Does Atheism = No beliefs?

No he wasn't. Yes he did. He had to build his own ark to survive. Otherwise, he would have drowned along with everybody else.Why should you be any different?

If should is a factor to even be considered, of course I should be different.I should be entitled to a good safe retirement. I should be safe from any killer germs or viruses. There should be world peace.Although I suppose you could argue that all of us should have equal rights.In which case, I should be able to have a much free stuff as the darn shoplifters, whom I see every day and whom all should be in jail.

The question was, "Why should you be treated differently from Noah?" Why should you be wafted miraculously above the flood while Noah had to build his own ark?You complained about atheism making us responsible for our own survival. That's just reality. Even your own Bible disagrees with you.

Then you're living in the wrong country and/or voting the wrong way. Then you have to ask your god, why he made killer germs and viruses. Does that make any sense to you? We'll only achieve that through our own efforts. Your god is not helping any. Doesn't any of this make you doubt all that god bollox?

I do, actually. I want to answer your question.
I just can't make out what your question is, or what you're attempting to ask. I'm sure that under certain additional circumstances... it could be considered a belief.
Let's say... we all know that Rudolph is made up. So the exact characteristics of his cloaca could be ill-defined.
Therefore, it could be reasonable to say that no amount of experience you have with putting your organs anywhere real and defined are irrelevant. Therefore, since there is an extremely limited amount of data available, this idea could be a belief.And under other certain additional circumstances... it could be considered a non-belief.
Let's say... you have a very strict definition of Rudolph's cloaca and are very experienced with putting your sex organs in non-human orifices. Some you like, some you don't. But, according to your experience and your strict definition of Rudolph... anyone can clearly see how you derive your conclusion. Therefore, since this idea is based on the data, it can be considered a non-belief.What I don't understand is what difference would it make?
Who cares if it's a belief or a non-belief?Are you trying to link your statements to the original post of this thread? I, personally, think that Atheism = not believing in God. That's it. Nothing more.Therefore, to me, the answer to #1 is "possibly, but I doubt it... and I don't care."
And my answer to #2 is "I don't think not-believing-in-God in and of itself affords one any sort of special freedom."I get the feeling that you're ascribing some sort of philosophy onto me... and then asking me "provoking" questions.
But I have no idea of the philosophy you're ascribing to me, or what you're attempting to provoke, or why you even think any of this is relevant.But, yes, I'd like to answer your question... if you actually have one that I can understand.

A huge difference. Is the idea that the earth will keep on turning for billions of years and that the earth turns around the sun a belief? If you think that it's a belief you try to drag down facts to the level of unevidenced, ridiculously stupid religion.

Not generally, no. Yes, I see your general point.
Of course, there are always exceptions... like if someone held it as a belief.... but they're open to updating their ideas upon receiving information that explains the data the non-belief-idea is based upon... then it doesn't drag anything down. One would simply have been ignorant, and then cured of the ignorance (upon learning of the data/evidence). Such happens for all of us. In fact, such an education would be the living embodiment of the ideas science is based on.I'm still not really sure what sort of point you're trying to make, though.If you're just saying, in general, that those who adamantly and ignorantly state certain known-scientific-facts are "beliefs" are doing science a disservice... I completely agree with you.I would also agree with you if, in general, you stated that eating vegetables is good for your health.I agree with both statements, yet I would be left equally confused as to why you thought it would be important to "drive home" such points with me. As far as I can tell, everything I state is in line with adhering to such ideas already.

That's the problem. A lot of religious people conflict the different meanings of the word "belief" and do ridiculously stupid arguments about it. Such as the rotation of the earth is a "belief" and is exactly the same "belief" as "Muhammed flew around on a winged horse". Semantics and sophistry,

Pressie writes:

quote:

---

A lot of religious people conflict the different meanings of the word "belief" and do ridiculously stupid arguments about it. Such as the rotation of the earth is a "belief" and is exactly the same "belief" as "Muhammed flew around on a winged horse". Semantics and sophistry,

---

This is a common argument made by theists to try and cast atheism as "just another religion." The idea is to say that "everybody believes in something" and thus you end up with football being a religion.So when we ask, "Does Atheism has any beliefs which are unique to Atheism?" we need to be very specific about what we are calling a "belief." There certainly is a distinction between theism and atheism with regard to things like what happens after death and the cosmic significance of certain actions. But many people then conflate "beliefs" with what I would more properly call "tenets." After all, atheists still have many of the same questions that theists do with regard to things like good and evil, how to navigate the world around us, etc. They are questions of philosophy and atheists have a philosophy.Since atheism has no true "organization" like theism (how does one organize around a lack of belief?) there is no "atheistic philosophy" in the sense of a common philosophy shared by atheists. Rather, similarities in philosophy come from accepting the philosophy and its internal justifications, rather than being justified by atheism proper. This isn't to say that philosophies that atheists hold aren't influenced by theistic philosophies. Given the prevalence of theism in the world, atheists can't grow up without being influenced. But when they come to their atheism, atheists will justify those tenets they keep without god.Thus, theists and atheists often share similar philosophies. The Golden Rule does not require god to justify it.So in the context of atheism being a lack of belief and the context of having philosophical tenets, then there is nothing that atheism has that theism doesn't also have. It's just that atheism doesn't justify those tenets in the same way. You treat others as you would like to be treated not because god said so, not because of any cosmic significance of doing so, but because the outcome of that philosophy is of benefit to all.

It seems you invest a lot of energy into denigrating the idea of religion. Why not just be like Stile and let it go? This whole militant thing seems a waste of energy. Religion for better or worse will be around long after you are gone.

I agree religion would be around long after I've gone. I'm angry because I was basically raised in a theocracy and I believed it (for that I'm angry at myself, though I was not allowed to question anything).I call myself a radical, militant atheist just to piss those holier-than-thou religious folks off. They don't have a clue on how to approach me when I call myself that. They basically tend to just run off.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

As much as I, personally, don't have a gripe with religion... and I even think it's possible to have a "good" religion... I understand that this is only my personal experience.Many people have different personal experiences, in which religions were very evil and used as very evil tools towards them (or maybe those they care about).I think such people have a very good reason to be upset, and even prejudiced against religion.
Even though I don't fully agree with the stance myself (because such have not been my experiences) I do know enough about the problems certain religions have caused to agree that such a stance can be fully justified and even required in certain circumstances.As much as I let people have their religion and get whatever-benefits-they-can from it.
I also let people have their anti-religion and get whatever-benefits-they-can from it.The only caveat (on both) is the same caveat that's on the end of most things most people say: "...as long as you're not hurting anyone."At the end of the day... I am not like Pressie, but I am glad that people like Pressie exist... they get certain balls rolling in the direction I prefer where I might be more hesitant to pick that particular battle.Edited by Stile, : I grammar good.

The name of this site is "Creation versus Evolution". It exists because some people are trying to replace science with religion in our schools. So yes, religion is dangerous. Like some other diseases, we may not be able to eradicate it but it seems reasonable that we should do our best to minimize its ill effects.

I thought of you when I read this article:
Atheist Philosopher Says Religious People Have Actual Brain DamageI was skeptical of this article due to where it was published, so I researched Peter Boghossian some more. Have you heard of him?

No, and he sound pretty objectionable and a bit of a bigot.