Is atheism a belief?

[Martin]

False.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe that there is no God.

In which case you're agnostic, and not atheist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In which case you're agnostic, and not atheist.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and both agnosticism and theism/atheism deal with different things. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

I'm the latter.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If a man consumes alcohol to excess, beats his wife and neglects his children, yet claims to love his God and family, I would question that claim.

Did ESP tell you I do those things? I don't.

 

[ecco]

I believe in an un-involved God which is everything and everyforce together. Ergo, I do not believe in an involved interested God. Ergo I am at least a Non-Theist and very probably an Atheist.

So...... belief.
But many Atheists don't like the work 'belief'' very much 'cos it tends to diminish their coat of many sciences, some of them just think they know it all.

Belief? Huh! Spit...... Sniff.......

There ain't nuttin wrong with belief...

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
​

1. 2.
   trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.​

The problem only arises when theists, who live on blind belief, try to apply that version to atheists.

 

[ecco]

All you had to do was answer my question

Why would I answer a question that is based on an out of context portion of a comment?

Does your husband still beat you?




More importantly, why can't you admit you intentionally took my comment out of context?

 

[ecco]

Is atheism a belief?

Belief in what, please?
They don't trust/believe/have faith even in Atheism, please. Right, please?

Regards

Begging won't make you right.

 

[Augustus]

You can lock up 10.000 of the most BRILLIANT philosophers that have ever lived in a room and ask them to come up with quantum mechanics and none of them would even come close.

What if 2 of them were Bohr and Schroedinger? (they were philosophers as well as physicists after all)

And philosophers came up with things like the theory of gravity, kinematics, chemistry and even 'the scientific method'.

The lesson here is that drawing conclusions from mere words, is not a pathway to truth.
If you want to learn about the universe, you're going to have to ask the universe by studying it.

Philosophy is not simply 'drawing conclusions from mere words' though.

Hence natural philosophy, which gave birth to modern science, and modern science can't be isolated from its philosophical roots and underpinnings (as recognised by the aforementioned Bohr, Schroedinger as well as Einstein, etc).

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Is atheism a belief?

Belief in what, please?
They don't trust/believe/have faith even in Atheism, please. Right, please?

Begging won't make you right.

I didn't say anything like that. I was just pointing out to their confusion.

Regards

 

[MonkeyFire]

Idk if its a belief, but I have always wondered if atheist were willing to know God.

 

[j1i]

You are so very welcome. If you need more, just ask. Honestly. It is no problem.

You are free to your opinion, but what you are doing is dressing your opinion up like facts, and using language trying to portray that you have conducted some "Study," or "know the psychology." And I am saying that I don't believe you. I don't believe you've conducted any such research. You're formulating an opinion and trying to play it off as more than that. That's what I am accusing you of.

Because your thoughts are PROVEN to be in error. Instinct doesn't include the thoughts of dead people. That crap isn't even in the meaning and usage of the word. If you're using a different meaning and usage, let me know. Otherwise, you're just plain wrong and being completely foolish. Tossing words around without a care as to what you are actually saying.

Sorry... I honestly just don't understand much of what you're saying here. "Scatter the papers?" And what is this about the "main source of man?"

Your opinion, correct? Just want to make that clear because you used absolutely NO language to indicate that. This is stated as fact. And this is exactly why I called you out. Don't like it? Tough. You'll have to just avoid me or something.

This is opinion here again, because you can't possibly know this. If you DID know this, and could demonstrate the truth of it, you'd be world-famous.
So what?
No they don't. They just further establish that that is your opinion and why you hold it. This does not necessarily describe the real world. You would have to provide solid evidence for any rational person to accept this.

Because bacteria display innate knowledge that God exists, right? Give me a break.

And? What do you think this proves? It only proves that knowledge can come pre-built-in as part of the brain. Beyond that, what can you possibly use this as evidence of with an actual demonstration of the veracity of your claims? You have nothing.
Prove it.

My parents conceived me after a long line of decendency from past organisms. Beyond that I don't see any "creative" force.
Uh... yes... I do so all the time. And so do you, unless you have some kind of auto-immune disorder. All humans come pre-packaged with the ability to heal minor wounds and combat sickness. Hence the word "auto" in "auto-immune".

