Faith

[SurveyMack10]

Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system.  You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions).  Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.

Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)

Can't recall what you recently wrote again, huh?  Okay, I'll repost the excerpt, (just to see if you'll deny your own words) --

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.

I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me.

[falcon9]

I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.

The challenge was to what you used/wrote/quoted (in an attempt to bolster your 'point'), so it was relevant.

Anyway, you challenged Webster not me.

Since you quoted Webster, (rather than the other way around), I challenged your misinterpretation of what constitutes a "belief system".  Now that your usual diversions are out of the way, (doubtless you have more but, let's pretend those tangents aren't relevant and move back to the original point in which you asked what was challenged), back to that challenge:

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

[SurveyMack10]

I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.

The challenge was to what you used/wrote/quoted (in an attempt to bolster your 'point'), so it was relevant.

Anyway, you challenged Webster not me.

Since you quoted Webster, (rather than the other way around), I challenged your misinterpretation of what constitutes a "belief system".  Now that your usual diversions are out of the way, (doubtless you have more but, let's pretend those tangents aren't relevant and move back to the original point in which you asked what was challenged), back to that challenge:

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

I understand that, but I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was- so it was IRrelevant.


I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.

[falcon9]

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...

Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.  

I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.

You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_.  It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs.  Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?

By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").

"doc·trine
[dok-trin

noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"

--dictionary reference dotcom

[Abrupt]

I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less).  I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard).

While I hold no law degree, I can see where you are going with this analogy.  Let's try overtly following that analogy for as far as it takes this debate.  Specifically, to expand on an assertion you made in a recent exchange within this debate:

Message ID: 433747-
Quote from: falcon9 on October 16, 2011, 12:27:26 am:
'The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in.  A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.'

"What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence.  You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.

---

In the context of discussing the concept of 'faith', you've contended "that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence."  How would you perceive your arrest for murder if the police did not consider evidence, (or its absence)?  Further, how would you perceive the decision to try you for murder, (let's say under circumstantial evidence), convict you of that charge and impose judgement upon you, (all without conclusive evidence and even in the face of a lack of such evidence)?

Would you view these choices, (your arrest and conviction), under these circumstances as arbitrary or, fairly based upon available evidence?

From my perspective, deliberately _not_ considering evidence, (or not requiring it when it is lacking), doesn't follow as a reasoned decision.  Perhaps you could elaborate on any of your reasoning behind choosing to disregard evidence or a lack of evidence when it comes to "faith"?

I am trying to think of an analogy that is an appropriate comparison to my faith.  The arrest for murder doesn't work and I am curious if that is how you view it as it isn't even close -- although I understand it perfectly in regards to courtroom practices and the burden of proof is of course on prosecution in such a situation.  In the case of my experience it was different.  I wasn't pursuing faith and my lifestyle was nothing like a person of faith would be imagined to be living.  It wasn't like I said "Hey I wan't to believe and I will investigate the options of whether believing fits in with my way of thinking or not".

The closest analogy would be that I was hungry and thirsty and tired and then suddenly I wasn't any more.  Even though I hadn't eaten or drank or rested I was sated.  What would I have to doubt or question other than the acknowledgement that it was somewhat odd.  That analogy isn't even quite right but it isn't entirely incorrect either.

I don't really know how to describe it as it was a change in me or around me or in my perception maybe.  Everything was suddenly new all those years ago and to this day everything is still new every single day and it is the strangest and most delightful thing I can imagine.  I still get angry and have the bad thoughts that are typical of people but those things seem to pass readily and I seem to be able to resist a bit more.  You may be thinking "well good for you and all crazy person, but what does this have to do with faith?".  That is even more difficult to explain because when my perception changed like that I knew what it was -- the connection of what it was appeared in my head with undeniable clarity.  It was my thought and my voice telling me what I was experience and it was clear and obvious.  I don't really even like talking about it in this way because I am afraid I will tell it different than it was because of ego or pride or such traits (yeah I still have those too).  You mentioned "leap of faith" what I experienced would best be described as a "shove of faith".  I would have liked the booming voice or a physical manifestation of course, but I didn't require it as I believed from then onward and not because I wanted to believe (remember I was agnostic then) but because I couldn't deny what I felt to be true.

Why would I question it?  Why would I not want what I have now?  If a pretty girl says she wants to kiss you, you don't ask her why.

[falcon9]

"What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence.  You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.

---

In the context of discussing the concept of 'faith', you've contended "that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence."  How would you perceive your arrest for murder if the police did not consider evidence, (or its absence)?  Further, how would you perceive the decision to try you for murder, (let's say under circumstantial evidence), convict you of that charge and impose judgement upon you, (all without conclusive evidence and even in the face of a lack of such evidence)?

Would you view these choices, (your arrest and conviction), under these circumstances as arbitrary or, fairly based upon available evidence?

