is atheism a belief system?

[dorel]

a situation
i ask you
-the number of coins in the glass is even or odd?
(god exist or not)
you have two possibility
1)to answer the question
2)to not answer the question
if you want to answer the question, your answer will be a "belief", a belief without proof, because you don't know the answer, we exclude the gnostics
in order to answer the question you have to hold a believed position

then
your answer to the question "is odd or even?"can be

the number of coins is odd (god exists)
or
the number of coins is even (god doesn't exist)

suppose that your answer is
-i don't believe that is odd (god exists), apart from it being not an answer to the question
i will than ask you
so, you believe that is even(god doesn't exists)?
you answer with
-no, i don't believe that is even(god doesn't exists) neither
i ask you again
the number of coins in the glass is even or odd?
what you believe, is odd or even?
if you don't believe that is odd nor that is even, is that you don't want to commit yourself with a believed position.
if you have a not committed attitude about the number of coins you are an agnostic
quote oxford dictionary>
agnostic=having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something
the answer that often gives (wrongly) agnostic atheists
-I don't know and I don't believe that god exists nor that he doesn't
is a fully agnostic answer
is nothing more than agnosticism
the right agnostic-atheist answer will be
- I don't know if god exists or not, but in my opinion, or I think or, I believe that god does not exists
this answer is distinct from  "fully agnostic" answer
the person makes a commitment, even if he is not sure
so, in part he is an agnostic
but also an atheist because without being certain he hold the atheist position that there is no god
an agnostic-atheist

[demosthenes]

I do not see that we, inside the universe / everything, necessarily should be equipped to understand the universe --  there just might not be any full explanation that any human could state, less comprehend. A very poor analogue would be that I cannot explain the existence of a book to the characters in it.

In math there exists true statements that cannot be be proven true within any consistent axiomatic setup (Gödel).

So maybe the sentence "creation of the universe" is just not valid, since these are words created by mankind to describe stuff and relations inside the universe.

[dorel]

"creation of the universe"
nowadays cosmology tells us that the universe, all "the natural" has a beginning.
may be the word "creation" is inappropriate, can be changed by "what cause" the universe to begin to exist.
the theist-believers expectation is that the answer is god "cause the beginning of the universe"
the atheist-believers expectation is that "a natural process" cause the beginning of the universe.
question
is one of this expectation more reasonable than the other?
depends
atheism is more reasonable white an eternal universe
atheism is last reasonable white an universe that has a beginning.
if the prediction of the big bang theory is true, the space-time, matter and energy has a beginning, even the laws of nature.
so, no longer can be argued that everything has a natural cause, because the "all natural" has a beginning, and cannot cause himself before he existed.
atheist-believers can say that what was before the beginning of the universe was an "other natural" which cause "our natural"
this can be believed only based on faith, because not exist the  evidence that exist something like "other natural"

[demosthenes]

I'm not sure that cosmology tells us that the universe had a beginning. Only that the equations break down when the universe becomes too dense. It is one of the questions a unified theory of quantum physics and relativity hopes to resolve -- quantum loop gravity theories etc... I don't know anything about these.

But suppose that there WAS a beginning. (the Hartle-Hawking model is such a model), then what if time also was started there... Then the word "before" only works after the Big Bang. And, if you cannot talk of concepts like before and after, then how do you define a "cause", when you cant time-order cause and effect? "Before the Big Bang" may not make any sense.

I guess this all ends in the ongoing? debate about the nature of time (A/B series, what is the "present", difference between measurement of time and time itself.)

Einstein said:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

- I am just pointing out that we should be extremely careful, when applying these words to so extreme events and situations. Situations which are so unlike our everyday life, where we normally use these words and intuitively agree on their meaning.

[dorel]

the big bang theory has predictions.
in the light of the evidence we have nowadays, is more likely that the universe has a beginning, that has not.
is true that many atheist-scientist try to explain away those evidence that point to a beginning of the universe, by inventing or imagining multi-verses, parallel universes, bubble universes etc.
i believe science, but not an imaginative one.
if you say that my god is the fruit of my imagination, than you do come with an hypothesis imagined by you, and arguing that your more reasonable than me, i will laugh in your face.

[demosthenes]

I cannot see how you can assign probabilities for and against a beginning, given the current science. And in the case there was a beginning, by the well-established theory of relativity,  space and time are intertwined, so how only time can precede a Big Bang is beyond my compehension (space being created in the Big Bang). I am not attacking your belief, merely trying to find out what you are actually stating.

Your two only alternatives
1) god create the universe
2) a natural process create the universe
does not seem exhaustive to me. Therefore your argument that atheism is a belief, does not seem convincing to me.

[aleph naught]

If atheism means "doesn't believe God exists", then no it's not a belief system (since atheism doesn't commit one to holding any particular belief). If atheism means "believes God doesn't exist", then yes it is a belief system and commits you to the belief "God does not exist".

