LinuxPup

Yes, many beliefs systems contain atheism, but atheism also contains beliefs. Some forms of naturalism for example contain atheism, for example.

Potential infinite, not an actual infinite. Making words up doesn't give those words meaning.

Do you lack belief in unicorns?
Well then, you must believe unicorns don't exist!!
(well, yeah.. of course)

chapka

In your first step, you ask a question to which all atheists give the same answer. This means that all atheists have that attribute (a lack of belief).

In your second step, you ask a question to which different atheists give different answers. In this case it was about God, but if it had been about baseball it would still prove the same thing: that atheists differ in opinion on that question and that therefore the answer to that question is not part of the definition of atheism. Replace your second question with "do you like baseball" and the answer with "Yes, I believe that baseball is an enjoyable pastime." This is obviously a belief, too, but it doesn't have anything to do with atheism.

Nobody's saying atheists don't have other beliefs, or that they don't use them in their lives. But those beliefs aren't what define them as atheists.

King Rat

Or reality!

Angrillori

Well, do you believe in wonklesnarfs?

Do you?

I hazard to guess that you do not have a belief in wonklesnarks, given that you don't even know what a wonklesnark is. I hazard to guess you've never formed a belief in the existance of wonklesnarks, never having come across that word before.

So, you don't have a belief in wonklesnarks.

Does that mean necessarily that you believe that wonklesnarks don't exist?

OF COURSE NOT.

And that's the point. Your a-wonklesnark-ism does not translate 1 for 1 to a belief that wonklesnarks do not exist.

Face it, you are a a-wonklesnark-ist, yet you don't hold a belief that wonklesnarks do not exist.

And yes, the number of things you don't currently believe in is infinite, in that there are an infinite number of possible things to believe in.

I don't believe in wonklesnarks. I have no idea what a wonklesnark might be, but I sure as heck don't believe in it.

The very fact that you called them 'made up words' belies your lack of belief in them. So, welcome to the world of infinite unbelief.

For thousands of years, every person born was an a-quark-ist. They had no belief in quarks. Every one of them. I challenge you to find someone who had a belief in a 'quark' prior to the year 1000. So, they were all a-quark-ists. Did that mean each and every one of them had a belief that quarks did not exist?

Nopers, it just meant they would have thought I was making up words.

dado

Hey Plog - just for the record - this is now another thread with a positive claim regarding G-d's non-existance.

dado

the "atheism is a religious belief" is not directed at you, it is directed at posters like Godless Wonder who make positive claims regarding G-d's non-existance.

Reynard

It's amazing that this thread has continued for so long based upon a highly selective and incomplete definition of the word "religion". Pay particular attention to the etymology of the word. Here's the complete Webster's definition (emphasis mine):

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Note that OnTheThirdRail chose to use the forth, and least desirable, of the four meanings given.

For completeness, check out the meaning of the word "atheist".

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

atheist

This whole thing has got me bothered. Why would anyone insist that atheism, or even a positive claim that (your) god doesn't exist must automagically entail a certain set of other beliefs that may or may not have anything to do with not-believing in, or positively claiming that (your) god doesn't exist?

What is your agenda?

Personally, I often like claiming that your god doesn't exist. The fact that I lack a belief in your god might have something to do with it; However my positive claim and my lack of belief, while related, are different things. My atheism is not a set of beliefs. My positive claim is not a set of beliefs. Atheism is a term describing the fact that I lack "theism". My positive claim is an action that is probably motivated by a number of factors (one of which is my atheism).

I am not to be categorized into having a "set of beliefs" that I don't have, but (you) tell me I must have, because the term "atheist" applies to me. Well, the term "atheist" applies to (you) too!

I can call you an atheist. Does that mean anything you say about what "atheism" includes applies to you as well? Does anything I say, as someone who doesn't believe in your god, or even claims that your god doesn't exists, speak for other atheists? Remember, you are an atheist, too.

Don't assume to know what my belief system is because I apply the term atheist to myself (or you apply it to me). It's not the same thing as, say, applying the term "christian" to somebody. Being a "christian" certainly does include a set of tenets. Theism has one: belief in god(s). Atheism is the opposite of theism, and doesn't neccessarily mean that the atheist holds a positive claims against any specific instance of theism, or that atheism includes any additional "sets of beliefs" other than what it actually means.

