The God Helmet

[TastesLikeChicken]

nO science cannot prove or disprove there is a God.....
maybe your science can...

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientific-proof-of-god-faq.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

You're actually citing a website that believes in Intelligent Design as your proof of what science can and cannot do?

K.

 

[woolfe9999]

I understand what you are saying but I man not see things as you do. When you look at an Atheist you see somebody who doesn't care about things. I see what I always see, folk who do not have the faintest idea they feel they are the worst in the world and would rather the world die than have to feel that truth. I see everybody as a potential monster if the right buttons are pushed. Who would imagine that conservatives could be such complete nut cases but look at how insane they become not that their world views are dying. They have gone certifiably nuts, eh?

I don't know what you mean when you say "When you look at an Atheist you see somebody who doesn't care about things." What "things" are you talking about? Perhaps I agree that "everybody is a potential monster," but I don't get the connection to atheism in particular.

Atheism is just the absence of a belief that happens to be commonly held by people in the current world. In fact, the only reason there's a word for it is that the belief is so commonly held. I suspect there are loads of things you don't believe in, but you don't have a special label for not believing in them.

- wolf

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well we would if you didn't insist on a certain rather sloppy construction of a deity:This is an incredibly wild conjecture, layered with a mysticism all its own. You seem to know more about quantum phenomena and the nature of randomness than the entire corpus of scientific research.
It's unfortunate that you cling to a god that you have fashioned in your head for the very purpose of reaching this conclusion.

?

I'm merely stating basic facts about the makeup of our universe. If you actually consider it a bit, quantum behaviour in and of itself is a good indication of the lack of a god.

Building a stable system on an underlying structure whose fundamental behaviour is random and chaotic is not the sign of an all-powerful designer. So either there is no grand designer or that designer is a damn sloppy one. Personally I wouldn't expect and all powerful being to be a sloppy designer. ymmv.

I do agree with you that any God who by definition interferes in detectable ways has been or will be disproven. But to assert that any deity must be detectable or otherwise [dis]provable is a bizarre claim. In fact it is nothing less than a religious claim.

You sound confused about what I said. I'm merely saying that god, as man has defined it, frequently intervenes in this universe and directly in the actions of man. That intervention can be detected, therefore that god can be proven or disproven.

Ah well the knife of unintended insinuations cuts both ways now...
You are right to be confused as I am deliberately avoiding making an implication one way or another. After all it is my firm belief that arguing one way or another (at least in logical terms) is always an act of purest dishonesty or total ignorance - and occasionally both.

The implication I get is that you side with the existence of god. Your responses tend to trend in that direction, reading between the lines. I could be wrong, but that's what I get out of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

TastesLikeChicken: In psychology, "integrated" can mean any number of things. Apparently in your world, where up is down, left is right, and inside is out, integrated would seem to mean 'barely holding it together,' in psychological terms of course.

M: Hehe, defense mechanism to barely hold it together.

TLC: You must imagine such retorts as being clever. Truthfully, they reveal nothing more than what a whack job you are.

M: Hehehe Ah yes, I should pay more attention to my image.


TLC: You assume too much, and the fact that you're so often wrong with those assumptions demonstrates that you're not nearly as enlightened or knowledgeable as you pretend to be.

Hehehehe Oh no, I can't be wrong. I would just die if I were. Please please don't throw me in that brier patch.

TLC: I don't laugh at anyone for having religious faith. In fact, I will defend to my death the right of anyone to have and hold a religious belief even though I don't hold one myself. What I laugh at is you as an individual with all your silly illusions of moral supremacy along with your trite, billious utterings that are essentially nothing more than a defense mechanism to keep from having to deal with the real world.

M: Ah this is wonderful news. You are very brave. Now all you have to do is die to this nonsense to find faith.

TLC: Good luck Moonie. You're going to need it.

M: How superstitious of you to call on luck. Don't you know that ALL IS THE WILL OF GOD. The moving finger writes, no, and having writ moves on? You to your luck. Me to the flow of ink.

Your attacks, TLC, say so much of about who you are and what you fear. I am a mirror and you can use me. Hehehehehe

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Your attacks, TLC, say so much of about who you are and what you fear. I am a mirror and you can use me. Hehehehehe

Uh huh. Your "Everything bounces off of me and sticks to you." form of response is very illuminating as to who you are.

 

[Nemesis 1]

moonie man TLC has a good point , Your over simplifing. If I have any hate for self it would because I am powerless to help all my brothers as a whole . But I am not powerless to help my like minded brothers

 

[Nemesis 1]

You're actually citing a website that believes in Intelligent Design as your proof of what science can and cannot do?

K.

You Sir believe that something can come from nothing . That takes a lot of faith .

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe: I don't know what you mean when you say "When you look at an Atheist you see somebody who doesn't care about things." What "things" are you talking about?

M: I was referring to your comment here:

Perhaps, but atheists haven't burned people at the stake, at least not in the name of atheism. Atheists don't generally care enough about something they don't believe in to act out in that manner. Some atheists may sneer at religious people, but that's about as far as it goes.

So I meant by 'things' whatever it was you meant by 'something' in the bolded. Hehe

w: Perhaps I agree that "everybody is a potential monster," but I don't get the connection to atheism in particular.

M: Well the connection is that Atheists are a subset of everybody.

w: Atheism is just the absence of a belief that happens to be commonly held by people in the current world. In fact, the only reason there's a word for it is that the belief is so commonly held. I suspect there are loads of things you don't believe in, but you don't have a special label for not believing in them.

