The Atheist Belief System

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

That is the point , now isn't it. What you call 'radical atheism' is atheism PLUS.. In this case , it is atheism plus anti-theism. Dawkins isn't merely an atheist, he is an anti-theist, or more like an anti-fundamentalist. There are two things it is in response to. 1) With Hitchens at least, it was in response to 9/11. 2) it is the extreme anti-science position that rejects biology ,and insists that evolution is fake. Put those together, and then paint with too broad a bush, you get the 'anti-theistic atheist' Many of the anti-theistic atheists are also ex-fundamentalists, and they were taught a very binary thinking. Then, they discovered the literal fundamentalist thinking about religion they were brought up with was false, and therefore applied that thinking to all religion.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.
People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.
Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.
Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.
People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.
Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

Oh Look!
Yet Another "atheism is a religion/belief system" string!
A monthly OP.
I guess it wasn't enough/you didn't get enough shots in the the 120+ page string on the topic you already posted in.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...-become-belief-system-120.html#post1066975562
So started another.

Whose militant/Radical?
Perhaps strings/Provocations like this are why Atheists seem militant. Because for most of us, this doesn't even come up in RL.

PS: Who is the "amazing atheist"? The Bogeyman from nowhere?
Is he supposed to be some guru like the Pope's, Pat Robertson?

"Nothing" isn't a belief system.

mbig said:

Oh Look!
Yet Another "atheism is a religion/belief system" string!
A monthly OP.
I guess it wasn't enough/you didn't get enough shots in the the 120+ page string on the topic you already posted in.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...-become-belief-system-120.html#post1066975562
So started another.

Whose militant/Radical?
Perhaps strings/Provocations like this are why Atheists seem militant. Because for most of us, this doesn't even come up in RL.

PS: Who is the "amazing atheist"? The Bogeyman from nowhere?
Is he supposed to be some guru like the Pope's, Pat Robertson?

Click to expand...

There are many militant/radical atheists, just as there are many militant/radical theists. You also seem to be misinterpreting the point of my thread: I'm not attacking atheism, nor am I going after it, I'm only explaining what I've seen personally. In addition to this, I am also not defending theism in any way whatsoever. I take a stand against radicalism of most sorts.

Also, I hate the Pope, just so that you know. But to answer your question, no, he is not the boogeyman that I created to use in my argument. The Amazing Atheist is a popular YouTuber that you can find online. Search his name, he shouldn't be too hard to find if you don't believe me.

Also, you'll see in my posts in the thread that you referenced were not belittling, nor polarizing. I was merely poking around and asking questions on the matter and talking to someone in there.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

.../

Also, I hate the Pope, just so that you know. But to answer your question, no, he is not the boogeyman that I created to use in my argument. The Amazing Atheist is a popular YouTuber that you can find online. Search his name, he shouldn't be too hard to find if you don't believe me.

Click to expand...

I went and found the "amazing atheist" of course.
His views, for the most part, have NOTHING to do with atheism.
TheAmazingAtheist - RationalWiki
He's a total whack job.

As atheists, we don't really care or need to consult with anyone about it.
Most outgrew religion like we outgrew Santa and the tooth fairy.
No one 'convinced' us.
(Religion/Which religion you are, OTOH, is 95% a Geo-cultural accident of birth, and can only exist with ongoing Indoctrination)

There are famous atheists, and even some atheist orgs these days (for political protection more than guidance).
The other atheist so far in this string, Deuce, and I are on opposite sides in much of politics, and even some science.
I'm not sure we agree on anything.
If he was a believer, or especially an Evangelical, or fundamentalist of any religion, we would.
(I could point to ie, our respective positions on Islam. I think it's a exceptional problem and Nail it often, he thinks it's no worse than others and IMO, oft apologizes for it)

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

Why do you think religions should not be attacked. They do bring quite a bit of misery due to the ridiculous beliefs they have.
This is not just christians but through all religions for example;
Nuns in Ireland buried babies and children in mass grave | The National