Argumentum ad populum. Just because something is thought/adopted by the majority doesn't make it correct or true. Besides this, the notion that so many people, groups and cultures have come to completely different revelations about "god" or "gods" shatters this notion to pieces. There is no "instinct" that drives people to any real "god." If there were, it would all be to the same, correct "god." Instead, the instinct is to see action taken when none has been taken - to anthropomorphize the activities of the world and assign vocation and intent where none exists. That's the real instinct in my opinion, and it's also my opinion that you have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

I see you as the one who carries arms and hits the air to empty his negative energy
Smite, brother exercise good exercise
Hahaha

thanks for answering

I want to ask you a question
Is it possible to prove to me, that you are born of your mother and father
It did not exist when your mother and father married and did not witness the transfer of semen
You will bring me proof that you belong to your father and mother

DNA
To prove your association with your parents you will resort to biological acid

To prove our connection to God, we must bring biological or biological or spiritual signs?

How to prove that the BMW car belongs to the BMW factory?
The logo? There is a sign indicating the manufacturer
Or we bring DNA

There is also a sign indicating the Creator

And please i do not like the focused pressure on the buttons of the Joystick game Hahaha

Sincerely my brother

 

[InChrist]

See, one of the problems with dealing with rational atheists is that we are, more often than not, willing to check things out. The first eye-brow-raiser was your source...

Religion News Service​

Now that, in and of itself does not disqualify the article. But if one reads the article one finds it is an opinion piece. It cites no research. It presents no research. It is one person's opinion. It makes one reference which, in your blindness to prove a point, you reference: ...though, is that the science increasingly shows...

But that's just a link to another web site which requires a subscription. In other words, nothing more than Lois Lee's opinion and your link to it.

That's really lame. But it's par for the course and typical of theist's failed tactics. When ya got nutttin, pretend and hope nobody checks up on ya.


Furthermore, according to your linked article, "Lois Lee is a research fellow in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Kent". One shouldn't accept that Lois is unbiased, should one?

I posted the article because I thought it had some interesting points, applicable to all people, atheists or theists.

I didn't necessarily post the article for you or anyone to automatically accept the author's conclusions. Nor did I realize that the link included needed a subscription. I was not using "tactics" or assuming you or anyone would just read it without thinking about it, checking it out and arriving at your own thoughts on the subject.

No, I don't think Lois should be accepted as unbiased, then again I don't think an atheists or anyone's opinion is unbiased.

 

[oldbadger]

False.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe that there is no God.

OK.
But the above is a double negative, and so I can remove both, which leads me to think that you 'believe there is a God'.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is no God.

So please show us what you do believe, because you sure ain't certain.

 

[oldbadger]

There ain't nuttin wrong with belief...

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
​

1. 2.
   trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.​

The problem only arises when theists, who live on blind belief, try to apply that version to atheists.

Hello Ecco!
Do you still believe that I am a JW?

I do love your beliefs.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is atheism a belief?

The Atheists have no trust in Atheism. Do they?
If yes, then they should give one positive argument/reason that "God does not exist".

The Atheists have no belief in Atheism. Do they?
If yes, then they should give one positive argument/reason that "God does not exist".

The Atheists have no faith in Atheism.Do they?

If yes, then they should give one positive argument/reason that "God does not exist".
Right, please?

Regards

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I see you as the one who carries arms and hits the air to empty his negative energy
Smite, brother exercise good exercise
Hahaha

You are not without your "negative energy" - you just "hide" yours (albeit very, very sloppily) in passive-aggressive language stated with confidence as "fact." But you have no business being confident. Especially with your foolish statements about atheism that only betray the reality - that you have no Earthly idea what you are talking about. As in... you lack valid knowledge of the subject matter. And yet you talk about it anyway.

thanks for answering

Again, no problem. No need to thank me. I will reply as long as you wish to continue the conversation. I have absolutely no fear of words whatsoever. You say something I don't like, I will call you out on it. If I say something you don't like, do the same.