Either way, they're not faith based positions. The former sort of atheist doesn't have any belief that he's taking on faith (since he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exist). The latter sort of atheist has a belief, but again he probably doesn't take it on faith since there are decent reasons to believe there are no gods.

Ultimately, I think this sort of debate over what 'atheism' means is stupid. I don't get why people find it interesting, it just distracts from actually arguing over whether or not God exists.

[Rick Dawkins]

If atheism means "doesn't believe God exists", then no it's not a belief system (since atheism doesn't commit one to holding any particular belief). If atheism means "believes God doesn't exist", then yes it is a belief system and commits you to the belief "God does not exist".

Either way, they're not faith based positions. The former sort of atheist doesn't have any belief that he's taking on faith (since he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exist). The latter sort of atheist has a belief, but again he probably doesn't take it on faith since there are decent reasons to believe there are no gods.

Ultimately, I think this sort of debate over what 'atheism' means is stupid. I don't get why people find it interesting, it just distracts from actually arguing over whether or not God exists.

rick dawkins doesnt  believe hitler existed- btw thats not a belief.

 all you are doing is asseint ing  that god doesnt exist as a fact in the first premise , and then decalring its not a belief system

l

[demosthenes]

What if someone has never heard about any God or deity, and has never thought about it. Is this person then a member of the "I don't believe that God exists" belief-system?

[aleph naught]

If atheism means "doesn't believe God exists", then no it's not a belief system (since atheism doesn't commit one to holding any particular belief). If atheism means "believes God doesn't exist", then yes it is a belief system and commits you to the belief "God does not exist".

Either way, they're not faith based positions. The former sort of atheist doesn't have any belief that he's taking on faith (since he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exist). The latter sort of atheist has a belief, but again he probably doesn't take it on faith since there are decent reasons to believe there are no gods.

Ultimately, I think this sort of debate over what 'atheism' means is stupid. I don't get why people find it interesting, it just distracts from actually arguing over whether or not God exists.

rick dawkins doesnt  believe hitler existed- btw thats not a belief.

 all you are doing is asseint ing  that god doesnt exist as a fact in the first premise , and then decalring its not a belief system

l

Huh? It's perfectly compatible to neither believe P nor ~P, and withhold judgement all together. Such a person wouldn't make any assertions at all.

[dorel]

christian-believer = a person who believe that in the world exist natural processes, but the same world was created by a christian interpretation of god
muslim-believer = a person who believe that in the world exist natural processes, but the same world was created by a muslim interpretation of god
atheist-believer = a person who believe that the world exist only with natural processes, and was created by a natural process,  without god or gods

[dorel]

What if someone has never heard about any God or deity, and has never thought about it. Is this person then a member of the "I don't believe that God exists" belief-system?

somebody who don't know about god is in a group of those who don't know about god.
if you speak them about the universe having a beginning he have three options>
1>believing that somebody, a superpower creates the universe, theist-believer
2>believing that a natural process creates the universe, atheist-believer
3>does not committing himself with either of this two, expecting for more data, agnositic

[Rick Dawkins]

What if someone has never heard about any God or deity, and has never thought about it. Is this person then a member of the "I don't believe that God exists" belief-system?

They would fit it the not knowing ie agnostic, but thats still not true, the fact is they logically and theoretically at least not have any belief system ... pertainint to and gained from the word God.

but i dont think it lasts long, not for any child deemed normal and healthy for long , simply because questions like " where did mummy come from" where did i come from , seemingly are common .

[Jubilee]

Not in itself, but atheism entails the rejection of classical metaphysics, a self-existent entity, etc, and so the philosphical moves available to an atheist are limited.

I'm inclined to think that atheism entails naturalism or pragmatism, because those are the only viable philosophies once pre-modern philosophy, and it's postulation of God, is rejected.

Partly because of the emphasis on specialization and the death of systematic philosophy in the 20th century, people have the naive and, I think, wrongheaded view that atheism can be a position in a vacuum.

[Rick Dawkins]

If atheism means "doesn't believe God exists", then no it's not a belief system (since atheism doesn't commit one to holding any particular belief). If atheism means "believes God doesn't exist", then yes it is a belief system and commits you to the belief "God does not exist".

Either way, they're not faith based positions. The former sort of atheist doesn't have any belief that he's taking on faith (since he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exist). The latter sort of atheist has a belief, but again he probably doesn't take it on faith since there are decent reasons to believe there are no gods.

Ultimately, I think this sort of debate over what 'atheism' means is stupid. I don't get why people find it interesting, it just distracts from actually arguing over whether or not God exists.

rick dawkins doesnt  believe hitler existed- btw thats not a belief.

 all you are doing is asseint ing  that god doesnt exist as a fact in the first premise , and then decalring its not a belief system

l

Huh? It's perfectly compatible to neither believe P nor ~P, and withhold judgement all together. Such a person wouldn't make any assertions at all.

Erm no, at miniumum ,they are making the assertion belief to themself - God doesnt at exist,