Roman Catholic religious orders ran homes for unmarried pregnant girls until well into the 1990s all over Ireland. The young women sent to them often suffered harsh treatment at the hands of the nuns who believed sex outside marriage was a mortal sin...Nearly 800 children died at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in the town of Tuam, in western Ireland, according to death certificates discovered by a local historian,

Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/02/myanmar-womens-fight-against-verbal-taboo-symbolises-wider-rights-battle

The growth in power and influence of a hardline Buddhist nationalism, fronted by extremist monks, has led to the introduction of four new laws. Although billed as protecting race and religion, the legislation has been widely condemned internationally as being targeted at Muslim communities and breaching women’s rights.....n Myanmar there are no vaginas. Linguistically, at least, that part of the female body does not exist in Burmese – a lexical omission that highlights the intense cultural taboos facing women’s rights activists as they battle against the country’s woeful maternal health record and entrenched gender prejudices.

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/the-islamic-states-shocking-war-on-homosexuals/?utm_term=.a44f76d65d44

Omar Mateen, the man behind the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, seemed motivated by two things: a loathing of the LGBT community and an avowed admiration for the Islamic State militant group, which has inspired "lone wolf" attacks elsewhere in the United States and the world.

Click to expand...

And yes, It will be the predictable response that religion also does some good. The answer to that is that believing in a god is not necessary for doing good. Where as doing bad in the name of a god actually requires a belief in a god.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

Click to expand...

Well, Theism has fought against Atheism, to include the penalty of death for atheism, for thousands of years. Only recently have atheists gained enough public acceptance to be able to claim a spot in the public forum.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity

Click to expand...

That's kind of contradictory, isn't it?

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you think that's a system. One point and one focus is hardly a system.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Click to expand...

You seem to think this is a problem or a bad thing. Why?

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

Right, to be clear, atheism is not a belief system, it is a position regarding the existence of deities however, as an example, Humanism is a belief system that often incorporates the atheist position. Conversely, theism is a position on the existence of deities and is not a belief system however, as an example, Christianity is a belief system that often incorporates a theistic position. You cannot be a 'radical atheist', you cannot lack belief any more radically than by simply lacking it.

The problem is that the atheist inevitably ends up having to adopt a position that does not accept a positive assertion that has resulted from theists creating a belief system around a theistic position. Theists very rarely say that gods exist without being compelled to create a system of beliefs around them in order to justify the assertion. The atheist is then compelled to examine that belief system which makes it look like they are creating a 'belief system' that is simply rejecting the assertion. It is not the fault of atheists that theists fail to make a compelling case for their theistic position from their belief system and it is not the fault of atheists that theists try to use their belief systems to shift the burden onto the atheist position. At the end of the day, atheists do engage in discussing the belief systems of theists but, their position is simply to lack belief in claims asserted without evidence.

If you believe that turning to agnosticism is an appropriate response to the increasing politicisation of theistic belief systems then you are mistaken and are simply running away from a straw man created by apologists.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

Click to expand...

To give you an insight in to the mind of this atheist, your post reads much like someone saying theism is no longer about believing in gods but has become about murdering people with suicide bombs.

As has been explained countless times, atheism is and always will be only about not believing in the existence of gods. Anything any atheist does beyond than is not part of atheism, even if it is influenced by or leads on from it in their logic. After all, different atheists have vastly different sets of beliefs, world views, opinions and practices, exactly like different theists do (there terms are direct opposites after all).

You won't even realise who most atheists are because it's not something that comes up in normal life very much. A lot of atheists don't even think about or put a label on their lack of beliefs themselves. If you want to discuss and call out specific individuals by all means do so (please; I can't stand some of the prominent atheists myself precisely because they inspire this kind of reaction) but please focus on those individuals and don't start tarring literally millions of innocent people with the same brush.

mbig said:

If he was a believer, or especially an Evangelical, or fundamentalist of any religion, we would.
(I could point to ie, our respective positions on Islam. I think it's a exceptional problem and Nail it often, he thinks it's no worse than others and IMO, oft apologizes for it)

Click to expand...

