Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Let me be clear to start with: I am in no way about to suggest that atheism is itself a religion. Atheism is one among a handful of stances on a particular philosophical question, and being an atheist doesn't preclude any one person from subscribing to a whole range of stances on other philosophical questions.

I'd like to propose a few criteria for recognizing something as a religion, criteria which I've selected specifically for their explanatory power, i.e. their ability to effectively explain things we observe in the world, namely how people come together to share in particular worldviews, how they identify with the group, and how it has a societal impact. It can be countered, for example, that one could identify as a Christian or Muslim but not participate in religious activities with others, but it remains that the religion is there in the first place for one to identify with because of the sociological vehicle.

Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

What are the implications here? I'm more than a little certain this kind of definition for religion implies that those of us who are enculturated to think of the issue from a westernized perspective need to broaden our horizons in order to grasp all of what's going on. English speaking discussions in which atheism is considered to preclude religion are virtually omnipresent and thinking that way really isn't helpful for anyone who might like to establish a deeper familiarity with, for example, Buddhism.

[h_k_s]

Let me be clear to start with: I am in no way about to suggest that atheism is itself a religion. Atheism is one among a handful of stances on a particular philosophical question, and being an atheist doesn't preclude any one person from subscribing to a whole range of stances on other philosophical questions.

I'd like to propose a few criteria for recognizing something as a religion, criteria which I've selected specifically for their explanatory power, i.e. their ability to effectively explain things we observe in the world, namely how people come together to share in particular worldviews, how they identify with the group, and how it has a societal impact. It can be countered, for example, that one could identify as a Christian or Muslim but not participate in religious activities with others, but it remains that the religion is there in the first place for one to identify with because of the sociological vehicle.

Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

What are the implications here? I'm more than a little certain this kind of definition for religion implies that those of us who are enculturated to think of the issue from a westernized perspective need to broaden our horizons in order to grasp all of what's going on. English speaking discussions in which atheism is considered to preclude religion are virtually omnipresent and thinking that way really isn't helpful for anyone who might like to establish a deeper familiarity with, for example, Buddhism.

Atheism is indeed a belief system. If you want to be purely scientific then you need to become agnostic instead of atheist.

But you also need to be careful not to let science become your religion.

You either have religion or you don't.

You must be critical and suspicious of science because scientists must be critical and suspicious themselves.

Only pure philosophy can give you assurance of what you know and what you cannot know, but only if you have not polluted your own philosophy with Sophism.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Atheism is indeed a belief system. If you want to be purely scientific then you need to become agnostic instead of atheist.

But you also need to be careful not to let science become your religion.

You either have religion or you don't.

You must be critical and suspicious of science because scientists must be critical and suspicious themselves.

Only pure philosophy can give you assurance of what you know and what you cannot know, but only if you have not polluted your own philosophy with Sophism.

-I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't strictly agree with the idea that atheism is a belief system. I say that because in order for something to be a belief system or worldview it must encompass multiple propositions within metaphysics and/or ethics.

Atheism is a proposition in philosophy of theology or metaphysics, however you want to look at it, that forwards the claim that there is no deity or deities. This can't be considered a belief system or worldview as it is only one position taken on one particular question. While atheism is taken to mean a lot of different things in this day and age, especially because of the New Atheism Movement, to the point that there is talk of "soft atheism" and "hard atheism", this is problematic because it does damage to the continuity of the discussion and it is bastardizing language that will make it difficult for this and future generations to understand a lot of the academic dialogue throughout history over theology and metaphysics.

The classical definitions which are precise and useful in helpful establish a good universe of discourse are as follows:

Atheism is the positive assertion that there is no deity or deities. Because you cannot prove a negative, normally arguments for this viewpoint work along the lines of describing reality, whether through empirical, rational, or combinational (some synthesis of the two main viewpoints on the source of knowledge) means, and try to establish that there is no deity by describing reality and pointing out that it is inconsistent with ideas we have about divinity.

Theism is the very opposite. It is the positive assertion that there is a deity or deities. Those who call themselves a theist but don't associate this term with positive arguments in favor of the proposition are doing themselves a disservice as this obfuscates a healthy understanding of the metaphysical and theological dialogues throughout history.

Agnosticism is a combination of two assertions. The first is that we have insufficient grounds to make a positive argument either way. The second is that given that state of affairs it is arguably most rational to suspend judgement.

Fideism, on the other hand, agrees with the first assertion of agnosticism, but proceeds to argue that it is most rational to err on the side of belief. Pascal's Wager is a commonly familiar example of an argument for Fideism worth mentioning here.

