Is atheism a belief?

[Acrobat]

In the older usage, agnostic connotes somebody who has either not considered the question seriously or who has no opinion or who has a 50/50 view on it. That would mischaracterize my position and that of many others. Although I don't claim to know with certainty that no god exists, I do not believe that one does which makes "atheist" a better choice.

The old definition of agnosticm applies to someone split, or undecided, unsure on the question of God’s existence.

While the old definition of atheism accounts for both atheist who believe (regardless if it’s a weak believe that you seem to hold) or know that God doesn’t exist. No additional qualifiers needed.

Under the new defintion old agnostics, and those who believe god doesn’t exist are grouped together.

The old definition atheists who know and atheist who believe god doesn’t exist are group together.

In reality only the old distinction is useful, because hardly any atheist claims to be absolutely certain that God/s doesn’t exist, but many atheist believe God doesn’t exists. So it’s silly to group them with traditional agnostics.

There was no reason to change the old definition as if was a problem needing to be solved.

In fact it’s seem that traditional agnostics who out number atheists prefer the old defintion, not the new one atheists such as yourself are imposing on them.

[The Valkyrie]

Language, like biological organisms, evolves.

[Abaddon_ire]

In the older usage, agnostic connotes somebody who has either not considered the question seriously or who has no opinion or who has a 50/50 view on it.

Then they are agnostic atheist sicne they claim not to believe in a dog but do not claim to KNOW the none such exists.

 That would mischaracterize my position and that of many others.  Although I don't claim to know with certainty that no god exists, I do not believe that one does which makes "atheist" a better choice.

which makes you an agnostic theist. You don't KNOW a god exists but you BELIEVE a god exists.

The old definition of agnosticm applies to someone split, or undecided, unsure on the question of God’s existence.

Nope. Foundationally, agnosticism is the claim to NOT KNOW.

While the old definition of atheism accounts for both atheist who believe (regardless if it’s a weak believe that you seem to hold) or know that God doesn’t exist. No additional qualifiers needed.No, that is a flat out wrong idea that theists wheel out

Under the new defintion old agnostics, and those who believe god doesn’t exist are grouped together.

Mistake. Playing with quixotic definitions is something peculiar to theists.

The old definition atheists who know and atheist who believe god doesn’t exist are group together.

What a load. Atheists are diverse.

In reality  only the old distinction is useful, because hardly any atheist claims to be absolutely certain that God/s doesn’t exist, but many atheist believe God doesn’t exists. So it’s silly to group them with traditional agnostics.

False generalisation.

There was no reason to change the old definition as if was a problem needing to be solved.

Then why do theists keep on trying to do exactly that?

In fact it’s seem that traditional agnostics who out number atheists prefer the old defintion, not the new one atheists such as yourself are imposing on them.

Really? You disparage others definitions being imposed so that you can impose your very own? How do you explain atheists who believe in LOD, or oiuja boards without a god? There are plenty of those. They don't believe in no gods but also the supernatural.

[unfogged]

In fact it’s seem that traditional agnostics who out number atheists prefer the old defintion,

Citation required

not the new one atheists such as yourself are imposing on them.

I'm not imposing any definition on anybody. I'm explaining how I use the words and, as I noted, if somebody insists on using another usage I will work with that. The belief, or lack thereof, and the reasons for the position are more important than the label.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your fluff is their substance.  They're magic words, you see...and the faithful are convinced that if they can control these magic words then they can prove them wrong, wrong, wrong, lol.  

[Agnostico]

I think this is a fair definition of atheism, a set of ideologies based on the presumtion/belief/premise that some form of creator is not in play.
Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, etc are the main ideological branches of atheism in eastern culture which trace back thousands of years.

That's because you're a nutter.  Atheism is simple.  It's not a set of ideologies, or an ideology itself.  Do you believe in gods?  No?  Bingo, atheist.

LoL u have to be a bit of a nutter to be thinking about this stuff don't u reckon. LoL. 
The definition of atheism is as simple as u put it. I understand that.
What I was saying is that thousands of years ago, in the orient, it was atheism that gave rise to these religions/philosophies/ doctrines.

'New' as in at least 134 years old. Catch up, dude.

As I was saying, atheism has been the basis of eastern religions for 2,500 years.
In contrast 134 years is a "New" concept in the west. 

Family seems to be a serious priority for us now?

What is your priority for society?

Sucks, I guess?