Angrillori

I hereby claim that there is a monkey on your head.

Is it a religion for you to believe there is not a monkey on your head?

No, because you have evidence that there is not a monkey on your head, namely, looking in a mirror and not seeing a monkey on your head.

Now,

Xians claim there is some omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnipowerful being who aids and abets our suffering or is powerless to stop it.

Is it a religion for me to say: "Hey, what you are describing is a contradiction and cannot exist?"

No, because I have evidence that this being does not in fact exist, namely the contradiction in their definition.

So, unless you're a follower of the "There's not a monkey on my head" religion, we're not members of the "The traditionally defined xian god can't exist" religion.

Fair enough?

Moreover, take one hundred people who don't believe the xian god exists. What MUST these people share in common?

Nothing else at all. Some might be Buddhists, some might be Hindus, some Zoroastrians, Pagans, Olympians, Agnostics, New Agers, Republicans, Democrats. Clearly, there is nothing else associated with, or upon which, not believing in the xian god, is contingent.

It is not, therefore a religion.

In the same sense that 'theism' is not a religion. Take 100 people who do believe a god exists. What else must they share in common? Nothing.

However, take 100 Catholics? Yup, they have to share more than just a belief in a supernatural.
100 Buddhists?
100 Hindus?
100 Lutherans?
and
so
on.

See the difference yet? You silly a-inkadinkadu-ist!

Godless Wonder

But you have no problem with me saying leprechauns don't exist?

The way I see it, the question is not really "do any gods exist?" it is "how certain is it that any gods do (or do not) exist?" The question must be asked this way because there is no such thing as absolute certainty. This is implicit, or it ought to be, if it isn't.

And, it's pretty damned certain that no gods exist. About as certain as anything can be. At least if you define "god" to be anything more than "whatever it was, if anything, that caused the universe." (and if you define "god" that way, then the statement "god exists" is emptied of meaning.)

My problem with your line of thinking is that you seem to want to claim that simple, ordinary claims, like 1+1 = 2, or that leprechauns don't exist, require faith. -- and by doing so, thereby try to make the argument that faith that god exists is just the same sort of thing, and therefore such faith is justified. No, sorry, if that's what you think, then what I think is that you are wrong. That conclusion does not follow.

I try to believe things to be true to the degree of certainty which seems warranted by the evidence. There seems to be some evidence that god is just made up. There are many many religions, all conflicting with one another, many making claims that a god or gods exist. They cannot all be true. If any one is true, then this forces the majority of the rest, depending which one, usually all of the rest, to be necessarily false. So we know that the vast majority of religions are necessarily false -- made up. It seems to be a very very common thiing, a made up religion. All relgiions I've encountered make extraordinary claims -- which should require lots of evidence to back them up -- and all these religions provide NO evidence to back them up and demand that they be believed on faith. Since we know the majority are full of crap, and there really doesn't seem to be any that seem less like crap than any others to any significant degree, there seems to be some evidence that they are all full of crap. These religions are all full of crap -- they don't know.

Looking around at the universe and concluding that "god did it" and ascribing any properties at all (but especially the property of sentience) to this god is less logical than a detective casually observing from a distance a bicycle track in a mud puddle in the street in front of a crime scene and declaring, "Aha, the killer is Joe Friday, he is six feet tall, 250 pounds, has black hair and blue eyes, and walks with a limp! That bicycle track over there proves it! Oh, wait, that's not a bicycle track, that's a tricycle track . . . oh well, doesn't matter -- that tricycle track proves it!" It is less logical because the detective has a greater chance of being correct, in my estimation.

It is more logical to say "god does not exist" than it is to say that next weeks winning lottery numbers are not "50 12 23 Pi 88 e^256 99 50 79878.77 and 343 " Between now and next week someone might possibly start up an insane lottery in which that could be a winning combination, and in my estimation, the chances of this happening are far greater than the chances of anyone's unfounded god claims proving to be correct.