Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. -ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. I guess you could be right if you are extremely literal, which you are not literal in other replies, such as the flat-earth comparison. However the definitions above (taken from google) should suffice that I am correct in stating Atheism is a belief system on its own. Additionally, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist, means you are choosing to theorize or believe that the lack of evidence equates to non-existence of a god. For instance, there is currently no evidence that life exists outside of Earth, yet, I am certain it does as I'm willing to bet you do too. Interestingly though, there is, arguably, evidence of alien life from older civilizations just as there is for a God. (No, I don't think aliens build the pyramids or any other Earth structures)
Is it? Again, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist. Dragons did exist. They were misidentified dinosaur bones where imagination took over as if they were still living (modern example is Loch Ness).
There are volumes of human history from every civilization to have ever existed wrapped in the divine and spiritual. They have similar guidelines and themes, and even direct stories as well, even if their particular flavor of religious adherence varies. Just because Nordic peoples, Romans, Greeks, Asians, Indians, etc all formed divergent views of spiritual adherence and some were replaced with new interpretations, doesn't mean they were proven false. All it means is that human perception of God has continued to evolve including the belief that there is no god. Its not like Atheism is a solely modern evolution of a belief system as you suggest based on our progress in natural sciences. The focus I take is in the commonality of these religious systems throughout history. They all share common bonds as guiding principles for their respective civilizations, even at the expense of other civilizations under the guise of cultural or national protectionism (generally abused doctrine by power-driven individuals). Sure, anyone who's ever stated they interacted with an angel, ghost, spirit, god, etc could be fabrication. But, in every story, there is always some thread of truth. As our technology grows and we are able to learn and study the foundations of existence, we learn many scientific theories are debunked as well. It's all part of growing and evolving our understanding of life. For instance, we know can measure plant reaction and a sense of "knowing" that it is being culled and eaten. How much of life do we still have no understanding due to lack of the right technical solution? An aura can be measured yet people still think they are nonsense. People continue learn more and more about animal and plant culture and ability to understand / react to each other and the environment yet, majority don't understand why people protest places like Sea World. (Sea mammals are so much more intelligent and culturally rich than we commonly believe) I don't discount the possibility of being wrong (principle of scientific method), but I don't think we've dis-proven centuries of human spiritual perception either. I think we don't have the tools yet to measure the data and I choose to believe that wrapped in existence itself is an form of sentience that has and can play a role in our individual lives. |
A couple of points.
First, on atheism being a belief system. A system implies a set of interrelated beliefs.
Theism for example, is not a belief system. It is a single belief on one question. It generally does not dictate what you need to believe on any other point.
Christianity on the other hand is a belief system. The belief in a god who is "the author of truth", and one you have to serve, necessarily dictates your belief on many other things.
Secondly, in some situations, the lack of evidence can strongly indicate (if not dictate) whether or not something exists. For example, suppose I said I had a ten children living with me in my studio apartment. You've never seen me with the children, never seen any of the children. I don't have any pictures of them on my phone, or in my house. I have no beds for them, no children's clothes, no toys, no food, no school books, and no sign of any belongings outside my own. Nobody has ever seen any of my children. You talk to my friends and family, and none of them claim to have ever seen any children.
In this situation, I'm sure you would be 100% convinced that I do not have any children living with me. Certain things, if they are true, should provide evidence. If the evidence does not exist, you can confidently conclude it's not true.