You must be thinking of someone else because I've never once apologized for someone else's actions. I barely apologize for my own actions.

I may have pointed out double standards. I do that a lot.

Thread: The Atheist Belief System

et al,

(NOTION)

• 
  •∆• "atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism." (Anthony_'Roman' OP Posting #1)

(COMMENT)

This premise is both a Hasty Generalization and a Exaggeration. As a general rule, Atheist [those absent a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being (SB) or Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC)] and Agnostics [a belief in the existence of the ultimate cause, but not in a specific deity, and includes those that essentially believe that the nature of the ultimate cause (either SB/UCC or some process yet to be discovered)] observe theism and belief systems based on foundations that are undefined and unknowable by humanity.

Atheist and Agnostics do not generally "Bible Pound" or engage in an attempt to convert elements of the population to a particular belief. Atheist and Agnostics do not have a Scripture of Book that reveals a divinely inspired truth. Nor, to date, is there any militant or crusading zeal to further any form of radicalized Atheism or Agnosticism.

As a general rule, the Atheist and Agnostics do not care about the scope or nature of any particular belief system --- as long as that belief system (something that is beyond scrutiny or proof) is not used to interfere in the rights of others or to oppose others.

Atheist and Agnostics have the right to engage in discussions, in open forums, within the parameters set by the forum. They may advocate for or against any belief system or deity (freedom of religion --- UDHR)

(DISREGARDING KNOW SCIENCE)

Any person that makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards established science, enters into the confrontation between science and pseudoscience. It makes no substantial difference to that science that weighs against a specific belief as long as the belief does not alter the practical application or experimental outcome. Some Atheist and Agnostics consider this type of confrontation to be a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)].

Most Respectfully,
R

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

Don't be fooled by their prevalence on the internet. Internet atheists are a tiny subset of atheists; the same goes for evangelical atheists like Dawkins. You are right, of course, that they are evangelists for a particular world-view who have essentially adopted atheism as a religion. But, they are a tiny minority of atheists. Most atheists have no interest in converting anyone. Typical atheists only wind up taking a stance against religion when it somehow intrudes on their life, like when they discover a public school is teaching their children religious doctrines disguised as science.

CrabCake said:

Don't be fooled by their prevalence on the internet. Internet atheists are a tiny subset of atheists; the same goes for evangelical atheists like Dawkins. You are right, of course, that they are evangelists for a particular world-view who have essentially adopted atheism as a religion. But, they are a tiny minority of atheists. Most atheists have no interest in converting anyone. Typical atheists only wind up taking a stance against religion when it somehow intrudes on their life, like when they discover a public school is teaching their children religious doctrines disguised as science.

Click to expand...

I think many atheists don't even let people know they are atheists.. not even their own families.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

1. The amazing atheist is some douche on youtube. Just because he makes videos that make fun of religion it doesn't make atheism an ideology. That's a dumb argument. Hell, on youtube there are videos about veganism that bash meat eaters so I guess that's an ideology too? Silliness.

2. Dawkins explicitly wrote in the God Delusion that we can't prove that there is no God and that it is irrational for anyone to say that they know that there is no god. The only logical position is "we have no proof for the existence of a god at this time."

Furthermore, the term agnostic is essentially meaningless in this argument. The terms atheist and theist are all encompassing terms regarding the question "do you believe there is a God?" If you answer yes you are a theist, if you answer anything other than yes you are an atheist. You might want to call yourself agnostic or you might could care less about the religious debate and not want to argue or whatever but you squarely fit in to the atheist category.

Atheists are trying to spread their belief of god's non-existence? That's ridiculous. I've listened to debates and speeches from Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Matt Dillahunty etc. etc. and every single one of them at one point or another have clearly stated that if someone claims that we can say with certainty that god doesn't exist then they are being illogical. "Radical Atheism" isn't growing. And Dawkins is far from radical anything. He's just not as polite as you'd like and he dares to call bull**** what it is. You're simply upset that more ad more people are leaving religion when they find out that there is no evidence for the existence of a god and you are trying to turn the tables and pretend that it's the atheist job to provide evidence that god doesn't exist. Very cheeky of you.

