Atheism

[Trojan]

Is defined as the lack of belief in and/or belief against the existence of a supreme being(s), god(s), and/or deity(s).
Is this a religious view? Perhaps, considering it pertains to the concept of a deity, which is largely and commonly religious; but a religion itself? I personally think not, although there are many who disagree.

What do you think?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Is defined as the lack of belief in and/or belief against the existence of a supreme being(s), god(s), and/or deity(s).

Well for one thing I don't accept that it is necessary to believe there is no god to be an atheist.

Is this a religious view? Perhaps, considering it pertains to the concept of a deity, which is largely and commonly religious; but a religion itself? I personally think not, although there are many who disagree.

Yes, I think if someone does actively believe that (there is no god) then it is effectively a religious position because there is no more evidence there is no god than there is one.

Kyu

[Trojan]

I never said that it is "necessary to believe there is no god to be an atheist". Lack of belief in a god, as I mentioned, =/= belief that there is no god. Otherwise, I agree.

[theVOID]

Is defined as the lack of belief in and/or belief against the existence of a supreme being(s), god(s), and/or deity(s).

Well for one thing I don't accept that it is necessary to believe there is no god to be an atheist.

Is this a religious view? Perhaps, considering it pertains to the concept of a deity, which is largely and commonly religious; but a religion itself? I personally think not, although there are many who disagree.

Yes, I think if someone does actively believe that (there is no god) then it is effectively a religious position because there is no more evidence there is no god than there is one.

Kyu

Both those points are bullshit Kyu.

1. The definition of atheist is a lack of a belief in god or other supernatural beings.

2. Rejecting a claim on the basis of it being unconvincing or, in the case of religion, completely absent of evidence is NOT RELIGIOUS! It is simply the rejection of an idea. I'm not religious in terms of my atheism any more than i am rejecting homeopathy, my anti-homeopathy isn't a religion and neither is my rejection of the 'MAGIC MAN' concept.

I love the Robin Ince quote: "On one hand is the theory of evolution and on the other hand is the theory of TA-DA!!!!!!" - The same thing applies here.

Religion and the god concept are products of primitive, superstitious, uneducated minds; the best an ancient society could come up with. I think even the idea of an intelligence that exists outside of matter or states of energy is so fundamentally retarded that it deserves no less than complete ridicule, i can accept that such a society would presume it but to believe it today is idiocy. It is nothing more than an assumption asserted as fact (or more distinctly an assumption that defies the summation of knowledge asserted as fact) and anybody that asserts and assumption is a fucking idiot. It's perfectly fine to acknowledge an assumption or even to hope that it is true but to declare it the truth without evidence is STUPID. Evidence obtained through the scientific method is the only reliable way to distinguish between potential assumptions and without it each assumption is equally likely, equally true, equally retarded and equally .

[Tiberius]

Is defined as the lack of belief in and/or belief against the existence of a supreme being(s), god(s), and/or deity(s).
Is this a religious view? Perhaps, considering it pertains to the concept of a deity, which is largely and commonly religious; but a religion itself? I personally think not, although there are many who disagree.

What do you think?

It depends on which definition you use. Atheism itself is a label, not something you subscribe to (like a religion). If you believe in god, you are a theist; if not, you are an atheist. You don't "believe" in atheism anymore than believing in your blue eyes changes your eye colour.

As atheism itself makes no positive claim (since atheism also covers non-theism), it cannot be held as a belief or any kind of religion. It is a disbelief in the positive claims of theism.

Now if one were to be a gnostic atheist, or someone similar who said "I believe there are no gods", or "I know there are no gods", I wouldn't call this a religious position, but it is certainly a faith position. A religious position I think has to have other attributes, such as explanations for the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, etc.

[theVOID]

Atheism is and is only a LACK OF A BELIEF in a god; to which degree you do not believe comes under gnosticism or agnosticism. I personally am 99.9.....% (yeah unicorns could be real, too...)a gnostic atheist, only for the sake of intellectually honesty over anything else.

[Ryft]

PERSON A: "I do not believe God exists."
PERSON B: "I believe God does not exist."

Both persons are atheists; the former is usually said to be agnostic ('weak') atheist, the latter is usually said to be gnostic ('strong') atheist.

[theVOID]

PERSON A: "I do not believe God exists."
PERSON B: "I believe God does not exist."

Both persons are atheists; the former is usually said to be agnostic ('weak') atheist, the latter is usually said to be gnostic ('strong') atheist.

Bullshit, the statement is the same, you're using semantics of belief when the word gnostic/agnostic should be applied.

If someone does not believe in god or believes there is no god they have made exactly the same statement and the degree to which they believe there is no god is an entirely different issue.

[Darwinian]

PERSON A: "I do not believe God exists."
PERSON B: "I believe God does not exist."

Both persons are atheists; the former is usually said to be agnostic ('weak') atheist, the latter is usually said to be gnostic ('strong') atheist.

Bullshit, the statement is the same, you're using semantics of belief when the word gnostic/agnostic should be applied.

If someone does not believe in god or believes there is no god they have made exactly the same statement and the degree to which they believe there is no god is an entirely different issue.

I'm not so sure..

Statement A is a not a belief or proposition so it does not require any evidence whereas statement B is a definite belief and as such is open to the same demands as 'a belief in God'.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Both those points are bullshit Kyu.

No they're not.

Well for one thing I don't accept that it is necessary to believe there is no god to be an atheist.

The definition of atheist is a lack of a belief in god or other supernatural beings.

Which, as Trojan pointed out, is not the same thing as believing there is no god!

Yes, I think if someone does actively believe that (there is no god) then it is effectively a religious position because there is no more evidence there is no god than there is one.

Rejecting a claim on the basis of it being unconvincing or, in the case of religion, completely absent of evidence is NOT RELIGIOUS! It is simply the rejection of an idea. I'm not religious in terms of my atheism any more than i am rejecting homeopathy, my anti-homeopathy isn't a religion and neither is my rejection of the 'MAGIC MAN' concept.

I didn't say reject it, I said believe there is no god ... perhaps I was wrong to call it religious pre se but the belief that there is no god is a position of faith every bit as much there is because there is no validatable evidence to support either position.

I love the Robin Ince quote: "On one hand is the theory of evolution and on the other hand is the theory of TA-DA!!!!!!" - The same thing applies here.

Er ... no it doesn't!

Religion and the god concept are products of primitive, superstitious, uneducated minds; the best an ancient society could come up with. I think even the idea of an intelligence that exists outside of matter or states of energy is so fundamentally retarded that it deserves no less than complete ridicule, i can accept that such a society would presume it but to believe it today is idiocy. It is nothing more than an assumption asserted as fact (or more distinctly an assumption that defies the summation of knowledge asserted as fact) and anybody that asserts and assumption is a fucking idiot. It's perfectly fine to acknowledge an assumption or even to hope that it is true but to declare it the truth without evidence is STUPID. Evidence obtained through the scientific method is the only reliable way to distinguish between potential assumptions and without it each assumption is equally likely, equally true, equally retarded and equally.

I don't disagree with any of that but you have misread my earlier comments.

Kyu