I want to ask you a question
Is it possible to prove to me, that you are born of your mother and father
It did not exist when your mother and father married and did not witness the transfer of semen
You will bring me proof that you belong to your father and mother

DNA
To prove your association with your parents you will resort to biological acid

In close examination of the physical subjects at hand, yes, we can point to DNA as an evidential link from me to my parents. We have tried and tested this, and found it to be reliable within the confines of our physical world.

To prove our connection to God, we must bring biological or biological or spiritual signs?

We both know that "biological signs" aren't gong to cut it. God leaves behind no verifiable biological signature (and no, simply claiming that DNA is God's work doesn't cut it). And what, in your estimation, is a "spiritual sign?" I don't even know if I have ever found a trustworthy definition of the word "spiritual." Does it mean "of the spirits?" Does it simply refer to something from a place we can't access physically by definition? Is it a "feeling?" What does "spirituality" claim as its dominion? I honestly don't know... because any time the word has been used I am only able to infer a general sense of its meaning. Even the dictionary is very vague on the point. It honestly seems like a word without much use to me, if I am being honest. Perhaps if you can succinctly define it for me, then I might be able to know what kind of "sign" I am to be looking for? If you can't succinctly define it... well... then how can you honestly expect anyone like me to care about it?

How to prove that the BMW car belongs to the BMW factory?
The logo? There is a sign indicating the manufacturer
Or we bring DNA

There is also a sign indicating the Creator

You've been told this is a false equivalency a thousand times, I am sure. We know for certain the "maker's mark" of a vehicle because we have correlating experience with vehicles. The only ones we have ever seen were made by men. We have, at our disposal, very strong, verifiable EVIDENCE that auto-makers exist, and evidence of what their product looks like, and evidence of the fact that they tend to "sign" their work with their brand's insignia. We also can point to the idea that we have never seen a vehicle "in the wild," and so we can be closer assured that these things only come about by the hand of an auto-maker.

The case for God is nothing at all like this. We very much DO have examples of life/DNA/consciousness/etc. "in the wild." These sorts of things present themselves CONSTANTLY within nature, with no detectable hand needed to guide them. Natural processes have been demonstrated to produce living organisms, DNA, consciousness... ALL of it... and by all appearances and measurements, it is ALL done without God. You really do have nothing except silly thought-experiments, ancient superstitious texts and hearsay on your side. Nothing else at all can you bring forward as "evidence." And if you do, it will be shot down all too easily. DNA is not evidence for "God." Consciousness is not evidence for "God." The Earth's alignment in our solar system is not evidence for "God." Those are just physical realities that exist and can therefore be investigated. God is not not a physical reality, and cannot be investigated - therefore I conclude easily that God is not among them.

 

[ArtieE]

So please show us what you do believe, because you sure ain't certain.

I don't believe there is a God and I don't believe there is no God. I just haven't made up my mind what to believe due to lack of evidence either way.

 

[Milton Platt]

Atheism could be defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

Both definitions are accurate. It all depends upon the person you are referring to.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would I answer a question that is based on an out of context portion of a comment?

Only if you were trying to be polite.

Does your husband still beat you?

My husband never beat me.

More importantly, why can't you admit you intentionally took my comment out of context?

You are not God and you are not me so you have no idea what my intentions were.

Telling other people what their intentions are is disrespectful. I will not respond to you again unless you can be respectful. That is my new rule. Another new rule I have is that I am not going to argue with people anymore. Another new rule I have is that if people keep contradicting me I will ignore them. Another new rule I have is that I am not going back over old posts to prove what I said or what someone else said. What an utter waste of time.

I am on this forum for respectful discussions, that's all.

 

[j1i]

You are not without your "negative energy" - you just "hide" yours (albeit very, very sloppily) in passive-aggressive language stated with confidence as "fact." But you have no business being confident. Especially with your foolish statements about atheism that only betray the reality - that you have no Earthly idea what you are talking about. As in... you lack valid knowledge of the subject matter. And yet you talk about it anyway.

Again, no problem. No need to thank me. I will reply as long as you wish to continue the conversation. I have absolutely no fear of words whatsoever. You say something I don't like, I will call you out on it. If I say something you don't like, do the same.

In close examination of the physical subjects at hand, yes, we can point to DNA as an evidential link from me to my parents. We have tried and tested this, and found it to be reliable within the confines of our physical world.

