Atheism takes some faith? Your wordy post is based on false assumptions, which to me as an atheist, means to damn atheism with faint praise. Atheism is an absence of belief in God or Gods because of total lack of evidence for such a claim. No leap of faith required. Come back with evidence and we'll reconsider it.

This is an old argument here, restated in different ways: atheism as a kind of faith. You must be joking.

This is a site for non believers of religion, not just agnostics. Choose to be here or not, but don't let the name affect your choice. I certainly don't. I find the agnostic position myself to be grossly inconsistent. Agnostic about the God I grew up with, functionally atheist about all other Gods? No thanks. I agree with Bertrand Russell: the position is problematic at best.

If you are an atheist as you say, be it proudly here on this site. But spare us an argument that it is based on faith.

Thanks

An atheist does not have to disprove god(s). The responsibility for proof rests solely on those making the claim. All 3000+ religions out there have the responsibility to prove their god(s) exist. No proof. No god(s). Therefore atheist.

Atheism doesn't require faith. Faith is believing without evidence. There is no evidence of gods; therefore I don't believe in them. There is no faith required.

Next the lack of evidence of gods' existence is not equivalent to the lack of evidence for nonexistence. The burden of proof is entirely on the believers, and they have been told for centuries that doubt is a sin, because at least superficially, they can use that as an argument against evidence.

I like Bertrand Russell's argument, that if I ask you to believe in a Chinese porcelain teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars, you would rightly ask me for proof. Similarly, if you ask me to believe in God, I will ask you for proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. And so because God cannot be proven, I say that atheism is the only reasonable stance.

Agnosticism is a weakly reasoned stance which is based on appeasement of all sides. It leads you to saying "I don't know" about all kinds of absurdities like Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, where in fact you should just rule these things out and say "I believe these things do not exist", with the understanding that if further evidence comes to light you may change your opinion.

Not collecting stamps,... is not a hobby.

The level to which so many people twist themselves to "define" atheists and agnostics has become patently ridiculous.
As far as I'm concerned, atheists don't believe in any gods.
Agnostics don't know one way or the other.
Anti-theists are against all religion.
I am an atheist and an anti-theist.
I don't believe any gods have ever existed in reality, and ALL religion is evil.
It's not that hard.

The problem with theists in their understanding of agnosticism, and also many agnostics today is they misunderstand a term as coined by the person who actually originated it, and apply it to themselves or others for reasons he never contemplated.

Huxley's contention is essentially that supernatural beings and realms are non-falsifiable and therefore you can't take a supportable knowledge claim one way or the other. So it's not "I'm not sure, maybe there could be a god". It's "there's no way to know, inherently". Agnosticism is the null position about knowledge of deities.

Atheism on the other hand doesn't address the knowledge position, only the belief position; it's the null belief position about deities. Namely, that there is no valid evidence to support belief, because belief must inherently based on a preponderance of evidence, of which in the case of deities (much less the SPECIFIC one many have in mind) not just a little, but no evidence, is available.

It's ironic that the rigid truth claim and the unsupportable belief claim comes from theism, and they accuse atheists of being close-minded and having faith. Project much?

You are so wrong. I don't believe in god because I see no evidence to the contrary. The history of the species, religion, the globe or anything else has nothing to do with it. Furthermore I see no evidence supporting your assumptions. How do you know what goes on in my mind?

Calling atheism a "belief system" is disingenuous, at best, and deliberately dishonest, at worst.
I find that those who will insist that atheism is a belief system are almost always
believers who are looking for ways to discredit atheists.
It's pathetic and a waste of time. Not to mention, it's just plain false.
I wish they'd just stop.

I accept people can be agnostic with regard to God in the same way they can be agnostic about Harry Potter, unicorns and fairies.

Many confuse atheist with anti-theist.

I’m atheist not agnostic... I don’t need to keep an open mind about the ridiculous. This site may be agnostic but at least it’s atheist friendly

We need to define the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' - and this, I admit, is a contentious issue that many atheists have long arguments about.

My OWN definitions are:-

BELIEF: something you personally accept as being true. WHY you accept it as true is an entirely separate matter - but if there is something that you personally accept to be true then that is a BELIEF that you hold.