From my perspective, deliberately _not_ considering evidence, (or not requiring it when it is lacking), doesn't follow as a reasoned decision.  Perhaps you could elaborate on any of your reasoning behind choosing to disregard evidence or a lack of evidence when it comes to "faith"?

I am trying to think of an analogy that is an appropriate comparison to my faith.

The court/trial analogy itself was first broached by you, (I merely supplied an example of a portion of procedural evidence within that analogy).  However, the questions posed to you related directly to not requiring/not considering evidence to 'have faith'.  A secondary inquiry requested any reasoning process behind choosing to rely upon a lack of evidence ('faith') instead of the existence of evidence.

In the case of my experience it was different.  I wasn't pursuing faith and my lifestyle was nothing like a person of faith would be imagined to be living.  It wasn't like I said "Hey I wan't to believe and I will investigate the options of whether believing fits in with my way of thinking or not".

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond here, a perusal of your 'path to faith' contained no discernable reasoning process, (which explicitly pertained to the previous questions).  From what could be gathered from your posted recollections in that regard, there was no apparent reasoning process involved, (if this inference is in error, perhaps such a reasoning process as was employed can be described?).  This harkens back to the contention that the decision to choose 'faith' isn't based upon a reasoning process containing predominately rational aspects.

You mentioned "leap of faith" what I experienced would best be described as a "shove of faith".  I would have liked the booming voice or a physical manifestation of course, but I didn't require it as I believed from then onward and not because I wanted to believe (remember I was agnostic then) but because I couldn't deny what I felt to be true.

The ancedote presented was, naturally, extremely subjective and appears to represent a preference-choice, (which imply underlying and unstated rationales/explainations however, these "reasons" do not imply use of _reasoning_).  Therefore, the leap, (or "shove"), of "faith" still pertains and remains either a deliberate choice or, not a deliberate choice.  If it was a deliberate choice, then it deliberately eschewed reasoning.  
If it was not a deliberate choice, then it never considered employing reasoning.  If there is another option, I have yet to discern it.

Why would I question it?  Why would I not want what I have now?  If a pretty girl says she wants to kiss you, you don't ask her why.

Don't question a "gifthorse in the mouth" sort of thing?  Well, offhand one could be the subject of a gold-digging pretty girl in your example.  To further that analogy; the proposed deity wants your 'soul', (just like 'his' alleged adversary but, this is tangential to the crux).  Whether or not one succumbs to such 'advances' and loses their loot in exchange for promises, (or a "kiss"), is entirely related to the credence granted the proposition, ('faith/belief' or, disbelief in the proposition).  To reiterate the matter; the inquiry was/is any reasoning process involved in choosing to rely upon a lack of evidence ('faith') instead of the existence of evidence?

[SurveyMack10]

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...

Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.  

This is false.

I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.

You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_.  It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs.  Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?

By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").

"doc·trine
[dok-trin

noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"

--dictionary reference dotcom

I did not misinterpret Webster, but you are entitled to your opinion and that is exactly what it is, an opinion.

[tzs]

My opinion, once again is proved in this thread alone. TOOO MUCH BS tied to religion, and it will never end! I can do without it!

[falcon9]

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...

Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.  

This is false.

Why, because you make the empty claim that it is "false"?  Hardly.  Scrolling up in this post shows that your question was answered in context while you avoided answering the challenge to support your empty contention yet again.

I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.

You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_.  It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs.  Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?

By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").

"doc·trine
[dok-trin

noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"

--dictionary reference dotcom

I did not misinterpret Webster, but you are entitled to your opinion and that is exactly what it is, an opinion.

It isn't merely an "opinion", (without basis), since the basis was that you misinterpreted atheism as a 'belief _system_, (as the recorded exchanage clearly shows).  Since you've already established your pattern for making empty claims by failing to substantiate them, the expectation bar for you is set fairly low.  Although, if you want to limbo dance under it, that's up to you.

[falcon9]

My opinion, once again is proved in this thread alone. TOOO MUCH BS tied to religion, and it will never end! I can do without it!

I can't blame you one bit for that, tzs.  So, I don't.  Also remember that a religionist's glass is half full of emptiness, (while the other half is claimed to consist of insubstantial 'faith'), and the skeptic asks "who drank half the glass?"

[SurveyMack10]

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...

Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.  

This is false.

Why, because you make the empty claim that it is "false"?  Hardly.  Scrolling up in this post shows that your question was answered in context while you avoided answering the challenge to support your empty contention yet again.

I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.

You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_.  It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs.  Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?

By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").

"doc·trine
[dok-trin

noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"

--dictionary reference dotcom

I did not misinterpret Webster, but you are entitled to your opinion and that is exactly what it is, an opinion.

It isn't merely an "opinion", (without basis), since the basis was that you misinterpreted atheism as a 'belief _system_, (as the recorded exchanage clearly shows).  Since you've already established your pattern for making empty claims by failing to substantiate them, the expectation bar for you is set fairly low.  Although, if you want to limbo dance under it, that's up to you.