Its just small nuances in semantics.
I have no prob with the definition of atheism, I even said it on page 2 or 3 of this thread. I can see how the theists would drill this topic so i just wanted to leave it alone.
That website i linked is really good. I could copy and paste its definition of atheism but it ultimately just boils down to the disbelief in a god like u said.

I noticed its usually the Christian God thats taken into context. But atheism extends to any kind of intelligent design right?
Extraterrestrial or even something unthought of by humans?

But my confusion is the differing views of agnosticism and atheism.
I often get told that my position is false, bullshit or whatever.
Remember i was bought up by catholics, became an atheist. Thats when I really rejected the notion of God or religion and am now agnostic.

Its been such a complex journey thats taken till now age 41 and will probably change when im 50 and 60. People can label me what ever they wish.
I know where I stand. I can answer any questions. And Im not fixed on one theory.

LoL do u ever think back to when u wer 20? I do. So naive at that age. Now at 40 I look back wen I was 30 and shake my head.
Perhaps wen im 60 ill look back in absolute disgrace with the knowledge I may have then.

I definately understand how most atheists are agnostic and how people can be agnostic theists. Its in the diagrom on my op.
But when I say Im pure agnostic some people cannot compute. They try pull me either way.

I posted that definition of agnosticism cos its me. My agnosticism not attached to atheism or theism in any way in terms of God.
In fact im skeptical of both and put the onus of proof on them to provide their claim to me.

You know that's not what that term means, right? 
(appeal to ignorance)

This is the definition of the fallacy known as appeal to ignorance.







But aside from the fallacy try put on my shoes, the agnostic. I feel like a judge. I see theists and atheists arguing eachother. And I know both arguments well.

The theists admit that their view is based on faith. Ancient texts, written thousands of years ago, the bilble written by man, not God. Ok
Now the atheist steps up and I ask "whats your evidence for ruling out the possibility of some form of intelligent design or even just the Christian God?"
And I get this fallacy. Now, I don't wish to have a debate on this cos it will just go round in circles. Either u agree its a fallacy or not. No big deal. Move on.

But check this Bolga. Im more interested in early man, atheism and theism, onto civilization.
Would you agree that all religion was spawned from atheism? That 200,000 years ago the first Homo Sapiens were atheist?
Do u think these early humans would have most likely operated on the key instincts observed in animal nature, survival and procreation. true?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's because you're a nutter.  Atheism is simple.  It's not a set of ideologies, or an ideology itself.  Do you believe in gods?  No?  Bingo, atheist.

LoL u have to be a bit of a nutter to be thinking about this stuff don't u reckon. LoL. 
The definition of atheism is as simple as u put it. I understand that.
What I was saying is that thousands of years ago, in the orient, it was atheism that gave rise to these religions/philosophies/ doctrines.

What you're saying is a lazy and factually inaccurate appraisal of the origins of eastern religious traditions.  

'New' as in at least 134 years old. Catch up, dude.

As I was saying, atheism has been the basis of eastern religions for 2,500 years.
In contrast 134 years is a "New" concept in the west. 

Atheism has been around in the west since at least the 5th century BCE, and by this I mean atheism is on record by the 5th century BCE...there have always been people, everywhere, who thought that this god shit was a bunch of nonsense.  

Family seems to be a serious priority for us now?

What is your priority for society?

Rephrase?

Sucks, I guess?

Its just small nuances in semantics.
I have no prob with the definition of atheism, I even said it on page 2 or 3 of this thread. I can see how the theists would drill this topic so i just wanted to leave it alone.
That website i linked is really good. I could copy and paste its definition of atheism but it ultimately just boils down to the disbelief in a god like u said.

I noticed its usually the Christian God thats taken into context.

Because most western atheists either used to be or were raised by christians.  

 But atheism extends to any kind of intelligent design right? Extraterrestrial or even something unthought of by humans?

No.  Atheism is only a comment on gods.  You familiar with the ancient alien nutters?  You can be an ancient alien nutter and also an atheist.

But my confusion is the differing views of agnosticism and atheism.
I often get told that my position is false, bullshit or whatever.
Remember i was bought up by catholics, became an atheist. Thats when I really rejected the notion of God or religion and am now agnostic.

Its been such a complex journey thats taken till now age 41 and will probably change when im 50 and 60. People can label me what ever they wish.
I know where I stand. I can answer any questions. And Im not fixed on one theory.

The terms atheist and agnostic aren't fixed on any particular theory or god, either.  

LoL do u ever think back to when u wer 20? I do. So naive at that age. Now at 40 I look back wen I was 30 and shake my head.
Perhaps wen im 60 ill look back in absolute disgrace with the knowledge I may have then.

