Faith

[abdyer2001]

nithing is wrong with having faith, because you have to just believe when there is no proof that any of the events ever took place,   virgin birth, man being made in his own imageso he was white - what about all other cultures, and any people that are handicapped, are they left out.  Adam and eve the only people on earth, have childeren that go out into the world and find wives , where did they find them the only woman was there mother.  which was made from thier fathers rib.  So yes when you use the term faith - you just have to believe.      

[falcon9]

nithing is wrong with having faith, because you have to just believe when there is no proof that any of the events ever took place, ... So yes when you use the term faith - you just have to believe.

Actually, no - one doesn't "have to believe" at all.  Alternatively, one can disbelief such outrageous claims.

[falcon9]

You can dispute it as you wish.  However, there are still others who would dispute your dispute.

Yes, they would however, their arguments soon become circular, as you'd noticed previously.  Since atheism involves _disbelief_, (not believing), how can it be considered to be a "belief system"?  Wouldn't 'disbelief system' be closer, (even stretching the idea that atheism itself is systematic)?

So whatever in the world is wrong with having a "belief system" that means having disbelief in something or someone?

Well, for one thing; disbelieving is not equivalent to having a belief system. If you can reference a 'system of disbelief', that might prove interesting.

A person is choosing to "believe" there are no deities.

No, that isn't the same thing as disbelieving someone else's claim that there are deities to believe in.

However, I do agree that "disbelief system" would be a good title for atheists.  I have read of this same possible title being discussed in some things when reading about atheism and theism.

The problem with that is that there really isn't a "system" of disbelief inherent in atheism, (other than the use of reason/logic).  There could be a few different systems of disbelief, rather than the implied one, (as in "a" system of disbelief which specifically describes all atheists).

[falcon9]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10433178-american-atheists-leader-says-fundamentalist-christians-must-be-eradicated-compares-them-to-radical-islamists

1 angry dude? You're judging the atheist community on one guy who admittedly says he went on a rant? I've honestly never seen a prominent atheist say something that extreme and hypocritical before, but the whole read is not entirely bs and makes some good points (as Falcon9 quoted). Read the comments below the article since there are plenty of level-headed atheists there that say the same thing I did here.

However I've seen plenty of christians (both to my face and online) say this about atheists-- how they should be erradicated or deported.

http://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/atheists.png?w=550&h=1045

I said it once and I'll say it again- I honestly am perplexed as to why the christians here are trying to show how atheism is a belief system. It's not. Neither is theism. Plain and simple. The fact that the christians here are trying to find work-arounds and such are really just grasping at straws and it's really getting ridiculous.

Precisely.  The implicit assumption being used there seems to be that, if atheism is a belief system, then it relies upon 'faith' as much as a religious belief system.  Of course, the whole syllogism falls apart because atheism isn't a system of belief, (nor can 'doctrine' be substituted for 'atheism' in order to conflate the terms).  The link you post below has a salient point:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090706202727AAs5FuA


[/quote]

From the above link:
"Do not believe the definitions that opponents try to impose on atheism. A mainstream atheist is someone who has concluded there is no credible basis of evidence or system of thought to conclude that a god exists. Says philosophically that of course there is no way to prove a negative (or many negatives). So a mainstream atheist does not positively maintain there is no god, but maintains the chance of the existence of a god, or the Christian God, is so infinitesimally remote as to be effectively zero." - 'Darwinall'

[jcribb16]

I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:

*Organized (There are leaders, information in literature to be mailed or handed out, agendas with dates of certain places to go to protest certain issues they have with Christians, as well as arguments in any given vocal debate in the public.)

*Composed of followers (who go and pass out or mail information about their organizations; where to go to stop religious things from taking place, etc.)

Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief and to do away with God or anything God.  Especially with more of the "militant" atheists, of which I am not claiming anyone in here is or is not one of these.

[falcon9]

I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:

*Organized (There are leaders, information in literature to be mailed or handed out, agendas with dates of certain places to go to protest certain issues they have with Christians, as well as arguments in any given vocal debate in the public.)

Not all atheists are organised, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets.  A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?

*Composed of followers (who go and pass out or mail information about their organizations; where to go to stop religious things from taking place, etc.)


Not all atheists are followers of some organisation of atheists, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets.  A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?

Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief and to do away with God or anything God.  Especially with more of the "militant" atheists, of which I am not claiming anyone in here is or is not one of these.
 

The logical fallacy you've engaged in above consists of generalizing the few to represent the many.  Yes, there are militant atheists, just as there are militant xtians - no one has disputed that.  What is disputed now is the disingenuous inference being implicitly suggested; that such organised
 atheists exist as majority, (or even minority), representatives of atheism.  As you are no doubt at least nominally aware, there are many different xtian sects.  It isn't such a stretch of imagination to consider that there are at least one than one type of atheist around.  Unless you would like such militant xtian extremists as are now extant to represent your religion, the same curtesy would be appreciated.

[jcribb16]

I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:

*Organized (There are leaders, information in literature to be mailed or handed out, agendas with dates of certain places to go to protest certain issues they have with Christians, as well as arguments in any given vocal debate in the public.)

Not all atheists are organised, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets.  A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?

*Composed of followers (who go and pass out or mail information about their organizations; where to go to stop religious things from taking place, etc.)


Not all atheists are followers of some organisation of atheists, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets.  A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?

Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief and to do away with God or anything God.  Especially with more of the "militant" atheists, of which I am not claiming anyone in here is or is not one of these.
 

The logical fallacy you've engaged in above consists of generalizing the few to represent the many.  Yes, there are militant atheists, just as there are militant xtians - no one has disputed that.  What is disputed now is the disingenuous inference being implicitly suggested; that such organised
 atheists exist as majority, (or even minority), representatives of atheism.  As you are no doubt at least nominally aware, there are many different xtian sects.  It isn't such a stretch of imagination to consider that there are at least one than one type of atheist around.  Unless you would like such militant xtian extremists as are now extant to represent your religion, the same curtesy would be appreciated.

I was only trying to give examples of how or why people look at atheism as a belief sort of system - I did not allude to majority or minority in doing so.  I am not trying to represent few to many.  I will say that the group "Freedom from Religion" is becoming more vocally known through news sources as of late.

[falcon9]

I was only trying to give examples of how or why people look at atheism as a belief sort of system - I did not allude to majority or minority in doing so.  I am not trying to represent few to many.  I will say that the group "Freedom from Religion" is becoming more vocally known through news sources as of late.

"The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. The Foundation is the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and skeptics) with over 17,000 members."

17,000 members as opposed to how many millions of xtians? And of those, how many are presumed to be 'militant extremists'?

I am alluding to a minority of an estimated 80,000 to 1 in the U.S. alone. In any case, the atheists who self-identify as such aren't the ones trying to label atheism as a belief system.  As Falconeer02 referenced; "A mainstream atheist is someone who has concluded there is no credible basis of evidence or system of thought to conclude that a god exists. Says philosophically that of course there is no way to prove a negative (or many negatives). So a mainstream atheist does not positively maintain there is no god, but maintains the chance of the existence of a god, or the Christian God, is so infinitesimally remote as to be effectively zero."

[falcon9]

Read the comments below the article since there are plenty of level-headed atheists there that say the same thing I did here.
I said it once and I'll say it again- I honestly am perplexed as to why the christians here are trying to show how atheism is a belief system. It's not. Neither is theism. Plain and simple. The fact that the christians here are trying to find work-arounds and such are really just grasping at straws and it's really getting ridiculous.

"Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
 
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. 
 
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
 
When atheism is described as a belief system, a common error is made, but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you. If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?

If not believing something is, itself, a belief system then we can now say the unemployed are hard at work at not having a job, the impoverished are well invested in having no money, the homeless are dwelling in their spectacular non-homes and the hungry are gorging themselves on no food?"

[jcribb16]

I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:

*Organized
*Composed of followers

Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief ...

First, I've read the very same thing that you just shared about reasons why atheism is not a belief system, in articles online.  I get what they and you are saying.  I'm also trying to say that there are other ideas that lend credibility to the idea of a belief system of sorts. The "New Atheists" or the newer and more militant group of atheists, to me, would be a belief system of atheism because of the active ways they do things to promote their unbelief.  I know there are different levels of atheism (from weak to strong) and since they are still some sort of atheist, the overall perception is that atheism is a "sort of" belief system.

I agree atheists are trying to keep church and state separated - I agree with that. If the state comes into our church or our private schools, then everything would have to abide by what the states say.  But the "New Atheists" are going much further than just trying to keep church and state separate.  They want Christ or God denounced in everything and all people to denounce the same.  They are much more vocal and militant in their attitude and action.  Those are the ones who are a cause for concern.

[falcon9]

I'm also trying to say that there are other ideas that lend credibility to the idea of a belief system of sorts.

There really isn't an "of sorts" concerning the credibility of defining atheism as any sort of belief system _itself_.  There are many belief systems which are atheistic, however.  Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.

The "New Atheists" or the newer and more militant group of atheists, to me, would be a belief system of atheism because of the active ways they do things to promote their unbelief.

I guess we didn't agree that the militant fringes do not represent the majority.  Okay then, militant/radicial/fundamentalist xtians must represent the majority of xtians, (because of the active ways they do things to promote their beliefs, according to the same criteria you used). That either applies both ways or, not at all.

I know there are different levels of atheism (from weak to strong) and since they are still some sort of atheist, the overall perception is that atheism is a "sort of" belief system.

I'm aware of pacifist xtians and evangelical fundamentalist xtians; and since fundamentalists are still some sort of xtian, the overall perception is that xtians are "sort of" fundamentalist?  Same criteria and speciousness ... yet, somehow I don't think you'd like the conclusion.

I agree atheists are trying to keep church and state separated - I agree with that. If the state comes into our church or our private schools, then everything would have to abide by what the states say.  But the "New Atheists" are going much further than just trying to keep church and state separate.  They want Christ or God denounced in everything and all people to denounce the same.  They are much more vocal and militant in their attitude and action.  Those are the ones who are a cause for concern.

Coincidentally, the fundamentalist xtians want such religious beliefs as 'creationism' taught in schools as if it were factual, (that is, based upon verifiable evidence).  They're pretty vocal and militant too, and somewhat of a cause for concern.  Neither extremist views represent the majority; which is the reason your criteria was applied to emphasize that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, (e.g., using the extremists as representative examples of the larger group).

[gemini0314]

I wouldnt say it isnt necessary but the bible just isnt all that believable especially when you have scientific evidence of things like dinosaurs. The bible was written by a human, how could a human write a book about a god and how life came about and everything. Why should one religion be taken more seriously than another? We are at war right now because Muslims and Christians disagree.