Is atheism a belief?

[paarsurrey]

Wrong, @paarsurrey

There is not and there can never be, in the past, present of future, any need for justification for atheism (or for that matter, skepticism or agnosticism). All three stances are inherently legitimate.

There is no need for logical justification, both because atheism is a non-claim and because even the positive claims (theism and positive or "strong" atheism) are of an aesthetical nature, not a logical one.

All that is needed, or reasonable to ask, for one to be an atheist is a sincere statement that one does not believe in the existence of gods.

All that is needed, or reasonable to ask, for one to be a theist is a sincere statement that one believes in the existence of at least one god.

That is really all that there is to it.

Science does not connect to these matters in any way. Nor does science connect to any god, nor to the idea that there might hypothetically be a creator god of some sort.

As a matter of fact, one would be hard pressed to even propose means for science to meddle into such a highly speculative matter. That is simply not how things work.

As for "truthful religion not supporting atheism", well, that could not be more wrong, or less moral a statement, if you specificallly wanted it to be.

"Science does not connect to these matters in any way. Nor does science connect to any god, nor to the idea that there might hypothetically be a creator god of some sort."

Yet, day in and day out at RF we see Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism demanding from the believers "evidences", "proofs" in the same sense as if it is a question connected with science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

"Science does not connect to these matters in any way. Nor does science connect to any god, nor to the idea that there might hypothetically be a creator god of some sort."

Yet, day in and day out at RF we see Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism demanding from the believers "evidences", "proofs" in the same sense as if it is a question connected with science. Right, please?

Regards

Theism demands political influence.

It, quite literally and very decisively, expects to be a significant factor in the decision making of our societies and policies.

That is a reality that just can't be ignored, and there is therefore a strong need for challenging its claims and questioning its goals.

How else could we protect ourselves from the harm caused by anti-vaccine movements? From the harm to children that comes from teaching Creationism in schools? From the psychological abuse that comes with Biblical literalism and other forms of "religious" extremism?

 

[paarsurrey]

Theism demands political influence.

It, quite literally and very decisively, expects to be a significant factor in the decision making of our societies and policies.

That is a reality that just can't be ignored, and there is therefore a strong need for challenging its claims and questioning its goals.

How else could we protect ourselves from the harm caused by anti-vaccine movements? From the harm to children that comes from teaching Creationism in schools? From the psychological abuse that comes with Biblical literalism and other forms of "religious" extremism?

"Theism"

Theism and Atheism are later terms, these did not exist in the times of Muhammad.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

"Theism"

Theism and Atheism are later terms, these did not exist in the times of Muhammad.

Regards

That may well be. Regardless, Islaam is about as theistic a doctrine as they come.