Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Kenny]

No, it isn't look in a dictionary. And it's a lack of belief in gods in general, not your favourite 'God'.


None of these are required for atheism.

I did look in the etymology dictionary.

As far as the tenets, please take that up with the atheist site.

 

[PureX]

Bzzzzzzt.

The question is malformed and invalid.
Loaded even. It assumes atheism comes with claims.
It doesn't.

Sure it does. The atheist claims that theism is unproven and that it should be considered false until it is proven true. Every atheist here believes that and says so.

 

[Sheldon]

Thank you for your reply.
Since it can Not be proven that there is No God, then atheism can be the 'exercise of faith' (belief) in the non-existence of God/god _______

That definition would necessarily exclude many atheists from atheism, so it is nonsensical. I am an atheist because I don't believe in any deity or deities, I don't hold any belief that no deity exists, so by your definition I would not be an atheist, which is absurd.

 

[Sheldon]

As far as the tenets, please take that up with the atheist site.

Some atheist assigning themselves tenets doesn't make them tenets of atheism. Atheism has no doctrinal teachings or dogma, atheists might, but assigning those to atheism is absurd since I am an atheist and don't hold to the tenets you posted as positive claims.

 

[Kenny]

None of those are tenets of atheism, ,

Please take that up with the atheist site.

None of those are tenets of atheism, 1 is materialism not atheism,

Atheism leaves you no other option that believing in the material that you see. Scientific in its approach.

2 initially makes a claim that is nonsensical, science is a method for studying and understanding the natural world and material universe that's all, and are you suggesting the universe is not knowable? Scientific laws don't exist, they're descriptive ideas science has created, in order to understand how the universe functions. Nothing in that disjointed rant has anything to do with atheism, they are again straw man fallacies you've created to misrepresent atheism as a claim.

I have no problem with the science world in as much as they understand as much as they can understand. Science, of course, is always correcting previous thoughts as more information becomes available and it is understood.

3 That claim is a straw man you've created again, it has nothing to do with atheism.

Again.. please take that up with the atheist site. Don't shoot the messenger, I am only reporting from the atheist site.

I am an atheist, and I don't know if anything exists exists beyond the natural physical world and universe, but since no one can demsonrate any evidence for their superstitious belief in the supernatural I don't believe the claim. I do not make a contrary claim, as often these concepts are unfalsifiable.

Yes, you can have your version of atheism... however it doesn't change the etymology of the word and its definition thereof.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Atheism, the conscious rejection of controlling supernatural deities hypothesis, is underpinned by a belief in the success and productivity of the evidence based reasoning method of objective investigation and analysis.

Atheism is the considered rejection of a positive claim, of an untestable unproven hypothesis. No different from the rejection of any other unproven (disproven in fact) hypothesis. Such as the flat Earth conspiracy theory or creationism.

 

[Sheldon]

The question is malformed and invalid.
Loaded even. It assumes atheism comes with claims.
It doesn't.

Sure it does. The atheist claims that theism is unproven and that it should be considered false until it is proven true. Every atheist here believes that and says so.

"The atheist"? What a spectacularly stupid generalisation for a start. I have never claimed this, and I am an atheist. I only ever assert that no theists seems able to demsonrate any objective evidence for any deity, your straw man claim seems to have me as an atheist either excluded from the definition of atheism, or making claims I never have?

The last sentence is demonstrably false, as I am an atheist, and don't hold that as a belief, nor have I ever said I do.

 

[Kenny]

That definition would necessarily exclude many atheists from atheism, so it is nonsensical. I am an atheist because I don't believe in any deity or deities, I don't hold any belief that no deity exists, so by your definition I would not be an atheist, which is absurd.

I think it does, although you can define yourself as such.

There are many people who may call themselves Christians but God's definition of Christian may not match as he said "I do not know you".

Thus, we don't go by personal definitions but rather "the" definition. At this point, your position would classify you as an agnostic and not an atheist.

 

[Kenny]

Some atheist assigning themselves tenets doesn't make them tenets of atheism. Atheism has no doctrinal teachings or dogma, atheists might, but assigning those to atheism is absurd since I am an atheist and don't hold to the tenets you posted as positive claims.

Again, please take that up with the atheist's web-site.

 

[Sheldon]

Please take that up with the atheist site.

No need, no atheist gets to tell other atheist what they think or believe, this is not a religion.

Atheism leaves you no other option that believing in the material that you see. Scientific in its approach.

Where did I claim I "don't believe in the material"? You're describing materialism, it's not the same as atheism. Science is a method, dear oh dear.

I have no problem with the science world in as much as they understand as much as they can understand.

That is a pretty meaningless platitude?

Science, of course, is always correcting previous thoughts as more information becomes available and it is understood.

The word always there, is demonstrably false, your agenda against science is probably because it doesn't need any deity to explain or understand the universe, and because it has produced facts like species evolution which contradict the creation myths in the bible and koran.