-Science by its very nature isn't a religion. Religions can be oriented around science, but if religion is to be understood as a sociological phenomenon with the definition that I proffered in the OP, the two spheres are not fully mutually exclusive but exclusive enough that it would be a particular understanding of science coupled with other metaphysical and ethical propositions.

If science can be understood as anything in particular it is a specific sphere of questions within epistemology and metaphysics. Throughout history, Rationalism and Empiricism have at times been ascendant or intermingled in the study of science, but clearly both have always held sway. Even in Aristotle, the mind credited as the father of Empiricism, we see concepts that aren't strictly empirical (such as syllogisms and hylomorphisms) being used to help describe the natural world.

But I digress, my real point is here that there isn't enough general meat on the bones for there to be a religion organized purely around describing the natural world without recourse to discussion concerning ethics. A religion has to be general enough to evolve the social elements that make one organized.

-What is pure philosophy? Why is it necessary to agree that the Sophists were wrong? E.g. what of postmodernism and subjectivism? Isn't it only customary to dismiss Sophism out of hand because of history's great love for Socrates and Plato?

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Here's a bit of a primer explaining what I'm going for in this thread:

What is a definition? What makes a definition good? What does it mean for a definition to be "wrong" or "right"? What kinds of definitions can there be? I'll tackle them in order and leave them up to any other interested parties to answer.

-A definition is a way of agreeing upon which connotations for a word are acceptable/useful in a given dialogue. There are different kinds of definitions, and in stark contrast to one popular belief it is not at all useful to be slavish to dictionary definitions and they are not the "right" definitions.

-A definition becomes good when it is useful. It is terribly context dependent, because language is this confusing quagmire and in all different situations where people communicate a variety of goals and expectations will come into play. E.g. a dictionary definition is important to understand because it facilitates understanding in conversations between people who aren't specifically working towards something with a common understanding in mind, "go get the spatula" is of course supposed to be very straightforward. However, that gets turned on its head when a situation comes up where two academics are sharpening themselves on one another with dialogue like "query: must all objects have properties"; dictionary definitions are not only a source of confusion but detrimental there.

-There is no hard rule for what is the wrong or right definition for something. A word is merely a sound and we supply the meaning, the same sound in another language can communicate entirely different ideas.

-When you break it down, the possible kinds of definitions are really diverse and quite fascinating.

*A real definition is the kind of definition that attempts to describe some concrete thing for what it is. These kinds of definitions can be quite elusive and often an exercise in futility (a real definition isn't useful in the case of this thread) because there are so many subjects that can't be broken down into concrete and tangible terms, e.g. "what is virtue".

By contrast where they really are put to good use is when everyone in a discussion is agreeing that "yes, that is a bar of gold".

*A dictionary definition is concerned with one or more primary ways in which a word is used in the common vernacular. Slang terms don't often end up in a dictionary because they simply aren't prevalent enough to have a reasonable possibility of being present in conversation virtually everywhere a language is in use.

*A stipulative definition is the most context dependent kind of definition as it is a hypothetical meaning being given for a word in order to illustrate something only within that particular discussion. Such a definition is often offered along these lines: "let's assume for the sake of discussion that all dogs are red, now if all dogs were red..."

*A descriptive definition is what it sounds like. It is any definition which is chiefly concerned with giving an adequate description of something.

Let's say we needed a definition for George Washington. A definition such as "George Washington was an American president" would be quite unfit for a discussion in which one participant was asking who George Washington was. There have been numerous American presidents over the span of several lifetimes.

What a perfectly descriptive definition needs is to be both extensional and intensional. For it to be extensional means that there must be no actual counterexamples, and for it to be intensional means that there must be no possible counterexamples either. Only certain things are capable of possessing a perfectly descriptive definition because having an intensional definition can turn out to be an astringent requirement.

I've neglected to mention the two other primary kinds of definitions because they are used in much more rarefied contexts.

[Felix]

Scruffy Nerf Herder said:
Science by its very nature isn't a religion.

Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

If I define scientism as the belief that all material phenomena have a physical explanation, than it seems to me that it does indeed meet the religious criteria you listed above.

[Sculptor1]

It is often instructive to start with the etymology.
In Latin, religion comes from the verb to BIND.
Thus religion is an organization of people with the aim of binding them together, specifically in the same system of belief.
A bond once given is a things from which no dissent may be heard. In binding a child, or as a adult accepting the rules and beliefs, the subject is held within the confines of the religion.

It's not just simply believing in a god. Many people say 'i believe in god, but am not religious', since they rarely attend church. Religion requires observance and attendance.

