atheism is a (religious position)

[Copernicus]

As I am not a geologist or biologist, no, I cannot provide evidence - but there are those who can, I would ultimately imagine - since it's true

First you jump to the conclusion that your belief is true. Then you reason backwards to justify other unsubstantiated claims on the basis of your initial unsubstantiated claim. Hence, you believe that you aren't required to provide evidence. You just imagine that it must exist.

 

[F1fan]

As I am not a geologist or biologist, no, I cannot provide evidence - but there are those who can, I would ultimately imagine - since it's true

No one has been able to present a plausible case that the Noah Flood actually happened. The facts we have through experts tells us the Noah Flood never happened. Facts trump religious tradition. Sorry.

 

[Khabeni412]

No. Atheism is not a belief. It is, however, a position of theism (not god). Theists claim there is a God. Atheists don't believe you. I don't claim there is no God. I simply see no reason to believe because theists haven't met their burden of proof.

 

[Copernicus]

No. Atheism is not a belief. It is, however, a position of theism (not god). Theists claim there is a God. Atheists don't believe you. I don't claim there is no God. I simply see no reason to believe because theists haven't met their burden of proof.

Would you say that the belief that something does not exist is a belief or not a belief? I understand the reasons why so many of us atheists would like to claim that atheism is not a belief--there is no good reason to believe that any gods exist. There are also a lot of atheists who want to claim that the word "god" is devoid of meaning (igtheism). As a linguist, I reject igtheism, because it depends on an implicit theory of word meanings that is incorrect.

The OP gave us two arguments:

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

I would maintain that the first premise is simply false. Having a concept of what gods are is not the same as being religious,, nor is having an opinion about religion the same thing as being religious, nor is it even necessary to believe in gods in order to be considered a religious person. The flaw in Premise 1 is that it gets the concept of religion wrong, not the concept of gods.

I have no problem with premise 2. To me, that's the same thing as saying that people who believe that there are no leprechauns have a concept of what it is they are denying belief in. I would say that atheists do assign meaning to the word "god" and believe that gods, like leprechauns, are imaginary beings. They don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no problem with premise 2. To me, that's the same thing as saying that people who believe that there are no leprechauns have a concept of what it is they are denying belief in. I would say that atheists do assign meaning to the word "god" and believe that gods, like leprechauns, are imaginary beings. They don't exist.

There are lots of problems with premise 2. It's monotheism-centric for starters.

I know that I sure don't have a single "God-concept."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Atheism is not a belief. It is, however, a position of theism (not god). Theists claim there is a God. Atheists don't believe you. I don't claim there is no God. I simply see no reason to believe because theists haven't met their burden of proof.

Atheism isn't a position either. It encompasses uncountably many positions; anything from "I know with certainty that no gods exist" to "what's a god?" Any position that doesn't include a belief in a god or gods is within the scope of atheism.

 

[Copernicus]

There are lots of problems with premise 2. It's monotheism-centric for starters.

I know that I sure don't have a single "God-concept."

Yes, it is monotheism-centric, and atheism is not just rejection of belief in a monotheistic god. So I take you point on that score. However, I think you are quibbling about meaning being just a single concept. Words can be ambiguous, vague, and have more than one sense. I wouldn't claim that premise 2 is well-stated or precise. Quibbles aside, I agree with the basic point that atheists have a concept of what gods are. Atheism cannot be defined without reference to that concept.

 

[DNB]

This a problem, because in my over 50 years as geologist I have not found any objective evidence for the Creation story or Noah's Flood. In fact based on basic physics and the geologic evidence Noah's Flood is impossible.

A basic high school level physics enough to realize this,

Well, like I said, I am in no position to either agree or refute what you said, as far as geological evidence is concerned.
But, on the same note, I do not hold any one geologist's position as incontrovertible fact.

 

[DNB]

First you jump to the conclusion that your belief is true. Then you reason backwards to justify other unsubstantiated claims on the basis of your initial unsubstantiated claim. Hence, you believe that you aren't required to provide evidence. You just imagine that it must exist.

If a body goes missing, and therefore no one can prove the manner of death, it doesn't disqualify one's notion of what occurred based on their understanding of the circumstances.

 

[DNB]

No one has been able to present a plausible case that the Noah Flood actually happened. The facts we have through experts tells us the Noah Flood never happened. Facts trump religious tradition. Sorry.

Mankind is bad, and deserves to die - what more evidence do you need?

 

[F1fan]

Mankind is bad, and deserves to die - what more evidence do you need?

Nice, bad mouthing God's creation. I guess you aren't thinking about your final judgment, eh?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, like I said, I am in no position to either agree or refute what you said, as far as geological evidence is concerned.
But, on the same note, I do not hold any one geologist's position as incontrovertible fact.

Science nor Geology nor individual scientists hold a position of incontrovertible fact or facts. This is an odd contorted statement that does not reflect remotely how science works.

It is more the case that religious beliefs claim they are the 'Truth' and what they believe is incontrovertible fact, based on faith with no objective evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Mankind is bad, and deserves to die - what more evidence do you need?

This is not evidence, It is an assertion based on the ancient mythology of Adam and Eve.

 

[shunyadragon]

If a body goes missing, and therefore no one can prove the manner of death, it doesn't disqualify one's notion of what occurred based on their understanding of the circumstances.

True.there understanding is that the body is missing. Beyond this any belief is conjecture,

 

[DNB]

Nice, bad mouthing God's creation. I guess you aren't thinking about your final judgment, eh?

...oh, but I was!

??????

 

[DNB]

Science nor Geology nor individual scientists hold a position of incontrovertible fact or facts. This is an odd contorted statement that does not reflect remotely how science works.

It is more the case that religious beliefs claim they are the 'Truth' and what they believe is incontrovertible fact, based on faith with no objective evidence.

Faith is wisdom

 

[DNB]

This is not evidence, It is an assertion based on the ancient mythology of Adam and Eve.

Read the newspaper sometime, or watch the news, or stand on any street corner long enough, and then tell me what hope that you have for mankind?

 

[DNB]

True.there understanding is that the body is missing. Beyond this any belief is conjecture,

But if one is intimate with the circumstances leading up to the event, their testimony holds weight - enough weight to act upon

 

[shunyadragon]

But if one is intimate with the circumstances leading up to the event, their testimony holds weight - enough weight to act upon

The problem remains there are not any witness testimony date.d to the life of Jesus. The gospels are not known to exist within a hundred years of the death of Jesus, What we have today complied and edited later.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The problem remains there are not any witness testimony date.d to the life of Jesus. The gospels are not known to exist within a hundred years of the death of Jesus, What we have today complied and edited later.

My understanding is that the gospels were written around 60-70 years after Jesus. It's still not eye witness, and its still unreliable.