Is atheism a belief?

[The Grand Nudger]

"If a word were a different word it might mean some other thing" 

[Angrboda]

I'm obviously pretty late to the party, but whether atheism is a belief depends on which etymology the word is constructed from.

a+theist = not a theist, and this doesn't require any particular belief
ath(eos) + ist = one who hold the doctrine of not-God as true

Words are defined by usage, not etymology.

[GrandizerII]

I'm obviously pretty late to the party, but whether atheism is a belief depends on which etymology the word is constructed from.

a+theist = not a theist, and this doesn't require any particular belief
ath(eos) + ist = one who hold the doctrine of not-God as true

According to Wikipedia (with emphasis mine):

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society, those who were forsaken by the gods or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods. The term denoted a social category created by orthodox religionists into which those who did not share their religious beliefs were placed. The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[Bucky Ball]

Oh. So then you answered my question. How about you link to your answers ?

https://www.answers.com/

That's what I thought. Would have been easier to just say "no".

[T0 Th3 M4X]

https://www.answers.com/

That's what I thought. Would have been easier to just say "no".

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

[Bucky Ball]

That's what I thought. Would have been easier to just say "no".

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

You owe me nothing. 
You memory seems to be quite deficient. 
YOU objected when I said both "god" and "complexity" for the purposes HERE were undefined. 
In response all we get is this LAME shit about dictionaries. 
The fact is you cannot define complexity in a way that defines what IS and IS NOT complex enough, to require a designer. 
You also have no coherent definition of a god, which doen not incorporate the problems you were asked to explain. 
You lack of definitions means you have none, and you have failed. 

Thanks for conclusively demonstrating yet again, you're all bluster and evasion, and no substance. All hat. No cattle.

[Abaddon_ire]

That's what I thought. Would have been easier to just say "no".

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

Well, no. You are unable to define the god you claim to believe in, nor why. Nor what it's properties, nor why you might accept such a deity or anything it might stand for or actually do.

Your problem is not that you cannot justify it to us, it is that you can't even justify it to yourself.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

Well, no. You are unable to define the god you claim to believe in, nor why. Nor what it's properties, nor why you might accept such a deity or anything it might stand for or actually do.

Your problem is not that you cannot justify it to us, it is that you can't even justify it to yourself.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The problem for you is that I knew his tactic from the start, which is WHY i gave him a dictionary definition.  His quarrel is with not with me, but with the dictionary.  Too e-z. Next.

---

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

You owe me nothing. 
You memory seems to be quite deficient. 
YOU objected when I said both "god" and "complexity" for the purposes HERE were undefined. 
In response all we get is this LAME shit about dictionaries. 
The fact is you cannot define complexity in a way that defines what IS and IS NOT complex enough, to require a designer. 
You also have no coherent definition of a god, which doen not incorporate the problems you were asked to explain. 
You lack of definitions means you have none, and you have failed. 

Thanks for conclusively demonstrating yet again, you're all bluster and evasion, and no substance. All hat. No cattle.

There you go. You got something right.  I owe you nothing.

You don't have to accept a definition from a dictionary, but as soon as we hit that point, there's no point in going any further.  Why?  Because it takes at least two to discuss, and as soon as you start removing objective sources, then I have no interest.  If you do, then I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to talk to you about whatever.

I know what you want, but the definition doesn't have to be static.  In the general sense,  we use words like complexity to describe things, not define them.

"This program is greater in complexity than the last program."

I'm sure that statement is easily understood.  To what it is greater in complexity is dependent because it is relational to something else.  That's when we stop thinking about complexity, and start dealing with the more intricate details.  This is what I believe you're referring to.  But one idea is not the other.  Even if I can figure the different between program #1 and program #2, the one is still greater in complexity.  Same thing if I use a word like "faster."  This car is faster than that car.  To what extent?  It depends on the subjects.

Yep, I own about 10 hats and no cattle.  Not too many cattle ranches where I live.  So now that I shared, how many hats and cattle do you own?

[Bucky Ball]

I know what you want, but the definition doesn't have to be static.  In the general sense,  we use words like complexity to describe things, not define them.