I BELIEVE that evolution is a genuine process by which forms of life gradually change in response to their environment and lifestyle.This 'belief' is based on vast amounts of evidence - DNA, fossil records, direct observation, etc - that evidence is WHY I 'believe'. Why I accept this concept as being truth.

FAITH: is belief WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Faith is, in effect, when you say 'I believe X!' and when someone asks you why, your only real response is 'Because I DO!'

Do I 'believe' the words of the bible are mythical bullshit of the first order? ABSOLUTELY I DO! And with good, evidence-based reason. The words of the bible are inherently incompatible with so much that we can see, and measure, and experimentally test - so yes, that is a concept I personally accept to be fact.

Do I 'believe' that the concept of god is equally mythical? CERTAINLY! To believe in god forces you to believe in all sorts of other stuff - such as the 'telepathy' inherent in prayer, the corruption of the concept of cause and effect, and so on - which is completely at varience with our observations of the world around us.

So yes, my atheism is a 'belief system' because it is a personal acceptance of certain things being true - but it is belief BASED ON OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE.

It is BELIEF, but it is not FAITH.

Insisting that atheism is a belief system is like saying "off" is a TV station.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist, and I play the odds. It takes no faith whatsoever to believe that there probably is no god, as god is completely superfluous to the universe.

The 13 year old me would have loved this

Atheism is a knowledge system. No one can prove a positive, therefore it is not true. I know there is not one billion $ in my bank account. Therefore it does not exist in my bank account. Though that I do wish lol.

Its old people trying to tell us how we think. First Atheist there is no god FACT! No proof there ever was one!The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old FACT! It is older than dirt FACT! Gods and was invented to control people and give people a reason not to look for the truth. Humans are very superstitious and there is your gods and religions!

That's a confrontational stance. It presumes you already know what form 'God' takes.

I'm an agnostic, because I don't know if there is anything out there that we don't understand.

We still haven't worked out what's happening with black holes.

Ridiculing agnostics is unkind.

An honest atheist will tell you they are agnostic as well. No one 'knows' that a god exists, so everyone is actually an agnostic, including theists. They don't know either, but they are real good at petending that a god exists.

That is about as inclusive a name that a web site could have IMO.

Oh, it's a belief system, I don't argue that. What I argue is that it is not a RELIGION.

The trouble with labels of any sort is they’re limiting and fraught with the foibles of language which is why I refuse to label myself as either atheist or agnostic. I believe nothing. Belief is for fools.

The fact humans invent gods is not a theory. A lifetime Atheist, I’ve never needed ‘faith’ to understand or uphold reality… Seems you’re trying hard to make something of nothing … that’s what the religious folks do ..while the Agnostics sit back and watch

Pier, if I obtain ‘level eight’ status, I will decline the ‘Agnostic’ labeled T-shirt, to save them money ..and keep me pure

I think most agnostics are still living under the regime of religious oppression and most structure their arguments with just one divine dude in mind. All people who believe in gods are agnostics since they cannot produce any proof of the existence of their particular gods or goddesses. I usually state that I am nothing and that even the question of the existence of any divine authority even remotely resembling any god as imagined by humans is of no relevance to me. When specifically asked about my belief in "god" which is more likely in a western influenced society, I just reply by the question: "Which ones do you have in mind?"
Hinduism offers 33 million. I would challenge anyone to know them all.
I am absolutely certain that there is no god that fits any human description. I will even say I know that there are none. Bring me the proof that would stand up in a criminal trial: Beyond reasonable doubt!

Every knowledge we have, we got it either by experience (e.g. you know that a knife is sharp because it cuts well or if you spin around much you get dizzy), or by being told/thaught. Now for the part of being told, it can be a scientific fact that we actually believe (e.g. heliocentric solar system, opposed to a geocentric that we believed over 400 years ago), it can be something cultural as religion or "common sense" (e.g. you'll get a cold if you [...]), or anything generaly accepted as true. Now, everything you know and believe, is based on the above. You make interpretations about the world as you see it, and you fill the blanks with reasonable, logical explanations, or with simple "I don't know"s.
But not believing in a god is not a belief system on it's own, in my opinion, it's more like a logical conclusion.
And I never heard anybody say " I have faith that there is no god" nor "I have faith in scientific facts". This ideas are contrary to the definition of faith.

And you really get bothered by the name of the site? Lol