to you but I’m not a creationist, consider evolution to be correct and enjoy all the benefits that medicine can provide.

Somehow you intertwine what you think and present it as a fact. This seems fairly common for most people with beliefs.

Further, Atheists don't make assumptions to reach their conclusion - religion has simply failed to substantiate any of their claims with any kind of factual or evidence-based backing to prove that anything stated by any religion is, in fact, a matter of reality.

Further, you have and do make many assumptions. In the absence of any rationale to justify why you believe what constitutes ‘evidence’ you just attempt to transpose any responsibility to those who do believe. It’s akin to a child yelling “no” with his fingers in his ears. That’s what I find so fascinating that atheists gather under this shared banner of atheism which is lacking in any serious consideration of anything. Hey we have no idea, but in the meantime we’ll just yell “no” like the retarded kid from the back of the class.

Sadly it offers very little to any discussion, but atheists seem to consider it’s a viable position.

This was the method to prove gravity, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, big bang, germ theory, and any number of scientific ideas. These ideas have positive results that have practical benefits. Modern medicine has benefited from germ theory for penecillin and those magnetic resonance imaging scanners (MRI) from electromagnetism, for example.

Back to science. Is it your crutch against creationists or something?

There is no equivelent to the above for religion and as such, we reject it. It requires no belief whatsoever, regardless of your flawed understanding of our view of the world.

It does require a belief, you just fail to see it. I believe I have no idea and will quite merrily sit on the fence. In the absence of evidence for either position you just say “no’, which is illogical. You may have issues with religion, or think the world would be a better place without it, this holds no weight in determining that the atheist position is a valid one, or devoid of a belief set.


There is no equivelent to the above for religion and as such, we reject it. It requires no belief whatsoever, regardless of your flawed understanding of our view of the world.

Considering that anything is (supposedly) within god's power, a personal appearance, a signed note, and a proper demonstration of his/her/its control over life (perhaps he could make Mars habitable and fill it with earthlike life in an instant... or six days.)
I think that would soundly confirm beyond any doubt of his/her/its existence, although it doesn't have to be that thorough.

Based on your response I see you’ve clearly thought this through.

You seem to be working from the literal omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent god. How do you dismiss the possibility of any other form of god? and what evidence is required?

You do realize that your entire post is basically strawman arguement, correct? Perhaps instead of accusing us of being self-contradictory, you could perform a cursory google searach on atheism, avoid the obvious religious-affiliated websites and allow atheists to explain our own position and draw your own conclusions.
Instead, you appear completely ignorant of exactly what it is that we do and you're making yourself appear foolish.

If I had respect for the atheist position based on past experiences I would be inclined to believe your own definition, however the desperation to prove the objectivity and logical position of atheism leads me to have faith in how you present your position.
That you hold belief but fail to recognise it would be similar to expecting Castro to say why communism failed. Just because you are part of something, doesn’t mean you can accurately define what it is.

It isn't. Because it is not a belief. Atheism has no positive claims to 'believe.' We are not asserting a positive and therefore have no beliefs to unite under, unlike any religion.

You are positing there is a lack of evidence for a god, so you unite under this. I suspect you believe there is no obtainable evidence of a god, which assumes that no god exists irrespective of whether it does or doesn’t.

If you're not a theist, then what are you?

Not a theist and not an atheist.

---

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

Emotion directs attention. If there is insufficient evidence of an object to stir emotional interest then the brain is geared to ignore that object. It may not be rational or logical to ignore the possibility of such an object, but it is reasonable to do so because that's how the brain works.

Which, in turn, is a pretty good argument against the existence of a god. Why would a god put such a barrier between himself and us?

Given that most atheists are actually agnostic, if pressed, I'd say atheism is more an emotional aversion/disinterest than a belief.

I agree. You can call it aversion if you'd prefer, it's just semantics. It still forms a view/perspective/belief which has no basis in knowledge. If you had no emotional interest in the non-existence of a god, then I don't believe someone would bother to define them self as an atheist.