Evasion and deflection...attempted. No one said anything about "static". 
You can't even understand what the question is. No one is asking about describing or defining "things". (Nice try though... fail again). You are being asked to clarify the WORD you are using to describe a system, and WHY (exactly) it's being described as "complex". We all know at this point you're not going to answer. You'll leave some evasive patronizing answer. 

ID uses the word "complexity" is a special way, ... claiming that the information in DNA had to be designed, due to it's complexity. 
If those who toss the word "complexity" around, cannot say what is the boundary or scale is where the designer is needed, and cannot show something that is simple enough to not require a designer, then it's all just "hand-waving", meaningless nothing. 

"This program is greater in complexity than the last program."
I'm sure that statement is easily understood.  To what it is greater in complexity is dependent because it is relational to something else.  That's when we stop thinking about complexity, and start dealing with the more intricate details.  This is what I believe you're referring to.  But one idea is not the other.  Even if I can figure the different between program #1 and program #2, the one is still greater in complexity.  Same thing if I use a word like "faster."  This car is faster than that car.  To what extent?  It depends on the subjects.

bla bla bla ... no and no and no. In the context of ID, I am asking for what is the boundary, (see above). You have no answer. Complexity in ID is meaningless as it's not defined meaningfully to describe what ID proponents claim it describes. 

Yep, I own about 10 hats and no cattle.  Not too many cattle ranches where I live.  So now that I shared, how many hats and cattle do you own?

It a figure of speech. You are all hat, no cattle. As anyone can see from this response alone, you are nothing but a windbag with nothing to offer.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I know what you want, but the definition doesn't have to be static.  In the general sense,  we use words like complexity to describe things, not define them.

Evasion and deflection...attempted. No one said anything about "static". 
You can't even understand what the question is. No one is asking about describing or defining "things". (Nice try though... fail again). You are being asked to clarify the WORD you are using to describe a system, and WHY (exactly) it's being described as "complex". We all know at this point you're not going to answer. You'll leave some evasive patronizing answer. 

ID uses the word "complexity" is a special way, ... claiming that the information in DNA had to be designed, due to it's complexity. 
If those who toss the word "complexity" around, cannot say what is the boundary or scale is where the designer is needed, and cannot show something that is simple enough to not require a designer, then it's all just "hand-waving", meaningless nothing. 

"This program is greater in complexity than the last program."
I'm sure that statement is easily understood.  To what it is greater in complexity is dependent because it is relational to something else.  That's when we stop thinking about complexity, and start dealing with the more intricate details.  This is what I believe you're referring to.  But one idea is not the other.  Even if I can figure the different between program #1 and program #2, the one is still greater in complexity.  Same thing if I use a word like "faster."  This car is faster than that car.  To what extent?  It depends on the subjects.

bla bla bla ... no and no and no. In the context of ID, I am asking for what is the boundary, (see above). You have no answer. Complexity in ID is meaningless as it's not defined meaningfully to describe what ID proponents claim it describes. 

Yep, I own about 10 hats and no cattle.  Not too many cattle ranches where I live.  So now that I shared, how many hats and cattle do you own?

It a figure of speech. You are all hat, no cattle. As anyone can see from this response alone, you are nothing but a windbag with nothing to offer.

I understand your question, but you're throwing something out there that is open to interpretation depending on the situation, so who cares?  If you don't want to use the word "complexity" then use a different word.  How hard is that?   You mentioned chaos theory.  Part of it is assuming we can always go at least one step further to explain something, right?  But it also incorporates that we don't have to assume "infinity" to define something.  We do it systematically so we understand what we need to know, then later we can always delve further into something to gain more knowledge, if it even becomes necessary.

As far as DNA, I dunno.  Make a strand of DNA and create a living organism from it.  Once you do that then we can say your view is conclusive, but it only answers the overall question in part.  If it takes intelligence to form a strand, then there opens up the arena for a whole new question.  I mean isn't that the underlying issue anyway?  Intelligence vs randomness mixed with time and possibility?

"Nothing to offer"  Interesting take.  Guess it depends who you ask.  That's the problem with absolute claims, and why I am very cautious about making them.  If I said you were useless or had nothing to offer, I wouldn't be honest. I'm sure you serve your own special purpose in life.  I may not know what it is, but there's something there.  What it is, besides being whimsically entertaining with your banter, I can't say I really know for sure, but I'm fine with that if you are.  Enjoy your hats and your cattle.