I do, often.  I'm certainly not happy with some of the decisions I made, but that's to be expected....and I'm not sure what that has to do with atheism or agnosticism?   

I definately understand how most atheists are agnostic and how people can be agnostic theists. Its in the diagrom on my op.
But when I say Im pure agnostic some people cannot compute. They try pull me either way.

I posted that definition of agnosticism cos its me. My agnosticism not attached to atheism or theism in any way in terms of God.
In fact im skeptical of both and put the onus of proof on them to provide their claim to me.

Do you believe in gods?  If the answer is "I'm agnostic" in some way not contained by agnostic atheism or agnostic theism (you could use deism as well).....you're just telling us that you don't know the contents of your own beliefs.  

Generally speaking, people who are skeptical of gods do not believe in gods.  It doesn't matter whether or not you're also skeptical of some other thing or don't believe in some other thing.  If your skepticism amounts to you not believing in gods, then you're an atheist, no matter whatever else you don;t or do believe in, and regardless of whether or not you know some x..the subject of gnosis, the root of agnostic and gnostic.

This is the definition of the fallacy known as appeal to ignorance.

That's nice, and?  You still didn't correctly identify any argument from ignorance in your comments, so?  

But aside from the fallacy try put on my shoes, the agnostic. I feel like a judge. I see theists and atheists arguing eachother. And I know both arguments well.

I strongly doubt that this statement is true, on account of my experience with you (and your interactions with others) on these boards thusfar.  

The theists admit that their view is based on faith.

They do not.  The ones we get are certain that they can prove this or that, and that evidence backs up this and that.

Ancient texts, written thousands of years ago, the bilble written by man, not God. Ok

We've got one right now who thinks that genesis is his gods literal testimony.

Now the atheist steps up and I ask "whats your evidence for ruling out the possibility of some form of intelligent design or even just the Christian God?"

and you either get it, or a person tells you that they just don;t believe.

And I get this fallacy. Now, I don't wish to have a debate on this cos it will just go round in circles. Either u agree its a fallacy or not. No big deal. Move on.

LOL..... You go no such thing, lol.  I can see why you would want to just reassert that dumb shit and then indicate that you don;t want to talk about it anymore.  Too bad.  

But check this Bolga. Im more interested in early man, atheism and theism, onto civilization.

Again..not in my experience, you're not.  

Would you agree that all religion was spawned from atheism? That 200,000 years ago the first Homo Sapiens were atheist?
That we are born innatly atheist and apolitical? That religion is most likely a reponse to atheism?

Why would any thinking fucking person agree to the absurd thing that you just said?

[Bucky Ball]

The classical definition of agnosticism is that it is not possible to know if there is a god.
It is that the existence of God is UNKNOWABLE.
It is not that "I don't know".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athei.../#DefiAgno

[Angrboda]

Of you believe in a god you're a theist.

If you don't, you're an atheist.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

Abour 20% of people who identify as atheist, also believe in God.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...a42b25118a

In the survey, those who answered that they do not believe in God were asked a follow-up question, whether they believed in “some other higher power or spiritual force in the universe.”

Not the same thing, dumbass.

---

l stumbled onto this website which is pretty cool and found this defintition of Agnosticism which defines my view of God.
Some people say that Agnosticism doesn't really exist which is incorrect.

http://www.humanreligions.info/agnosticism.html

"Agnosticism is the belief that (1) God, if it exist, is by nature unknowable ("strong agnosticism"), or, (2) that the that the induvidual being asked cannot conclude if God exists or not for lack of good evidence one way or another. Some agnostics sit in an assumed position; agnostic theists assume that God exists (a matter of faith) but also know that they don't have good evidence for this position, and, agnostic atheists  assume that God does not exist but cannot prove their position. Pure agnostics do not accept either assumption."

Many of our pages veer into conclusions that can be questioned. Some of our texts use arguments that can be improved upon. Some rely on facts that can be contradicted. We encourage anyone to get involved, and contribute to the discussions with your own well-argued pieces.

~ From "About The Human Truth Foundation"

lol.

[downbeatplumb]

We get a new definition of "atheism" all the time, so it just depends who you ask and what definition they're using.

No that's theism your thinking of.

An atheist is someone who when asked if they believe in god honestly answers no.


A quick guide.

If you believe in god. theist.
Everyone else atheist, (that includes agnostics and people who don't give a shit)

Its not that hard really is it.