Is atheism a belief? Religion?

[Cann!bal]

They believe there is no "God" or any other spiritual object of worship, which would make it a belief. A belief does not have to be for something, you can believe in the absence of something.

Atheists do not believe there is no god. They believe there is not evidence to believe in a god, therefore reject the notion of a god. (Anyone who claims there is no god is an gnostic atheist, which is an ideology that is just as folly as theism.)

Being an atheist does not imply you reject the existence of any other spiritual object of worship. I'm quite confident Buddha was real and he's is worshiped. It simply means we reject the concept of a god; there's no underlying implications.

There's a reason why we define it as a lack of belief. To believe in the absence of a god insinuates we know he does not exist, which is not a notion atheists claim.

I agreed with you, I know what Atheism is, what I was saying is Atheism is a DISBELIEF, which I though I had implied earlier.

Disbelief implies there's valid evidence and we won't believe it. There is literally no valid evidence, so we reject the notion.

 

[Spectra]

Atheists do not believe there is no god. They believe there is not evidence to believe in a god, therefore reject the notion of a god. (Anyone who claims there is no god is an gnostic atheist, which is an ideology that is just as folly as theism.)

Being an atheist does not imply you reject the existence of any other spiritual object of worship. I'm quite confident Buddha was real and he's is worshiped. It simply means we reject the concept of a god; there's no underlying implications.

There's a reason why we define it as a lack of belief. To believe in the absence of a god insinuates we know he does not exist, which is not a notion atheists claim.


Disbelief implies there's valid evidence and we won't believe it. There is literally no valid evidence, so we reject the notion.

From what I'm reading, what you are describing is agnosticism, atheism is not being able to belief in the existence of any god.

 

[Cann!bal]

From what I'm reading, what you are describing is agnosticism, atheism is not being able to belief in the existence of any god.

All atheists are agnostics and all agnostics are atheists. They are literally the same concept essentially. Agnostics don't recognize the existence of a deity, so they are therefore atheists, and atheists do not claim an absolute, so are therefore agnostics.

 

[Nevermind]

From what I'm reading, what you are describing is agnosticism, atheism is not being able to belief in the existence of any god.

Agnostic are non-believers as well, being that they don't acknowledge the existence of a god. Atheism literally means "without god". Therefore, all agnostics are atheists.

 

[Spectra]

All atheists are agnostics and all agnostics are atheists. They are literally the same concept essentially. Agnostics don't recognize the existence of a deity, so they are therefore atheists, and atheists do not claim an absolute, so are therefore agnostics.

I interpreted it as Agnostics don't believe in religion, but are open to the idea. Atheists don't believe in religion and cannot accept any reasoning from a theist.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I do believe this would be the generalization for each term, of course exceptions for being both in some cases like you stated.

 

[Nevermind]

I interpreted it as Agnostics don't believe in religion, but are open to the idea. Atheists don't believe in religion and cannot accept any reasoning from a theist.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I do believe this would be the generalization for each term, of course exceptions for being both in some cases like you stated.

Atheists are also open to the idea. To say otherwise is dishonest. Atheists need evidence to believe in religions, therefore, if evidence were presented for religion, they would believe.

 

[Spectra]

Atheists are also open to the idea. To say otherwise is dishonest. Atheists need evidence to believe in religions, therefore, if evidence were presented for religion, they would believe.

But in general if you had to say, Atheists are less open to the idea than an Agnostic?

 

[Cann!bal]

I interpreted it as Agnostics don't believe in religion, but are open to the idea. Atheists don't believe in religion and cannot accept any reasoning from a theist.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I do believe this would be the generalization for each term, of course exceptions for being both in some cases like you stated.

There's no correlation between the concepts of religion, and agnosticism and atheism.

Agnosticism means "without knowledge," as in the existence of a deity. Atheism means "without god," as in without knowledge of a god. There are no underlying implications, so I would say no, that's inaccurate.

 

[Amp]

Atheism is a belief. As Leader said, atheism is the absence of religion.

 

[Nevermind]

Atheism is a belief. As Leader said, atheism is the absence of religion.

It is not a belief, though. You're missing the point. An absence of a belief is not a belief.

 

[Cann!bal]

Atheism is a belief. As Leader said, atheism is the absence of religion.

"Being an atheist does not imply you follow no religion. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a god, so are therefore atheists. (This is another reason why it's not a religion for if it was a religion, it would withhold multiple religions within its one religion. Full on religions cannot be sects in a religion. No one calls theism a religion, so it's contrapositive should receive the same courtesy.)

It's a lack of belief, not a belief. The absence of a belief in a deity due to lack of evidence. It cannot be a belief if the belief is absent, like how a red firetruck cannot be accurately labeled a purple firetruck if purple is absent."

 

[Aura]

To clear things up. Gnostic atheists (opposite of agnostic) are those who claim they KNOW there is no god. Same with Gnostic theists, who claim they KNOW god exists. I find both viewpoints ridiculous. No one knows.

 

[Cesar]

It's a belief for sure. They know there's a God, but deny it.

 

[Cann!bal]

It's a belief for sure. They know there's a God, but deny it.

It cannot be a belief if the belief is absent.

There's no evidence of a god, there's nothing to deny.

 

[Cesar]

It cannot be a belief if the belief is absent.

There's no evidence of a god, there's nothing to deny.

There's plenty evidence of a God.
Many different cultures believe in their own God, shouldn't that be enough evidence?

 

[Nevermind]

There's plenty evidence of a God.
Many different cultures believe in their own God, shouldn't that be enough evidence?

Many people believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, ghosts, aliens, the illuminati, etc. but that doesn't mean they exist. That's a fallacy. When people believed in gods, they believed in them because they didn't have a better explanation. They didn't understand why it rained, or why the sun rose, or why the tides roll in and out, so they gave credit to the supernatural. Science has been able to explain so much to us, thus throwing out the need for a belief in the supernatural as an explanation of the natural.

Plus, the fact that there are so many gods shows just how man-made each and every religion is.

I would like for you to provide some of this 'evidence' you speak of.

“Phenomena can be explained in biological terms. In primitive times, is it not possible that those who believed in the shaman’s cure had a better morale as a result, and thus a slightly but significantly higher chance of actually being cured? “Miracles” and similar nonsense to one side, not even modern medicine rejects this thought. And it seems possible, moving to the psychological arena, that people can be better off believing in something than in nothing, however untrue that something may be.”

Excerpt From: Hitchens, Christopher. “God Is Not Great.” Twelve, 2007-05-01

 

[Rambo]

Many people believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, ghosts, aliens, the illuminati, etc. but that doesn't mean they exist. That's a fallacy. When people believed in gods, they believed in them because they didn't have a better explanation. They didn't understand why it rained, or why the sun rose, or why the tides roll in and out, so they gave credit to the supernatural. Science has been able to explain so much to us, thus throwing out the need for a belief in the supernatural as an explanation of the natural.

Plus, the fact that there are so many gods shows just how man-made each and every religion is.

You deserve the Brainiac award if you don't have it yet.

 

[Cesar]

@"Leader"
Read the bible bro. I'm no theologist or apologetic guru but the bible has evidence..
Science is just based on observation and experimentation.

 

[Nevermind]

@"Leader"
Read the bible bro. I'm no theologist or apologetic guru but the bible has evidence..
Science is just based on observation and experimentation.

Why is the Bible evidence? I could write a bunch of lies about the beginning of the universe, but just because they're written down, or that they proclaim themselves as truth, doesn't make it so.

 

[Sons Of Anarchy]

It is not a belief nor a religion. It's an opinion.