Re: The Atheist Belief System

roughdraft274, et al,

There is no conflict between the combined Set of (Atheists and Agnostics) with the Set of (Believers in a Deity).

For the purposes of this discussion: (SOURCE: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

• Atheism means the Set of People that deny the existence of God.
• Agnostic is the Set of People that "neither believing nor disbelieving" in a deity, a Supreme Being, or an Ultimate Cosmic Creator.

roughdraft274 said:

2. Dawkins explicitly wrote in the God Delusion that we can't prove that there is no God and that it is irrational for anyone to say that they know that there is no god. The only logical position is "we have no proof for the existence of a god at this time."

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

This is a true statement.

To date, there is not even an agreed upon definition and description of a "deity, a Supreme Being, or an Ultimate Cosmic Creator." And there is not, as of yet, a test that follows the Scientific Process that delivers, as an outcome empirical evidence for the existence of a god." (HINT: It does not mean that there is no evidence, or some evidence of a different kind.)

It must be remembered that evidence comes in two flavors found in both epistemology and the philosophy of science. Evidence is "That Which Justifies Belief." When we think of "String Theory," there is no scientific test that con be performed that demonstrates the existence of "strings." So, research into Sting Theory is not science; but, philosophy. However, just as elusive as "Strings" is the concept of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There is no scientific test that has directly produced evidence of Dark Matter (≈ 27% of the known universe) or Dark Energy (≈ 68% of the known universe). Yet, there is a set of observations that strongly suggest the possibility of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. This set of observation is the compelling indirect evidence for the existence of Dark Matter and Dark.

IF the information or thought process that leads a person to believe in the existence of a "deity, a Supreme Being, or an Ultimate Cosmic Creator" --- THEN, that is compelling evidence accepted by that person --- "that Which Justifies Belief a deity, a Supreme Being, or an Ultimate Cosmic Creator." A "belief" or "faith" is nothing more than justification in the existence of a deity, a Supreme Being, or an Ultimate Cosmic Creator.

roughdraft274 said:

Furthermore, the term agnostic is essentially meaningless in this argument. The terms atheist and theist are all encompassing terms regarding the question "do you believe there is a God?" If you answer yes you are a theist, if you answer anything other than yes you are an atheist. You might want to call yourself agnostic or you might could care less about the religious debate and not want to argue or whatever but you squarely fit in to the atheist category.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is the compliance oriented approach to the question. The interrogative is to ask for clarification: What is a God? IF the definitions and characteristic of the term "God" is ambiguous, controversial, or contentious, THEN the question itself is flawed and unanswerable.

Do you know the answer to the question: What is a GOD?

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

Re: The Atheist Belief System

roughdraft274, et al,

There is no conflict between the combined Set of (Atheists and Agnostics) with the Set of (Believers in a Deity).

For the purposes of this discussion: (SOURCE: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

• Atheism means the Set of People that deny the existence of God.
• Agnostic is the Set of People that "neither believing nor disbelieving" in a deity, a Supreme Being, or an Ultimate Cosmic Creator.

...

Yes, that is the compliance oriented approach to the question. The interrogative is to ask for clarification: What is a God? IF the definitions and characteristic of the term "God" is ambiguous, controversial, or contentious, THEN the question itself is flawed and unanswerable.

Do you know the answer to the question: What is a GOD?

