Is atheism a belief system in someway?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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

Chad, this comment irritates me. I know you know enough to understand why the above definition of atheism is wrong; I and others have picked you up on this before. Also you know that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive because they regard different questions: one on knowledge, the other on belief. I could assume that yours is a deliberate mischaracterisation for some nefarious purpose but instead I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply explain again...

Atheism is not 'the claim that religious beliefs are wrong', rather it's simply an absence of belief in god/s. Anti-theists/strong atheists/gnostic atheists may claim that religious beliefs are wrong however it's inaccurate to assume that this definition applies to all atheists. In fact, the majority of atheists (certainly, on this forum) are agnostic atheists: they make no claim to know, for sure, that there is/are no god/s but they don't believe in any.

I trust this is the final time we have to have this conversation.

Deaf ears, Ben, deaf ears.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

Christians also generally believe in the trinity, all believe in the Abrahamic God, all use The Bible, NT and OT as a Holy Text, and share various other beliefs. Reducing it to a single belief to equivocate with a nonbeliever's lack of belief is just silly.

I have yet to see a Christian on this forum object to the term, nor an atheist object to the term atheist: Unless the term is incorrectly defined, the atheists on atheist forums don't seem to have a problem with the label.

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.

Why would anyone scientifically minded presuppose the existence of things lacking evidence? That doesn't seem to be a worldview that requires any support, in fact, the opposite is true.

It’s awkward. 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.

Again, this has more to do with those defining the word incorrectly in order to sneak in a presupposed conclusion.

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!) 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.

You're right, every atheist should be branded with a multiple-hyphen descriptor tag, whereas Christians get to refer to themselves as "Christian," and when you ask them what denomination, can say "Christian," a title which conveys the same amount of information as if they had announced their denomination is "Leather Shoes."

[Ben Davis]

I'm only partially agnostic. There are certain god claims that we could expect evidence for.

I know exactly what you mean. In terms of pure intellectual honesty, I have to admit that I don't know (and probably can never know) that there is/are absolutely no god/s so in principle, I'm an agnostic atheist.

However when it comes to specific god-claims, that's when I let loose my antitheism. So far, I've never been offered a god-claim which is anything other than mythology, the evidence for which has been of such a low standard that it shouldn't even be called evidence. Under those circumstances, I'm happy to wear the label 'antitheist' but that shouldn't be confused with my generic atheism.

---

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...

Quite the opposite for me. I can't speak for everyone else but I have a sneaking suspicion that the common vaguaries of 'christianity' are likely more irksome to most than a demand for accuracy. That said, I don't mind defining beliefs at a high level if we're having high-level discussions. Horses for courses. If I were criticising a specific denomination (like on the recent 'catholicism' thread), I would expect to have to adhere to very strict definitions of christianity.

The main problem is in using atheism as a label because it has no content, no explanatory power, it tells you nothing of the actual values held by the individual to whom you apply the term. So I (and many others, I anticipate) would actually find it useful if anti-atheists were to address specific values or sub-sets of atheists rather than simply dumping whatever they think relevant in to 'atheism'.

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!) 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.

Depends on the circumstances (please see my response to Coffee Jesus, above). If someone is using ambiguity to inveigle their position and avoid criticism, yes that would piss me off.

[Whateverist]

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.

Our situation seems pretty similar then. If there is one thing you can count on it is that no atheist believes in a god. Pretty much the polar opposite of your xtian caucus. The particulars for us play out in terms of the strength and nature of belief in whatever it is we think a god refers to.

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.

That's pretty much my situation. I have no idea what any of you mean regarding the gods you are devoted to. I have my theories but I find the concept of 'god' to be entirely vacuous. As undefinable as it is unsupported.

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.

Yep, it is probably a measure of our annoyance but I won't deny it.

[Ravenshire]

Sound like the same thing to me, although I've never heard of an agnostic atheist.

99% of the atheists on here are agnostic atheists.

Nah. 100% are agnostic. 1% have just fooled themselves.

[Leo34]

This question is really silly , atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It's simple as that.

[Whateverist]

This question is really silly , atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It's simple as that.

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. Apparently, for you, there is plenty of evidence for arguing that gods do not exist (assuming this is what you mean when you say religion is bullshit). That puts the onus on you to provide some evidence for this claim of yours. Probably ought to start by defining "god" and "bullshit". Good luck.

[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.

[Chas]

This question is really silly , atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It's simple as that.

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. Apparently, for you, there is plenty of evidence for arguing that gods do not exist (assuming this is what you mean when you say religion is bullshit). That puts the onus on you to provide some evidence for this claim of yours. Probably ought to start by defining "god" and "bullshit". Good luck.

Don't be silly. Of course if one rejects the belief in any gods, then one considers religion and its claims as bullshit.

god: Any gods ever defined
bullshit: your statement

[Whateverist]

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. Apparently, for you, there is plenty of evidence for arguing that gods do not exist (assuming this is what you mean when you say religion is bullshit). That puts the onus on you to provide some evidence for this claim of yours. Probably ought to start by defining "god" and "bullshit". Good luck.

Don't be silly. Of course if one rejects the belief in any gods, then one considers religion and its claims as bullshit.

Only if you know more about gods than I do. I find nothing but conflicting reports regarding the nature of gods. I consider all assertions regarding gods to be nonsense including your own. But if indeed you think you have an argument against gods and religion, lets hear it. But do bring some evidence to the table so you can shoulder your burden of proof if you want to come off any better than your theist rivals.

god: Any gods ever defined
bullshit: your statement

I take it you didn't enjoy my statement. No fuck given here. I stand behind it. You would like to go on asserting what you cannot back up without being called on it. Too bad.