Does Atheism = No beliefs?

If I'm understanding him correctly, that is precisely his point. While I think he is being far too categorical, it is a fact that many atheists wear on their sleeve their non-belief in such a way that it masquerades as a belief system -- a pseudo-religion, if you will.That being said, I understand what you are also trying to say. It seems to me that you are pointing out that not all atheists, if we can all agree that "atheism" at the base level simply means (a) "negative" (theos) "god [no god], then any additional philosophical beliefs that stem from that root are almost irrelevant.Obviously not all atheists take their irreligion a step further than mere disbelief and form humanist churches and ascribe to some deep and meaningful secular philosophy. Are you then distinguishing between the difference between a common atheist and an atheist who goes a step further with humanism? Well, that may or may not be true for you, but hang around the forum a while and you will see just how detached some of the resident atheists are with their unbelief.It's kind of the same things if you think about it. The loudest and most boisterous one's are the kind that make an indelible impression on their counterparts, which usually negatively impacts them. It's often the shitty Christians you know the most because their always saying something idiotic and controversial. That same principle applies to those in the atheist community, and that is because they turned disbelief in to a proactive thing.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

No, Marc, that's what the apologists allege and you are following suit. Then it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy by inciting atheists to talk about their beliefs and non-beliefs. That may seem like it confirms your suspicions that atheists sit around all day and dream up ways to argue with Christians on evolution, but I think it's a fantasy fed by apologists. That's an entirely different thing as it is a very specific topic. That's like saying, "So if you were talking about the first chapter in the book of genesis, are you telling me that Adam and Eve wouldn't be brought up?"You initially stated that when talking about their view of the world, atheists would "make a beeline to evolution."

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This place, IMO, is a place to come in as a hobby. If anyone takes this place that seriously by ever referring to it as "their world," they therefore subject themselves to open scorn and public mockery.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Agreed, which is why anecdote leads to these kind of conclusions. That of course brings about stereotypes because it is only the loudest one's who the public sees.My point is one cannot be glib about the assertion that atheism is merely about a simple disbelief, at least not for the majority on this site.But I would agree that in all liklihood, most people that would refer to themselves as atheists aren't concerned enough to even find a forum such as this, much less participate regularly.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

If that is the case then how could you possibly attribute this force with anything if it is beyond all perception? This was a completely nonsensical rant. Instead of trying to philosophically convince people of the possibility of a Designer, why don't you just show the evidence of design and we can argue the points and counterpoints.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Perhaps so, but as you stated, science is only sensical in direct relation to observed physical phenomona, not obtuse and ambiguous philosophies.Moreoever, the scientific backing of I.D. is alleged to use science. It would therefore better facilitate Den if (s)he actually presented some evidence instead of alluding to the point that science is limited.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

It appears that you're still there! Lets use some common sense. Atheists, by definition, are people who don't believe a God exists. If they don't believe in God then they have no image, let alone a false one. Except that God himself committed and/or ordered said atrocities.For your edification:

quote:

---

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. -- Leviticus 26:21-22

---

quote:

---

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." -- Hosea 9:11-16

---

There are countless other verses just like this.Does this seem consistent with an all-knowing and all-loving God? Could you at least understand why some people are cynical?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

That's pretty much my position. It's obviously impossible to prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist, rather we can say whether something is more or less improbable. The contention rather is in disproving specific aspects of a theology that either cannot be true when juxtaposed by known facts or is internally inconsistent. But to say whether or not "God" exists leaves so much to be desired since it's really a vague and unspecified thing. Ask 100 people what God is and get 100 different answers. So it's just easier to take an agnostic position -- neither in the business of proving or disproving the existence of something that cannot be determined in either direction just by the nature of itself.

Define God. If you can admit that attempting to do so is a lesson in futility, then the agnostic position makes a lot of sense. What do you care either way? Just because I don't necessarily believe in God doesn't necessarily mean that I disbelieve it by the same token.