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

1. I reject your definitions. 99.9% of atheists I have talked to (thousands) have claimed they simply lack the belief of a god, not that they deny his existence. When I say atheism thats clearly what I mean and what 99% of atheists very clearly mean. Dictionaries are there for us to determine common usages of words not their intrinsic meanings. So I reject that usage in this debate as it doesn't comply with what the overwhelming majority of atheists actually believe and because the definition given for agnostic is illogical. "neither believing nor disbelieving" goes against the law of excluded middle. Believe and not believe are true dichotomies and encompass 100% of the possible choices. Meaning that there is no way that anyone could possibly not be either an atheist or a theist. It's very simply. Once you say you're a theist you can go on to give further details, and if you say you're an atheist you can give further details, but those two options are dichotomies and to act as though there is a third option that isn't covered by those two is to break one of the essential three laws of logic squarely in half. You can't do that. It's like handing someone an object and asking them "Is this an apple or not an apple" and there reply be "Neither". It has to be either an apple or not an apple because those are true dichotomies.



2. You don't need to know what a god is in order to say that you don't believe in one. You also don't need to know what every definition of every god could be before saying "I believe in a god". You're pointlessly meandering the debate away from the central focus.

I'm an atheist - I haven't been convinced by of the evidences that I've been presented to believe in any god thus far.

I'm a theist - I have been convinced that a god exists and his qualities are as follows...

Re: The Atheist Belief System

roughdraft274, et al,

I defer to your better judgment.

roughdraft274 said:

1. I reject your definitions. 99.9% of atheists I have talked to (thousands) have claimed they simply lack the belief of a god, not that they deny his existence.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

I used the definition of "atheism" and "agnosticism" consistent with the descriptions found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP).

Atheism and Agnosticism First published Tue Mar 9 said:

• ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
• ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.

Click to expand...

Encyclopedia Britannica Written By: Kai E. Nielsen said:

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

Click to expand...

Similarly, Atheists & Agnostics are Different, but Sometimes the Same, and may be viewed with variance; since neither has a rigid "system of beliefs."

You, of course, are free to choose any definition you want. But the your rejection merely demonstrates just how ambiguous the subject is.

Atheism and Agnosticism First published Tue Mar 9 said:

2. You don't need to know what a god is in order to say that you don't believe in one. You also don't need to know what every definition of every god could be before saying "I believe in a god". You're pointlessly meandering the debate away from the central focus.

I'm an atheist - I haven't been convinced by of the evidences that I've been presented to believe in any god thus far.

I'm a theist - I have been convinced that a god exists and his qualities are as follows...

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, the idea of knowing what a "God" is, it the theme behind the Section 2 of the SEP Reference subtitled "An Adequate Concept of God."

SEP supra said:

This brings us naturally to the question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being.

Click to expand...

You may know what a "God" is. IF so, THEN I will admit you are more knowledgeable than I.

Thank you for the exchange.

Most Respectfully,
R

Re: The Atheist Belief System

Anthony_'Roman', et al,

I apologize for my late response. I had to consider your words carefully.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

This may or may not be true. Clearly, because of improvements in social media, the ideas of many more people can be heard today, then in previous decade. Additionally, with the opening of the 21st Century, Radial Religious followers have made themselves much more active today, than anytime since the inquisition and the mass genocide (under the color of law) of those that had an alternative belief.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

This is a sign that alternatives and the advancement of logic and critical thinking have influenced the debate. The factors that radicals and fundamentalist that have proved to be a public menace have intellectually push some people away; who would otherwise supported a certain belief.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Faith based religious system offer some people peace of mind. And there is nothing wrong with the assimilation of a belief system that benefits the general well being of those followers. Once the religion or belief system turn toxic, then it is time to revisit its usefulness.

Believers of such faith based should not be sucked into a position that supports Crusader Movements, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence; based primarlily along lines of religious beliefs. That is when a belief system becomes toxic.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Again, as long as the "delusion" is not culturally toxic, what difference does it make. When I was growing-up, we were indoctrinated as to whether were were "Chevy" men, or "Ford" followers. Sometimes, this simple product preferences (Coke v Pepsi)(Chevy v Ford)(Spitfire v Mustang) were the catalyst for some knockdown drag-out fights. This is simply a mental condition or indoctrination to be avoided; especial in matters of religion.