Again.. please take that up with the atheist site. Don't shoot the messenger, I am only reporting from the atheist site.

Again no atheist gets to tell other atheist what they think or believe, this is not a religion. Hence those are tenets of some atheists, not tenets of atheism.

Yes, you can have your version of atheism... however it doesn't change the etymology of the word and its definition thereof.

It's not my version, it's the current primary dictionary definition, based on common usage, and your version would exclude atheists from the definition of atheism, just so you can use it to avoid demonstrating any objective evidence for your superstitious beliefs.

 

[Altfish]

Strong atheism is a belief.
Weak atheism (agnosticism) is not.
.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Is definitely not fishing a hobby?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is pretty simple, in my view.



It is the assent of the mind of the atheist of a proposition or statement that there is no God, for which their is not complete evidence... it is their belief in general.

How is not believing in something, a belief?

 

[Sheldon]

I think it does, although you can define yourself as such.

There are many people who may call themselves Christians but God's definition of Christian may not match as he said "I do not know you".

Thus, we don't go by personal definitions but rather "the" definition. At this point, your position would classify you as an agnostic and not an atheist.

Your personal and rather tortured definition doesn't work, and is clearly a smoke screen to avoid admitting your superstitious beliefs are unsupported by any objective evidence.

I am an atheist, as I don't believe any deity or deities exist.

 

[ratiocinator]

I did look in the etymology dictionary.

Irrelevant to how the word is currently understood. Even the full Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you despite giving the etymology (temp link that avoids paywall).

Atheism leaves you no other option that believing in the material that you see. Scientific in its approach.

Simply false. There is nothing about not accepting the existence of gods that rules out the supernatural in general.

 

[Kenny]

No need, no atheist gets to tell other atheist what they think or believe, this is not a religion.



Where did I claim I "don't believe in the material"? You're describing materialism, it's not the same as atheism. Science is a method, dear oh dear.



That is a pretty meaningless platitude?



The word always there, is demonstrably false, your agenda against science is probably because it doesn't need any deity to explain or understand the universe, and because it has produced facts like species evolution which contradict the creation myths in the bible and koran.



Again no atheist gets to tell other atheist what they think or believe, this is not a religion. Hence those are tenets of some atheists, not tenets of atheism.



It's not my version, it's the current primary dictionary definition, based on common usage, and your version would exclude atheists from the definition of atheism, just so you can use it to avoid demonstrating any objective evidence for your superstitious beliefs.

There really isn't anything here that needs to be addressed.

I support your right to have differing viewpoints and opinions.

 

[Sheldon]

How is not believing in something, a belief?

It's not clearly, this is an in vogue tactic by some religious apologists to insist that atheism must carry a burden of proof. It doesn't make their archaic superstitions any less made up, and unevidenced. I think Lane Craig started championing this asinine idea a while ago in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, the Hitch tore him apart basically. Lane Craig is a clown, pretending he is a professional philosopher and debater.

The real irony is some of these religions have championed faith over reason for centuries, and now they want to use it as a derogation of not believing in any deity.

It;s not a dissimilar tactic from creationists attacking scientific facts, as if that somehow lends any credence to their unevidenced creation myths.

 

[Kenny]

How is not believing in something, a belief?

By its very etymology:
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

It is a "belief".

atheism

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I understand your point... but I don't think you are the status quo. You sound more like an agnostic at this point. Certainly it doesn't fit into the proper definition of atheism.

entomology:
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."

Well, except that I am entirely "against theism" to boot. And I do hold the belief that there is no God, I just don't argue the point because there is literally no point to do so. It is a personal belief, and that is as far as it goes. I will never claim to "know."

Why do I go after theists then, you might ask? Well... I also feel very strongly that there is no way they can possibly know either, and yet they keep claiming that they do. And I have to keep listening to it. You're probably inured to the claims and statements by this point, and believe anyway - but believe me, its freaking everywhere. And because I feel these people can't know what they claim to know, and because their justifications are so very, very terrible and worthless in EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER I have ever had where someone explains their justifications to me, I go against that grain. I am bound to. By honor, by the rigors of intellectualism, by conscience - I am BOUND.

 

[Sheldon]

There really isn't anything here that needs to be addressed.

Ah, your area of expertise then, not addressing claims you've made when they are torn a new one.

It's ironic how your claims suddenly become irrelevant to you, when it's demonstrated that you can't defend them?

Tenets of some atheists, is not tenets of atheism, but thanks for the belly laugh.

 

[Sheldon]

By its very etymology:
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

It is a "belief".

atheism

No it doesn't as many atheists like myself, donlt hold any such belief. So your made up version of atheism doesn't work. However using the primary definition based on current common usage, it would include all atheists, those like myself who simply don't believe in deities as no theists can demsonrate any objective evidence for them, and atheists who go further and claim no deities exist because like moist unfalsifiable claims god claims are meaningless and preposterous.