Athism belief:

[JP Cusick]

1. There is no God or devil.

2. There is no supernatural realm.

3. Miracles cannot occur.

4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.

5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.

6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.

8. Ethics and morals are relative
----
Source:
33rd annual ATHEIST CONVENTION in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007

[Divine Insight]

I suggest that you haven't done your homework. There is more to the information than you have posted:

From The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website: What is atheism?

Some Basic Tenets of Atheism

Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. I've tried to list some of them below. Please note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets. The only absolute common one to which they hold is that they do not believe in a God or gods.

• 1. There is no God or devil.
  2. There is no supernatural realm.
  3. Miracles cannot occur.
  4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
  5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
  6. Man is material.
  7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
  8. Ethics and morals are relative.

Notice that this is far from being any "Sacred Doctrine" as you are attempting to claim in this thread.

The first tenant should not be read "There is no God of devil" as though this is some sort of absolute decree or statement of truth.

A far better understanding of it is to understand that atheist believe there is no compelling evidence or rational reason to conclude, or even suspect that such an entity exists.

So for them to "not believe" that a God or devil exists, is not the same as declaring that one does not exist as though this should be accepted as "Sacred Doctrine".

So your claim that atheism represents a religious dogma is already false.

Some thing with the second tenant. Atheists simply believe that there is no reason to believe that any so-called "miracles" have ever occurred. And so they are being rational to believe that they don't occur. I will grant that "some atheists" do indeed argue that miracles "cannot occur". But it is wrong to claim that those individuals define atheism overall.

Number 4 should be obvious and need no explanation. If a person sees no reason to believe that any God exists, then the idea of sin being something this non-existent God disapproves of is meaningless.

Number 5 and 6 are also claims that not all atheists will agree on. Many atheists confess to being agnostic to the ultimate true nature of reality. They simply see no evidence of any egotistical authoritarian God ruling over it.

Some "atheists" are even open to mystical ideas of reality, this doesn't mean that they need to embrace tales of Zeus, Yahweh, or Jesus, etc.

Number 7 is something that many religious people even recognize to be a scientific fact. So recognizing evolution to be a fact is clearly not restricted to atheists.