Atheist and Agnostics (especially) should remain above the debate and not be evangelist. It should only become an issue if it become damaging of culturally toxic. AND, I do not think that Atheist and Agnostics have a universally accepted order and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, or doctrines that is followed on the subject. These are points of free-expression and not canned or packaged in quantum chunks.

Just my simple thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong. Atheism has nothing to do with fighting against religion and there is no "atheist belief system." The word you're looking for is anti-religion, and it has nothing to do with atheism. There are people who believe in deities or other supernatural things who are anti-religion.

There is no such thing as "radical atheism," and atheism by definition cannot possibly be a belief system. It is the absence of something, not the presence.

Also, agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you think deities exist. It has to do with whether you think knowledge of a given subject is possible for humans to ever know, whether that be deities or free will or whatever else. You can be religious and agnostic, if you think your god is beyond the knowledge of humans. Read a dictionary and use words properly before you try to debate philosophy with people who already have.

I am really tired of people pretending they want an actual debate about atheism, and then following it up by literally just making crap up and ignoring every dictionary on earth in order to try to build a silly strawman of atheism that's as weak as their own position, so they can feel good about shooting it down.

Your strawman doesn't exist.

Anthony_'Roman' said:

I find this more and more credible to say as my knowledge of the mind of an atheist grows, that atheism is no longer the lack of religious belief, but has become more so the belief to fight against theism.

People who lack the belief of God's existence are finding themselves to be more agnostic as radical atheism grows in popularity.

Which leads me to my main point, radical atheism is becoming more of a system of beliefs rather than the lack of belief: after watching popular atheists, it's not hard to see that they try to denounce the existence of a theist presence. People like The Amazing Atheist try to spread their lack of belief to others, and in doing so, it becomes their ideology. They become a system, all of whom trying to spread their lack of belief. Now, that sentence was repetitive for a reason, so allow me to reword it for those of whom might be reading this: Atheists are trying to spread their 'belief' of God's nonexistence.

Many people these days identify less with religion in modern times than they did during the Renaissance, becoming more agnostic. They believe that they themselves cannot answer whether or not there is actually any god of any sort. However, this isn't goof enough for staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who has written many atheist books, popular among them being The God Delusion.

People like Dawkins try to convince these agnostics that it is a foolish notion to even harbor the thought of a divine presence by mocking theists and making fools of them.

Please give me your thoughts below, as I might touch more on this subject later.

Click to expand...

If you find an an atheist that goes out and tries hard to convince others of atheism usually that person is evil & knows that God does exist but simply wants others to leave him. It's a stage they use in turning people against God and trying to get them to follow Satan instead. Many luciferians or Satanist start off with convincing you that God doesn't even exist, and once that has been achieved they later will slowly admit that God does exist but they try to say that he is the evil one.
They say he did the flood & thus is evil for trying to kill everyone on Earth.

Its all about trickery and lies, that is what the Devil is best at.

Wise up or be a slave to the Devil.

FreeThink said:

If you find an an atheist that goes out and tries hard to convince others of atheism usually that person is evil & knows that God does exist but simply wants others to leave him.

Click to expand...

And how did you reach that conclusion?

In interviews a few Satanist cult members revealed their plans of converting many into their religion which started off as trying hard to convince people that God didn't exist at all, and then later portraying the Devil as the good one. Saying that God trying to eliminate all humans in the flood (Noah) but Satan loves you type crap.

Many fall for the Devil's lies. Be wise.

FreeThink said:

In interviews a few Satanist cult members revealed their plans of converting many into their religion which started off as trying hard to convince people that God didn't exist at all, and then later portraying the Devil as the good one. Saying that God trying to eliminate all humans in the flood (Noah) but Satan loves you type crap.

Many fall for the Devil's lies. Be wise.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Let's break down what you're saying the Satanist tries to persuade a Christian:
God does not exist.
The Devil does exist.
The Devil is good and God is evil.

Any argument against a god would also apply to a devil. That God is the bad one makes no sense to someone who doesn't believe in any gods.