Atheism could not be considered a religion for the same reason.
It always amuses me when theists try to insist that atheism is just faith based religion. It implies that they realise that faith based ideas are inherently faulty. They shoot themselves in the foot in this way.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Scruffy Nerf Herder said:
Science by its very nature isn't a religion.

Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

If I define scientism as the belief that all material phenomena have a physical explanation, than it seems to me that it does indeed meet the religious criteria you listed above.

That's true and I'd like to see you flesh that concept out a bit more as it certainly looks like a fine thought experiment. How might this religion of scientism cover metaphysical and ethical questions not traditionally considered within science today? What might standard accepted texts look like?

It is often instructive to start with the etymology.
In Latin, religion comes from the verb to BIND.
Thus religion is an organization of people with the aim of binding them together, specifically in the same system of belief.
A bond once given is a things from which no dissent may be heard. In binding a child, or as a adult accepting the rules and beliefs, the subject is held within the confines of the religion.

It's not just simply believing in a god. Many people say 'i believe in god, but am not religious', since they rarely attend church. Religion requires observance and attendance.

Atheism could not be considered a religion for the same reason.
It always amuses me when theists try to insist that atheism is just faith based religion. It implies that they realise that faith based ideas are inherently faulty. They shoot themselves in the foot in this way.

Etymology is instructive but does that serve our purposes well here? What does your definition offer us in terms of understanding the world around us?

That you would say atheism can't be considered a religion for those reasons... well to be frank and I mean no offense here but this is kind of a culture blind perspective if you're not familiar with various sects of Buddhism, or Carvaka Hinduism to name another prominent example. There are plenty of religious sects whose adherents don't believe there is such a thing as deity. Really this could hardly be more of a sound fact.

Not only is it the case that atheism is an answer to one specific philosophical question, as covered in the classical definition I outlined in post number three of this thread, so there is this categorical difference between atheism being something that addresses one question and religion being something that addresses a range of questions, but there are plenty of well known examples of religions whose adherents are atheists.

As an aside here, I'm afraid I don't see how "faith based religion" applies to either technical definition for atheism or theism. It's perfectly possible for one to not only be a theist but more specifically a deist, pantheist, or some other of the variety of categories a theist might fall under, and many such thinkers aren't concerned with faith at all; they are simply expressing their own understanding of reality/the-universe and how it works. It is fideism, not theism, which stresses something like faith as a rational reason to believe in deity/deities.

[Consul]

"Definitions of religion, in a sense, remind one of the fable of the blind men attempting to define an elephant. One touches its trunk and describes it as a snake: another touches its ear and describes it as a winnowing-fan; another touches its leg and describes it as a tree; another its tail and describes it as a broom."

(Sharpe, Eric. Understanding Religion. London: Duckworth, 1983. p. 46)

Recommended reading:

Ninian Smart: The Nature of a Religion [PDF] (in The World's Religions, 2nd ed., Cambridge UP, 1998. 11-22)

Also:

"CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF RELIGION. Despite the fact that none of the definitions specifies a set of characteristics which is present when and only when we have a religion, or gives us a unique essence, it does seem that they contribute to our understanding of the nature of religion. It appears that the presence of any of the features stressed by these definitions will help to make something a religion. We might call such features, listed below, religion-making characteristics.

(1) Belief in supernatural beings (gods).

(2) A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

(3) Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.

(4) A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

(5) Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.

(6) Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

(7) A worldview, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein.
This picture contains some specification of an overall purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

(8) A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the worldview.

(9) A social group bound together by the above.

Interrelations of characteristics. Religion-making characteristics do not just happen to be associated in religion; they are intimately interconnected in several ways. Some of these connections have been indicated, but there are others. For example, the distinction between sacred and profane objects is based on other factors mentioned. It is not any intrinsic characteristic of a thing that makes it a sacred object; things of every conceivable kind have occupied this position—animals, plants, mountains, rivers, persons, and heavenly bodies. Certain objects are singled out as sacred in a given community because they typically arouse such feelings as awe and a sense of mystery, and thus the members of that community tend to respond to these objects with ritual acts. Again, the emotional reaction to sacred objects may be rationalized by conceiving the object to be the habitation or manifestation of a god. The awe aroused by the wild bull led to its being identified with the wild god of intoxication, Dionysus. The very special impression made by Jesus of Nazareth on certain of his contemporaries was expressed by calling him the Son of God. These examples make it sound as if emotional reactions to sacred objects come first and that these reactions are then explained by positing gods as their causes. But it can also happen the other way round. The acceptance of beliefs about the gods and their earthly habitations can contribute to the evocation of awe and other feelings in the presence of certain objects. The members of a religious community are taught to hold certain objects in awe by being taught various doctrines about the gods. Thus, Christians are taught to regard the cross and the consecrated bread and wine with reverence by being told of the Crucifixion and the Last Supper.