And once again, number 8 should be obvious. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in an ultimate egotistical authority who rules the universe, then recognizing that moral values can be nothing more than subjective human values is the only possibility left.

~~~~~

To claim that this list is some sort of "Sacred Doctrine" representing the "Religion of Atheism" is clearly a fraudulent claim.

Having said this, there are many people who see no rational reasons to believe in an egotistical authoritarian Godhead yet prefer to avoid using the term "atheist" precisely because there exist short lists like these that basically misrepresent what many atheists actually believe.

But no, this list was never intended as "Sacred Doctrine" of Atheism. So that's clearly a false claim on your behalf to be sure. It's merely intended to convey what many atheists actually "believe".

After all, if there is no compelling or rational reason to believe in an egotistical authoritarian God, then the belief that no such God exists is a valid belief.

This list is just for the sake of conveying the general ideas that atheists typically believe. It's not intended to be a "Sacred Doctrine" of belief. So you are way off on that claim.

[OnceConvinced]

Glad to see this thread has been moved to a more appropriate subforum.

You really are going to have trouble trying to come up with something that all atheists agree upon. I think it's a futile task as there is definitely no atheist manifesto that we all agree upon when we become atheists. There are no atheists scriptures. There are is no credo and most definitely no doctrine... let alone sacred scriptures! LOL.

Unlike Christians we don't have a holy book we have to follow.

I shall tell you my stance on your list:

1. There is no God or devil.

I do not state there is no god or devil. I state that I do not believe in gods. As for devils I put them under the imaginary category as well. I just don't believe, however I'm not going to stand up and say "there are no devils". Nevertheless, the concept is now completely ridiculous to me, that there would be evil beings going around trying to make people's lives a misery. If I were a devil, I would have better things to do.

If it could be proven that a god of some kind did exist, I would quickly change my stance from atheist to believer again and be very happy to do so.

2. There is no supernatural realm.

Once again I would never say there was no supernatural realm. I will however say I do not believe their is a supernatural realm. I see no evidence of any supernatural at all and the supernatural is being exposed all the time as trickery and conartistry. Either that or there are natural explanations.

Funnily enough though I have come across atheists who believe in some supernatural stuff.

3. Miracles cannot occur.

I say I have never witnessed a miracle and I do not believe that what many claim to be miracles are actual miracles. I see that most can be put down to human intervention, luck, time factors, the placebo affect, natural causes.

4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.

Definitely not against any god for sure! Unless of course you can prove there is a god who has to be pandered to. One who has a delicate ego and who is needy and insecure.

I believe that there are things that are bad that humans do and some call it sin and some call it evil. Some of it I now see as human nature, some which is harmless, but some that is harmful and needs to be repressed.

5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.

I would have to say I have no idea about this. I consider myself a scientific naturalist, but I am the first to admit I have no real solid idea about what the universe is or how it began, if it ever had a beginning. I have no idea whether it is measurable or not.

Yes, there are some things I am quite happy to answer with "I don't know".

6. Man is material.

I certainly do not believe in a soul or anything like that as it has not proven to be real. Everything that is described as the soul or the spirit appears to me to be nothing more than just the human brain. So why should I believe it's something else?

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.

Well certainly we can see evolution occurring all around us. It's quite obvious its happening. Just look at viruses that become airborne and bacteria that develops resistances to penicillin. How can anyone claim it's not a scientific fact?

However, be careful that you don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis. It's abiogenesis that is the difficult thing to prove.

8. Ethics and morals are relative

I really don't get the whole objective vs relative argument, so I don't say one or the other. One thing I do say is that ethics and morals evolve and depends on what we in society deem important. I also see no reason why a god would be needed for good ethics and morals. (and lets face it the god of the bible has some abominable morals and ethics!)

Simpe compassion and empathy is enough for me to know how to treat others.

----
Source:
33rd annual ATHEIST CONVENTION in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007

I do not recognise this atheist convention as spokespeople for atheism. Definitely in no way do they represent me, that's for sure!

Its doctrine by another name

This atheist convention... whoever they are, may have decided to conjure up their own doctrine, but as you can see here it's not any doctrine I hold.

But hey, wrap it all up and call it Athism if you like. Just don't try to say it's Atheism.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by JP Cusick]

Pretty well yes. I and some other atheists might disagree with number eight.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by JP Cusick]

ALL that Atheism denotes is 'Without belief in gods' -- PERIOD -- full stop.

Nothing else can be said that applies to all who do not believe in gods. Many or most Atheists may agree with some of the numbered items, but that is not 'doctrine' (which does not exist in Atheism) and is not mandatory.

Perhaps it would be prudent if Christians would identify the doctrine that is consensus within Christendom (or even define 'Christian' acceptable to all sects within the umbrella term Christian) -- rather than attempting to project their ideas of Atheism onto Atheists.

[JP Cusick]

1. There is no God or devil.

What I find about Atheism is that they just change the name of God into a more comfortable synonym which makes their claim to no-god as being disingenuous.

As in "nature" is just another name for a God, as like evolution is a natural occurrence, so nature has some mind or intelligence to be doing the evolution, it does when it is doing as a God.

A tornado killed the person, well the tornado just twirled round and round and it does not have any human function of killing a person - unless the tornado has life in it?

The Big-Bang is natural - so nature is thereby the Creator.

It happens by the laws of physics - so only a God can give commandments.

So if one really wants to have no god(s) then they have to stop giving references to the intelligent designer(s).

[Divine Insight]

1. There is no God or devil.

What I find about Atheism is that they just change the name of God into a more comfortable synonym which makes their claim to no-god as being disingenuous.

As in "nature" is just another name for a God, as like evolution is a natural occurrence, so nature has some mind or intelligence to be doing the evolution, it does when it is doing as a God.

A tornado killed the person, well the tornado just twirled round and round and it does not have any human function of killing a person - unless the tornado has life in it?

The Big-Bang is natural - so nature is thereby the Creator.

It happens by the laws of physics - so only a God can give commandments.

So if one really wants to have no god(s) then they have to stop giving references to the intelligent designer(s).

