Is atheism a belief system in someway?

[Mister Agenda]

I say that makes you an agnostic. Actual atheism takes the further step of claiming that religious beliefs are wrong.

He is an agnostic. He is also an atheist. Atheism is not a further step, it's about lack of belief instead of lack of knowledge. I know you've been exposed to this idea, so I presume the basis of you proclaiming otherwise is that your definition is what you want atheism to be so it will fit your strawman better.

---

Of course there are belief systems within atheism, just as there are different belief system within any group of people, those who believe in a god also have other beliefs other than religion or god.

More like, there are belief systems which have atheism as a feature. It can't really encompass anything, but there are things that can encompass it.

---

Atheism may lead to certain beliefs, such as belief in abiogenesis or belief in the value of secular ethics. Of course we will share certain beliefs in common.

Even that's not 100%. There are atheists who will tell you that they just don't buy evolution, for instance, or think there's something to astrology.

I would say that whatever led you to or keeps you atheist will likely lead you to similar conclusions as other people led to or kept atheism by the same attitude or views.

If too much exposure to religious exposure led you to conclude that God probably isn't real, you are likely to have some different views from an atheist who got there mainly by scientific rationalism.

---

Perhaps, the atheist members would understand this frustration if Christians demanded denominational specificity. Do Frodo, Drich, GodsChild, Rondee, or I insist that everyone define Christianity as merely the belief that “Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior?” We share that essential belief, even if we disagree on particulars.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out when you're being taken to task for a belief you don't hold. If something we're talking about does not apply to your particular denomination, why not say so? Usually I complain of Christianists rather than Christians, as I consider a Christian who does not want to entwine religion and government to be on the 'correct side' for most practical purposes. And note that we tend not to lump everyone together as 'theists' when it comes to beliefs of particular sects. We DO make much more of a distinction than you tend to make lumping all atheists together.

Sure, narrowly targeted terms like, antitheism, agnostic, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism may be more accurate, but many times I feel I must avoid the word ‘atheists’ and write ontological naturalists, physical monists, or materialists just to make a point about something 90% of you believe anyway. It’s awkward.

Granted. Have you ever considered saying 'some atheists' or 'many atheists' instead of making pronouncements about 'atheists'?

Think about how frustrating it would be for atheist members if the Christians constantly objected to the use of the word ‘Christian’ as shorthand for the specific doctrines an atheist wanted to critique.

If the Christian in question doesn't agree with the specific doctrine in question, why would they be arguing with atheists about it?

Even still, I have to say that a small number of prominent atheists take advantage of the words ambiguity purely for debate.(If the shoe fits, wear it!)

My experience has been that people who assume ill intent in others are untrustworthy themselves.

In one thread these sophists will take clearly antitheistic stances and on another thread retreat into agnostic atheism to avoid a critique that clearly applies to their brand of atheism. And that should piss off everyone, atheist and believer alike.

An agnostic atheist can think a particular religon is complete crap, based on whatever. I think the Abrahamic God as described by most of his followers is impossible: a pile of contradictory omni-attributes clearly the result of generations of playing 'my god is greater than yours!' and having deeds ascribed to him that all available physical evidence never happened (global flood, sun standing still in the sky, that kind of thing). That God definitely doesn't exist. That doesn't make me a strong atheist, because I acknowledge there are many versions of God (or of gods) that are not so easily deconstructed.

Just because we're agnostic doesn't mean we're necessarily agnostic about YOUR God. It depends on the attributes you assign to your version of God. Also, there's no contradiction with an agnostic atheist thinking people shouldn't believe claims that they think are insufficiently supported by evidence, while still acknowledging that it's conceivable the claim could be true.

Also, particular religious beliefs and practices tend to be evaluated on their own merits by agnostic atheists, the most common criticism being that it doesn't seem to be reasonable to accept the assertion that they're backed by actual divine decree.

I hope this was helpful. We often get stuck at the surface level of this conversation, thanks for the opportunity to go a little deeper.

---

But Chad's point is that it's inconsistent to define atheism in the neutral, even handed, agnostic atheist way you have and then turn around and assert that religion is bullshit.

I think that the issue is assuming that agnostic atheist means 'equally agnostic about all God/god claims'. Since it doesn't, what most agnostic atheists will say about particular religous beliefs depends on context and their views on things like evidence and appropriate discourse.