So, you're saying that interpreting "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" as meaning that atheism does involve a belief is a misinterpretation? When it says BELIEF in the definition...I didn't realize that dictionaries involved so many misprints.[ /i]

[falcon9]

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

So, you're saying that interpreting "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" as meaning that atheism does involve a belief is a misinterpretation?

As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM".  It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).

Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.

[SurveyMack10]

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.  Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention.  Ready, set ... go!

So, you're saying that interpreting "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" as meaning that atheism does involve a belief is a misinterpretation?

As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM".  It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).

Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.

I have no reason to lie about a GPA online? And I merely answered your assertion that I did not excel in school with a factual respresentation that I do, in fact, do just that. (Your inability to refrain from personal attacks shows your insecurities within this debate and blows your credibility). Now that the irrelevant matters that are continuously brought up by you have been addressed, I will continue on to the actual issues of the discussion.

This is the portion of this comment that warrants a response, not above:
So you are saying atheism involes only disbelief not belief? Doesn't atheism rely on a belief in science explaining all matters of the world either now or sometime in the future? Or would you not agree with that?

[falcon9]

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above).

As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM".  It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).

Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.

[/quote]

I have no reason to lie about a GPA online? And I merely answered your assertion that I did not excel in school with a factual respresentation that I do, in fact, do just that.

The reason that your claimed GPA was brought up, (initially by you, I'll add), was that it seemed dubious that such a grade point average could be supported by a demonstrably low reading comprehension level.  As an aside, your assertion does not constitute a "factual representation";
only a scanned and unaltered copy of your school transcripts would.  This won't be necessary as it was only one example of differentiating a 'fact' from a 'claim'.

So you are saying atheism involes only disbelief not belief?

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.  In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it." "-- wikipedia

The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism.  So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief.  Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."

Doesn't atheism rely on a belief in science explaining all matters of the world either now or sometime in the future? Or would you not agree with that?

No, I don't agree with that interpretation since "belief" isn't necessary in the context of the scientific method.  Either such methods can, (or will), produce cause and effect explanations of various phenomenon, (and so far, they've done a pretty good job with non-metaphysical stuff), or they cannot.  Applying physical scientific methodology to largely nonphysical 'metaphysics' gets into a gray area where the two are hypothesized to overlap.  Theoretical physics, for instance, is often an outrider into those overlapping realms.

[SurveyMack10]

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above).

As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM".  It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).

Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.

I have no reason to lie about a GPA online? And I merely answered your assertion that I did not excel in school with a factual respresentation that I do, in fact, do just that.

The reason that your claimed GPA was brought up, (initially by you, I'll add), was that it seemed dubious that such a grade point average could be supported by a demonstrably low reading comprehension level.  As an aside, your assertion does not constitute a "factual representation";
only a scanned and unaltered copy of your school transcripts would.  This won't be necessary as it was only one example of differentiating a 'fact' from a 'claim'.

So you are saying atheism involes only disbelief not belief?

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.  In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it." "-- wikipedia

The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism.  So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief.  Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."

Doesn't atheism rely on a belief in science explaining all matters of the world either now or sometime in the future? Or would you not agree with that?

No, I don't agree with that interpretation since "belief" isn't necessary in the context of the scientific method.  Either such methods can, (or will), produce cause and effect explanations of various phenomenon, (and so far, they've done a pretty good job with non-metaphysical stuff), or they cannot.  Applying physical scientific methodology to largely nonphysical 'metaphysics' gets into a gray area where the two are hypothesized to overlap.  Theoretical physics, for instance, is often an outrider into those overlapping realms.
[/quote]

[/quote]


My response should appear in bold as that is quicking that correcting the formatting:


Actually, you brought up the discussion of GPA when you asserted that I must not do well in school. In fact, my GPA is a fact. That transcripts have not been shown does not change that it is factually, it just changes whether or not you believe it (which is irrelevant to whether it is fact or not). For example, if someone does not believe that 2+2=4 that does not change that it is a fact. Furthermore, the discussion of my schoolwork is a petty and irrelevant attempt by you to personally attack me and it STILL lowering you credibility and appearance of maturity on this forum. There is absolutely no need for schoolwork to continue to be brought up, and if you continue to you will only appear more immature, and I do not mean that as an insult but merely to let you know that your personal attacking of everyone who opposes your viewpoints is out of hand and lowers the respectability of this forum.

Wikipedia vs. Webster
(Webster trumps Wikipedia every time).
So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs. Such as, God is nonexistent, everything can be explained by science. (That God is nonexistent IS a belief no matter how many times you say it is not).

You did not effectively answer my question, I will rephrase so that you cannot use semantics to avoid the actual question again:
Does atheism rely on science to explain occurrences of the world; furthermore, does it rely on science to one day explain the things it has not been able to explain yet.