To be totally fair I don't disagree with your objections to what the "Atheist Convention of 2007" may have claimed. I too would suggest that they word things quite differently before I would be willing to give my support to their specific social activism. I would personally demand that they change #1 from its current form to something more along the lines of the following:

1. There is no rational, convincing, or compelling reason to believe that any God or devil exists.

I think this is far more open, honest, and correct in terms of what atheism is (i.e. a rejection of all God myths precisely because they are not rational, convincing, or compelling. Period.

To come right out and claim that no Gods exist is both unnecessary and unsupportable. It's just as groundless as claiming that a God does exist.

So I can see your objection to #1 as a statement of supposed "Truth" when no atheist can even know that this statement is true much less provide any compelling evidence to even suggest that it should be believed to be true.

I actually see this as a major problem with "Atheist Groups" that try to create Atheist Movements where they start telling other people what atheists need to "believe".

But surely you can see that this same thing even holds true for Christianity. Do you back up everything that every Christian denomination proclaims to be true of Christianity including radical groups like the Christian KKK?

Obviously pointing to the proclamations of a single group to put down an entire theology or lack of theology is misguided to be certain.

What I do believe that all atheists could proclaim and support with obvious facts is to say the following:

1. The God described by the Scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam cannot possible exist as described because those scriptures contradict the very claims they make about their obvious fictitious God.

This statement they can defend as being provably true. And they can offer endless examples of why their proclamation on this matter necessarily has to be true.

Then if they want to move forward to renouncing the "Gods" described by other religions they could deal with those specific claims individually.

But I agree, for them to just blurt out "There is no God or Devil", is a statement that cannot be proved. It's an empty assertion that doesn't even support the true nature of atheism. Because an atheist does not need to believe that no God or devil exists, all they need to do is recognize that there is no rational, convincing, or compelling reason to think that such entities do exist.

That's all that's required to be an "atheist". In fact, when they start claiming "There is no God or Devil" they actually invite the "Burden of Proof" to back up their claim which is a totally unnecessary burden for them.

In instead all they claim is that there does not exist any rational, convincing, or compelling reason to believe in such mythological entities, then they have nothing to prove. The burden of proof to show that such fictional characters are rational, convincing, or compelling is entirely on the shoulders of the person who is attempting to claim that such entities exist.

So I actually agree with your concern here. Statement #1: "There is no God or Devil" only serves to place the burden of proof for that statement on them.

I would personally never make such a statement, nor would I support a group that does. So I too have a bone to pick with the people who made that list at that Atheist Convention of 2007.

I agree that they are shooting themselves in their own foot when they do so.

But pointing this out doesn't help Christianity in any way.

It's only going to help you if your goal is to start a war with atheists.

[McCulloch]

JP Cusick, I think that you're missing the point. Atheists do not change the name of God into a more comfortable synonym. "Nature" is not another name for a God. Evolution is a natural occurrence, meaning that there is no mind or intelligence behind evolution.

[OnceConvinced]

1. There is no God or devil.

What I find about Atheism is that they just change the name of God into a more comfortable synonym which makes their claim to no-god as being disingenuous.

Which Atheists are you talking about? I have no problem referring to God as God.

As in "nature" is just another name for a God, as like evolution is a natural occurrence, so nature has some mind or intelligence to be doing the evolution, it does when it is doing as a God

I know of no atheist who sees nature or evolution as God. That would be a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is.

I think you will find it's theists trying to impose their own beliefs onto atheists that is the reason for this obvious strawman you are erecting.

A tornado killed the person, well the tornado just twirled round and round and it does not have any human function of killing a person - unless the tornado has life in it?

No atheist I am aware of sees natural disasters as anything relating to any god. Science shows us these things have natural causes. No atheist would ever use the word "tornado" instead of "god". Nor would they ever intend it.

The Big-Bang is natural - so nature is thereby the Creator.

No atheist I am aware of sees the big bang as God. That would mean that the big bang had some kind of intelligence. Some kind of purpose. Some kind of ultimate goal.

It happens by the laws of physics - so only a God can give commandments.

No atheist ever sees any god behind physics. I think you are trying too hard to overlay your beliefs of a creator onto atheists. You need to take a step back and take of the creationist glasses just for a moment.

So if one really wants to have no god(s) then they have to stop giving references to the intelligent designer(s).

No atheist I am aware of refers to evolution or the big bang as being intelligent design.

BTW, as an atheist I do not desire there to be no god. On the contrary I really wish there was a god. I think that would be fantastic. So it's not a matter of what one wants to believe. It's a matter of what makes the most logical sense. What has the most evidence in its favour.

There may be some atheists that would not want gods, but not all atheists have the desire for no gods.

See the folly in trying to lump all atheists into one boat and trying to assign doctrine to them? Not all atheists hate the idea of gods.

[Kenisaw]

1. There is no God or devil.

2. There is no supernatural realm.

3. Miracles cannot occur.

4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.

5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.

6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.

8. Ethics and morals are relative
----
Source:
33rd annual ATHEIST CONVENTION in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007

I don't agree with #1. There could be some kind of god or being. Because I cannot prove a negative, and cannot prove that gods do NOT exist, I cannot say with 100% certainty that there are so such things as gods. I don't consider them remotely plausible, and there is exactly zero empirical data or evidence for them. Specifically, I can state the god of the Bible does not exist however. The number of logical contradictions about the properties of the Bible god make it impossible to exist as stated.

Since I can't agree with #1, I can't agree with #2, because again I can't prove a negative. I don't consider the supernatural remotely plausible either, but I can't rule it out for sure.

Obviously I can't rule #3 out either. Not remotely plausible, but can't say no miracles for sure.

#4 is a little more involved. I don't necessarily agree that a violation of a god's will is a "sin", because I reject the notion that a god can be an objective moral authority. Even a god has to choose if something is "bad" or "good, which means it is a subjective standard. I say this under the umbrella of a generic god, because the Bible god is impossible in my opinion.

#5 That's what all the evidence says to date.

#6 That's true whether there are gods or not. We are obviously material. We are made 100% out of nonliving matter...

#7 Not generally. It is a fact.

#8 Ethics and morals mean the same thing to me. Perhaps defining the difference between the two as you see them will assist me in understanding what you mean by relative.