Why atheism is a belief.

[JoopWoop]

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

[5thHorseman]

MUST TRY HARDER

[Rayaan]

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

Well, wouldn't it be right if I said that atheism is simply a disbelief in God? And if so, then do you think that such a "disbelief" is equal to a "belief"?

Edit: Actually, I think it would be valid to say that atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God, which is the same thing as saying that atheism is a lack of belief in God. So, atheism is a belief only in the sense that it is a "stance" or a "position" of an atheist. So I think that atheism is indeed a belief. But it's a belief in the non-existence of something (i.e. that of God).

This thread explains the issue better: Please stop equating 'belief' and 'faith'

[Anomalocaris]

MUST TRY HARDER

He can't, that's the only wad he's got.

[Ace Otana]

what evidence do you have to disregard a god?

The lack of evidence to support a god. Simple really.

[Cyberman]

You stand in the dock, charged with a murder you know beyond all doubt you did not commit. What evidence do you have that you are not guilty?

[Mister Agenda]

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

Agnostic atheists are ikely to say that, yes.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Most of us do think that a lack of evidence that something is true is a good reason not to believe it's true, go on.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

So you're saying that our problem is not believing in something because the evidence is not only not available but may in fact be unobtainable? Would you elaborate on that please? It sounds like a strength rather than a flaw.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

So basically, you're saying that not believing is the same as believing. Are you sure you thought that through?

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

The sufficient cause is that the people who are trying to convince us there is a God cannot provide evidence sufficient to back up their contention. Evidence of anything supposedly supernatural that can stand up to scrutiny would be a start: prove demons or ghosts or clairvoyance or miracles are real and you will have a starting place to build a case for God from.

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

If I find a coin on the street my inferences (not assumptions) about how it got there will be based on what I know about coins, how they're made, and how they can wind up on streets. Mathematically, existence is the set of everything. Everything requiring a cause is a property of things that exist. It is not necessarily a requirement that the set of all things that exist be subject to the same limitation. What's illogical is assuming anything about the origin of existence that isn't based on physical evidence. So far, the only causes for anything we've ever been able to figure out the cause for have been natural causes, and it is inductively sound to conclude it's natural causes, all the way down.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

We don't argue atheism isn't a belief because we have a personal preference for no god. We argue atheism isn't a belief because in the West, there is a tendency for atheists to be grammar nazis.

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

No point in waiting for our response to mock the weakness of it, eh?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

Atheists state that there is no evidence for any of the mystical or supernatural claims made by any religion including but not limited to one or more gods.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Actually, we state that belief is required because there is no evidence. Evolution can and has been proven to whatever extent beyond a reasonable doubt. God and Jesus have not. It's as simple as that.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

The only person to have made 'assumptions' about evidence is you.
You can't discredit science to advocate religion for the same reason I can't personally attack you to discredit religion as a whole.
You've already set up a gaggle of presumptions and are responding to things I've never heard any atheist state nor have I, as an atheist, believe or otherwise assume.
You're already off to a bad start.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

Atheists don't believe in science like you believe in whatever ridiculous faith you hold dear to yourself. Atheism is a term coined to represent a group of people with precisely one thing in common: we don't believe the claims from any religion.
That's it. The fact that you assume otherwise is why your entire presumption has failed.

Further, Atheists don't make assumptions to reach their conclusion - religion has simply failed to substantiate any of their claims with any kind of factual or evidence-based backing to prove that anything stated by any religion is, in fact, a matter of reality.

This was the method to prove gravity, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, big bang, germ theory, and any number of scientific ideas. These ideas have positive results that have practical benefits. Modern medicine has benefited from germ theory for penecillin and those magnetic resonance imaging scanners (MRI) from electromagnetism, for example.

There is no equivelent to the above for religion and as such, we reject it. It requires no belief whatsoever, regardless of your flawed understanding of our view of the world.

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

Considering that anything is (supposedly) within god's power, a personal appearance, a signed note, and a proper demonstration of his/her/its control over life (perhaps he could make Mars habitable and fill it with earthlike life in an instant... or six days.)
I think that would soundly confirm beyond any doubt of his/her/its existence, although it doesn't have to be that thorough.

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

You do realize that your entire post is basically strawman arguement, correct? Perhaps instead of accusing us of being self-contradictory, you could perform a cursory google searach on atheism, avoid the obvious religious-affiliated websites and allow atheists to explain our own position and draw your own conclusions.
Instead, you appear completely ignorant of exactly what it is that we do and you're making yourself appear foolish.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

It isn't. Because it is not a belief. Atheism has no positive claims to 'believe.' We are not asserting a positive and therefore have no beliefs to unite under, unlike any religion.

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

If you're not a theist, then what are you?

[Jackalope]

The future for this one seems bright and rosy. Perhaps a nice shade of pink?

We really need an over/under post count betting pool.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The future for this one seems bright and rosy. Perhaps a nice shade of pink?

We really need an over/under post count betting pool.

It's too bad there's no way to tell if someone is posting under a particular IP or not. Wouldn't have to necessarily give away private information, but given the way that some trolls come and go, I always hve to wonder if someone who comes here and makes posts like this isn't someone we've already banned.

I would be certainly quite interested to know.