A similar reciprocal relation ship holds between ritual and doctrine. A doctrine can be introduced as the justification of an already established ritual. Thus, the myth of Proserpine being carried off to the underworld and remaining there half the year seems to have been introduced as an explanation of a preexisting magical fertility cult, in which an ear of grain, perhaps called the corn maiden, was buried in the fall and raised sprouting in the spring. On the other hand, changes in doctrine can engender, modify, or abolish rituals. Beliefs about the divine status of Jesus Christ played an important role in shaping the Christmas festival.

Definition in terms of characteristics. If it is true that the religion-making characteristics neither singly nor in combination constitute tight necessary and sufficient conditions for something being a religion, and yet that each of them contributes to making something a religion, then it must be that they are related in some looser way to the application of the term. Perhaps the best way to put it[369]is this. When enough of these characteristics are present to a sufficient degree, we have a religion. It seems that, given the actual use of the term 'religion', this is as precise as we can be. If we tried to say something like 'for a religion to exist, there must be the first two plus any three others,' or 'for a religion to exist, any four of these characteristics must be present,' we would be introducing a degree of precision not to be found in the concept of religion actually in use.

Another way of putting the matter is this. There are cultural phenomena that embody all of these characteristics to a marked degree. They are the ideally clear paradigm cases of religion, such as Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Orphism. These are the cases to which the term 'religion' applies most certainly and unmistakably. However, there can be a variety of cases that differ from the paradigm in different ways and to different degrees, by one or another of the religion-making characteristics dropping out more or less. For example, ritual can be sharply de-emphasized, and with it the demarcation of certain objects as sacred, as in Protestantism; it can even disappear altogether, as with the Quakers. Beliefs in supernatural beings can be whittled away to nothing, as in certain forms of Unitarianism, or may never be present, as in certain forms of Buddhism. And, as mentioned earlier, in certain primitive societies morality has no close connection with the cultic system. As more of the religion-making characteristics drop out, either partially or completely, we feel less secure about applying the term 'religion', and there will be less unanimity in the language community with respect to the application of the term. However, there do not seem to be points along these various dimensions of deviations that serve as a sharp demarcation of religion from nonreligion. It is simply that we encounter less and less obvious cases of religion as we move from, for example, Roman Catholicism through Unitarianism, humanism, and Hinayana Buddhism to communism. Thus, the best way to explain the concept of religion is to elaborate in detail the relevant features of an ideally clear case of religion and then indicate the respects in which less clear cases can differ from this, without hoping to find any sharp line dividing religion from nonreligion. (Cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s notion of 'family-resemblances' among the things to which a term applies.)

An adequate definition of religion should throw light on the sorts of disputes and perplexities that typically produce a need to define religion, such as disputes over whether communism is a religion, and whether devotion to science can be called a man’s religion. So long as we are dealing with definitions of the simplistic type that we have criticized, these problems are not illuminated. Each party to the dispute will appeal to a definition suited to the position he is defending, and since none of these definitions is wholly adequate, there is an irreducible plurality of not wholly inadequate definitions to be used for this purpose. Person A, who claims that communism is a religion, will give, for instance, Caird’s statement as his definition of religion, and person B, who denies this, will choose Martineau's. Obviously, the position of each is upheld by his chosen definition. Hence, it would seem that the only way to settle the dispute is to determine which is the correct definition. However, we have seen that this gets us nowhere; no such definition is wholly adequate."

(Alston, William P. "Religion." In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 8, edited by Donald M. Borchert, 366-373. Detroit: Thomson Gale/Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. pp. 368-9)

[h_k_s]

Atheism is indeed a belief system. If you want to be purely scientific then you need to become agnostic instead of atheist.

But you also need to be careful not to let science become your religion.

You either have religion or you don't.

You must be critical and suspicious of science because scientists must be critical and suspicious themselves.

Only pure philosophy can give you assurance of what you know and what you cannot know, but only if you have not polluted your own philosophy with Sophism.

-I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't strictly agree with the idea that atheism is a belief system. I say that because in order for something to be a belief system or worldview it must encompass multiple propositions within metaphysics and/or ethics.

Atheism is a proposition in philosophy of theology or metaphysics, however you want to look at it, that forwards the claim that there is no deity or deities. This can't be considered a belief system or worldview as it is only one position taken on one particular question. While atheism is taken to mean a lot of different things in this day and age, especially because of the New Atheism Movement, to the point that there is talk of "soft atheism" and "hard atheism", this is problematic because it does damage to the continuity of the discussion and it is bastardizing language that will make it difficult for this and future generations to understand a lot of the academic dialogue throughout history over theology and metaphysics.