We both know that "biological signs" aren't gong to cut it. God leaves behind no verifiable biological signature (and no, simply claiming that DNA is God's work doesn't cut it). And what, in your estimation, is a "spiritual sign?" I don't even know if I have ever found a trustworthy definition of the word "spiritual." Does it mean "of the spirits?" Does it simply refer to something from a place we can't access physically by definition? Is it a "feeling?" What does "spirituality" claim as its dominion? I honestly don't know... because any time the word has been used I am only able to infer a general sense of its meaning. Even the dictionary is very vague on the point. It honestly seems like a word without much use to me, if I am being honest. Perhaps if you can succinctly define it for me, then I might be able to know what kind of "sign" I am to be looking for? If you can't succinctly define it... well... then how can you honestly expect anyone like me to care about it?

You've been told this is a false equivalency a thousand times, I am sure. We know for certain the "maker's mark" of a vehicle because we have correlating experience with vehicles. The only ones we have ever seen were made by men. We have, at our disposal, very strong, verifiable EVIDENCE that auto-makers exist, and evidence of what their product looks like, and evidence of the fact that they tend to "sign" their work with their brand's insignia. We also can point to the idea that we have never seen a vehicle "in the wild," and so we can be closer assured that these things only come about by the hand of an auto-maker.

The case for God is nothing at all like this. We very much DO have examples of life/DNA/consciousness/etc. "in the wild." These sorts of things present themselves CONSTANTLY within nature, with no detectable hand needed to guide them. Natural processes have been demonstrated to produce living organisms, DNA, consciousness... ALL of it... and by all appearances and measurements, it is ALL done without God. You really do have nothing except silly thought-experiments, ancient superstitious texts and hearsay on your side. Nothing else at all can you bring forward as "evidence." And if you do, it will be shot down all too easily. DNA is not evidence for "God." Consciousness is not evidence for "God." The Earth's alignment in our solar system is not evidence for "God." Those are just physical realities that exist and can therefore be investigated. God is not not a physical reality, and cannot be investigated - therefore I conclude easily that God is not among them.

Very beautiful
Now I want to continue because I am weak and this is your chance to get win
I am weak physically and mentally no problem
But I will prove to you aim not mentally weak

Describes my personality through my artificial responses as a fact and accuses me of being aggressive and this indicates that you are pedantic

You told me that DNA is proof that you belong to your father and mother
I don't believe DNA and I deny it
I want to another prove

I want you to bring me a video of the moments of your mother's marriage and everything until you came out as proof and your features appeared until yesterday

As an independent organization, I refuse to adopt DNA for birth control and I want to see only visual and audio evidence

So they are atheists
They reject the evidence in biological and vital signs of the complexity of the creator and the dynamic motion of the planets

And they believe DNA as proof of parents

How contradictory

lets continue

I want you to bring me proof that you belong to your father and mother without DNA

The Technically advanced of our research confirms the possibility of changing DNA and tampering and the certificate of proof of DNA has become weak and not recognized.

Is it possible to bring me a video
The video is also fake because it has been tampered with in high quality Hollywood studios and I don't believe in it

I do not believe the testimony of relatives because their testimony is false

I do not want to believe that you are the son of your father and your mother never, whatever you try

You are not the son of your father and your mother

You bast-a-rd (example) came from a bag in the garbage and One man took your as father after he returned from his jop

Notice how you want to strongly deny the belief in the existence of a Creator like what an atheist does

I apologize I'm not edgy as you claim because i said bastar-d but I want to give a lesson My point of view is to focus

and please not to distract my mind
I want you to speak to me in proving your father and mother's offspring

Just give me proof that you are the son of your father and your mother please and I do not believe anything and strongly denied

As for the spiritual

I hope I get an explanation of my question of the belief of an agnostic or atheism

Why we speak low when we are scared
i mean in places of fear why we speak quietly ?
Imgur

There is our faith that there are hidden creatures but we do not see them and there is no ability to prove them

This shows man the contradiction in understanding the facts
Is he afraid of nothing? While there is thought to be something?

i'm waiting the answer


atheism: example
There is no creator but see factory marks

take care