Is Atheism a logical belief?

So, you admit Hitchens is bigoted against religion?
But, wouldn't one consider atheist beliefs as a religion?

 

It isn't like it's a sin to be born, that ones affinity for the truth and fidelity to reason and to the life in which one finds oneself is somehow another religion to be cast upon the denominational heap. Atheism is simply to be. Besides, what is religion to a living God. Should that God come to and say to the Atheist, hello my friend. Would it be any less astonishing to the Theist whose God is in doctrines and belief rather than knowledge of the truth. Wouldn't they say, I have believed but not known, and now my eyes are opened? So why fault those who seek the truth simply because you cannot bring it to their tables. One may as well fault ones own self. It is a double edged sword, cutting he and thee at once, to tears and regretful lamentations, and all the more to fury.

 

One can do w/o the bigotry in atheism as in religion.

 

Atheists can be bigots, as can anyone else, but there is no bigotry in atheism itself.

 

Bigotry and imperfection is inherent in mankind to varying degrees. That includes you.

 

No. Atheism is a logical disbelief.

 

in so far as logic is concerned, its still a belief, despite neoatheists trying to rewrite the dictionary

Now they have gone completely over the top into lala land with the outlandish belief there is an atheist gene.

Do you agree that its genetic?

 

There can be atheistic religions, but atheism in-and-of-itself is not a religion. Same goes for theism. The only thing you can say about all atheists is that they do not believe the statement "God or gods exist." That's it. They disagree about everything else. That lack of belief alone is not a religion.

 

Source and citation, please.

 

The forum bird! lol

 

there is racist whites
there is racist blacks

unlike God(s), we can prove that they exist

 

Yet, all theists say there are god(s) even though there is no proof of god(s), that doesn't stop theists from engaging themselves in ideology and bigotry.

 

If you toss both deductive and spacial reasoning skill right out the window for the purpose of not understanding rather than comprehension, anything is possible.

I suppose you expect me to argue over that stupidity?

 

Atheist religious philosophy [atheology] is also an organized religion.
They all sing the same tunes from the same script, same as believers!

 

No. Disbelief is logical. Belief is not.

Who are "they"?

Of course not.

 

There aren't any reparations, so there is no such conflation even possible.

 

No, atheism is absolutely NOT a religion.

As an atheist, I can tell you that I never consult a "no god" when making decisions. I don't worship the absence of any gods. There is no other element of my life that includes making a decision that is informed by the lack of there being any gods.

 

How can you ask such a question? Isn't it obvious that atheism is a disbelief in religion?

 

LOL!!

Are you telling me that I missed a meeting of some sort?

 

Yes the negation of theism in its proper context.

Yeh the [NEO] atheists dont have the balls to stand up and be counted like the atheists do. They want to make claims and bear no liability for their claims, unlike atheists that simply stand up and say they disbelieve in God.

"They" are the neo branded atheists mooching philosophy for a free lunch.

Hence the bird is claiming people do not decide what they want to believe, its inherent as a result of being humans have a atheist gene when he referenced biology to attempt to validate that nonsense.

In reference to G/god(s), both are not logical.

Simple, the way it works is if you do not believe the affirmative you believe its negation.

several apparently
Hell all it takes is a drive glance at the neoatheists atheology which is always the same, no different than the believer theology. Neoatheists all sing lyrics from the same script.

 

Ah huh! The latest dodge is the atheist gene. That wacky theory claims you do not make a choice, atheism is inherent.

If the birds ludicrous theory had one iota of credibility theists would never have existed.

 

There's no such thing as atheist beliefs. Atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is a non-belief.

Regardless, beliefs in general are not necessarily religious. If a person believes the spouse is cheating, is that belief part of a religion?

 

"Atheism" is a word used by some to mean lack of belief there are God(s); a-theist; not-theist.

It is also a word used by others to mean the belief there are no God(s).

The above is not a problem so long as we don't equivocate the two.

There is likely no atheist or theist gene. That's not how genes work. There very likely is a genetic proclivity to be less or more skeptical and/or suggestable though, and that likely correlates with atheism/theism, as well as belief in secular belief such as alien visitation, the loch ness monster, homeopathy, and other woo.

There is also genetic influence on need for group belonging, individuality, conformity, authoritarianism, etc. All of that can effect theism/atheism depending on its interaction with cultural environment.

It isn't all nature. Nurture and society also plays a massive role in all of this, of course.

 

theist like atheists have many different beliefs

even theist that believe in the same Abrahamic God have differing beliefs

 

He took me stating I am not able to believe I am an elephant, and that I am compelled not to believe there is a God since I see no evidence of a God and numerous contradictions in claims of God's, and is trying to turn that into me saying there is an atheist gene (which neither I nor anybody else said).

His demand is that we are all able to believe or not believe by our own choice. I don't have such a choice to believe I am an elephant, or that bible God is real. I couldn't make myself truly believe that no matter how hard I tried or no matter what I was offered as a reward. I could lie and say I believe, but I still would not actually believe. For me to actually believe would require convincing evidence.

This is one of the major flaws of Pascal's Wager. Believe because it is safer to? First, no, not safer, because there are many conflicting possible Gods and you could choose the wrong one, and most of these Gods are said to be harsher on believers in false Gods than on atheists. And second, even if it was safer to believe in the proposed God, I, and many others can't just make ourselves believe what we do not. And an all knowing God could surely tell if we tried to fake it.

Apparently Koko here has powerful self deception abilities and can will himself to believe whatever he wants to, and is convinced everyone else can too, so he finds my saying I can not to be ridiculous.