The classical definitions which are precise and useful in helpful establish a good universe of discourse are as follows:

Atheism is the positive assertion that there is no deity or deities. Because you cannot prove a negative, normally arguments for this viewpoint work along the lines of describing reality, whether through empirical, rational, or combinational (some synthesis of the two main viewpoints on the source of knowledge) means, and try to establish that there is no deity by describing reality and pointing out that it is inconsistent with ideas we have about divinity.

Theism is the very opposite. It is the positive assertion that there is a deity or deities. Those who call themselves a theist but don't associate this term with positive arguments in favor of the proposition are doing themselves a disservice as this obfuscates a healthy understanding of the metaphysical and theological dialogues throughout history.

Agnosticism is a combination of two assertions. The first is that we have insufficient grounds to make a positive argument either way. The second is that given that state of affairs it is arguably most rational to suspend judgement.

Fideism, on the other hand, agrees with the first assertion of agnosticism, but proceeds to argue that it is most rational to err on the side of belief. Pascal's Wager is a commonly familiar example of an argument for Fideism worth mentioning here.

-Science by its very nature isn't a religion. Religions can be oriented around science, but if religion is to be understood as a sociological phenomenon with the definition that I proffered in the OP, the two spheres are not fully mutually exclusive but exclusive enough that it would be a particular understanding of science coupled with other metaphysical and ethical propositions.

If science can be understood as anything in particular it is a specific sphere of questions within epistemology and metaphysics. Throughout history, Rationalism and Empiricism have at times been ascendant or intermingled in the study of science, but clearly both have always held sway. Even in Aristotle, the mind credited as the father of Empiricism, we see concepts that aren't strictly empirical (such as syllogisms and hylomorphisms) being used to help describe the natural world.

But I digress, my real point is here that there isn't enough general meat on the bones for there to be a religion organized purely around describing the natural world without recourse to discussion concerning ethics. A religion has to be general enough to evolve the social elements that make one organized.

-What is pure philosophy? Why is it necessary to agree that the Sophists were wrong? E.g. what of postmodernism and subjectivism? Isn't it only customary to dismiss Sophism out of hand because of history's great love for Socrates and Plato?

Atheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.

[Consul]

Atheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.

Positively defined, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of deities (positive atheism/strong atheism/antitheism).

Negatively defined, atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of deities (negative atheism/weak atheism).

[Karpel Tunnel]

Atheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.

Positively defined, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of deities (positive atheism/strong atheism/antitheism).

Negatively defined, atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of deities (negative atheism/weak atheism).

Yes, and another way to come at this is to say that different people mean different things when they say they are atheists. Some tending towards the first definition, some the latter.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Atheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.

Well, see the above posts - since atheism can mean, simply, a lack of a certain belief - but then also, a single belief is not a belief system. So even those who believe there is no god - rather than simply lacking a belief in god - are not showing a belief system, like say dualism or communism. All we know about them is they believe there is no god. They might be in most core ways quite different in their beliefs than another atheist, even one who has the belief rather than the lack.

[h_k_s]

Atheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.

Well, see the above posts - since atheism can mean, simply, a lack of a certain belief - but then also, a single belief is not a belief system. So even those who believe there is no god - rather than simply lacking a belief in god - are not showing a belief system, like say dualism or communism. All we know about them is they believe there is no god. They might be in most core ways quite different in their beliefs than another atheist, even one who has the belief rather than the lack.

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Agnosticism implies no belief.

Atheism is a belief that no god(s) exist -- ergo a belief system.

[h_k_s]

Positively defined, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of deities (positive atheism/strong atheism/antitheism).

Negatively defined, atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of deities (negative atheism/weak atheism).

Yes, and another way to come at this is to say that different people mean different things when they say they are atheists. Some tending towards the first definition, some the latter.

Thank you Karpel Tunnel .

Note the word "belief" in both of your sentences.

Ergo it is a belief system either way you define it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.

No, I am not.

atheism noun
athe·​ism | \ ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Note it can mean either a lack of a belief OR a disbelief.

And further one can be an agnostic atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnosticism implies no belief.

Not necessarily. Agnosticism can be the belief that one cannot know whether there is a god or not, which is an epistemological belief.

Atheism is a belief that no god(s) exist -- ergo a belief system.

No, this is incorrect, for reasons I have already gone through, now adding a dictionary definition in.

And just keep repeating that it is a system without justifying why a single belief should be considered a system, as if there was no point I made on this that needed to be addressed.

I'll go back to ignoring you.