M: I made the same point somewhere here too. I think we make up words, however, to separate and divide what is indivisible so that we can make believe. I for example am good boy and TLC is a raging egotist. I can't consign him to the grinder unless I give him a label. It just wouldn't feel right to crucify somebody just like me. So I rather think the word Atheist was created for a category of folk who are going to hell. My fear is that, if as you say, there are more and more atheists every day, they might get sick of that treatment and all hell will break loose. What goes around comes around, as they say.

- wolf[/QUOTE]

 

[Moonbeam]

Uh huh. Your "Everything bounces off of me and sticks to you." form of response is very illuminating as to who you are.

Indeed.

 

[nonlnear]

I'm merely stating basic facts about the makeup of our universe. If you actually consider it a bit, quantum behaviour in and of itself is a good indication of the lack of a god.

Building a stable system on an underlying structure whose fundamental behaviour is random and chaotic is not the sign of an all-powerful designer. So either there is no grand designer or that designer is a damn sloppy one. Personally I wouldn't expect and all powerful being to be a sloppy designer. ymmv.

You probably don't think that the drivel you just typed is on the same level as those who claim intelligent deign, but it is.

You sound confused about what I said. I'm merely saying that god, as man has defined it, frequently intervenes in this universe and directly in the actions of man. That intervention can be detected, therefore that god can be proven or disproven.

Well then you have overstated your case. Many gods defined by man interfere in the universe, but not all. Furthermore your assertion that any interference must be conclusively detectable is a religious assertion, and nothing less.

The implication I get is that you side with the existence of god. Your responses tend to trend in that direction, reading between the lines. I could be wrong, but that's what I get out of it.

I can see how that could seem to be the subtext given how the evangelical atheists have monopolized the last years of the dialog. On the other hand a handful of theists argue in a form similar to mine, thus raising suspicions that I might be "one of them". The funny thing is there has been a rhetorical inversion of sorts between the currently fashionable evangelical atheists and a certain subset of theists. Not too long ago it was the atheists arguing for the unprovability [either way] of God and theists arguing for the significance of proof. Plenty of theists are still stuck in the dark ages, but the more sophisticated of them embraced the clear force of logic and moved to what some would call a liberal theology which is more comfortable with the underlying ambiguity. Their rhetorical structure is essentially identical to that of the classical atheist except for a "turning of the will" (to use a snippet from the recent obituary for Martin Gardener). I suspect a cadre of atheists disliked the appearance of being supplanted (which wasn't really the case) and launched the more evangelical branch of atheism to the vanguard. This newer evangelical atheism often uses as a retort your argument that the unprovability of God (which is actually a tenet of an older atheism) is a dodge by theists. This strange tactic is only enabled by the fashionability of shunning philosophical essentials. Almost nobody does epistemology any more because most epistemological frameworks are so damn uncompelling. (This is what is so refreshing about Rand. Granted her philosophy is also rife with overstated cases, but I have to respect her for forthrightness and her courage.) Throw in a dash of postmodernism and one can just pick and choose beliefs about what is significant (like "reality", "proof", "reason") without ever being held to the task of defining them. After all, anyone who demands a definition is just playing silly theoretical games...

I think the simplest way to state my position is I don't have one. I am completely disinterested in believing in or against the existence (here using the term loosely ) of a deity. If there is one, it may very well strike me with a blinding light and turn me into Balaam or Moonbeam, but until that happens I suspect a being that transcends the universe most likely wouldn't give two shits about how much effort I put into reinforcing my choice of hypotheticals. There are mathematicians who argue against the Axiom of Choice. I don't much care about the aesthetic issues but I'll use it when it suits me. I am free to use it without believing in or against it.

Similarly, viewing my life from a functional perspective I don't much care to worry about beliefs at all (well, those with religious force which are adopted for purely religious reasons, that is). In fact I think people who obsess about framing their beliefs too strictly are generally looking for a way to rationalize the fact that their actions don't comport with their purported beliefs. Only a person who struggles to follow his beliefs worries about what it is that he believes! (Granted,by tthe standard of the typical unexamined life I probably have put a relatively large amount of energy into understanding my ideas. However I think this is more indicative of the general public's lack of interest in thinking than of my depth of introspection.) There are things which I trust to various extents. For the most part they are empirical facts. Pretty much everything else that is more abstracted than that IMHO requires too large a grain of humor to be taken as seriously as a typical religion. Then again there is probably a brand of Buddhism that has an attitude which resembles mine, I'm not sure...

 

[Moonbeam]

moonie man TLC has a good point , Your over simplifing. If I have any hate for self it would because I am powerless to help all my brothers as a whole . But I am not powerless to help my like minded brothers

You say I am over simplifying but you don't say where or in what way so there is nothing I can respond to.

Similarly, I do not see how who you can help or not help has a thing to do with feeling you don't know you have.

 

[Moonbeam]

nonlnear: Then again there is probably a brand of Buddhism that has an attitude that resembles mine, I'm not sure...

M: 'Form is here emptiness, emptiness form' popped into my mind. Hehe

TLC and I go way back. I came to the conclusion that he is a bully who wins his imagined victories by dogged determination to to exhaust his opposition by making them feel as big a fool as he is by arguing endless bull shit. He pulls you into a cesspool expecting you to drown before he does. I take him on occasionally because I have a unique gift. I have a garden that blooms from the application of cesspool fertilizer. A mirror isn't tarnished by the image it reflects.

PS: Just saying.... You do very well yourself, with your deep intelectual honesty. To be unattached to isms and stuff like that is very much like what I feel, not knowing anything, I think.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You Sir beleave that something can come from nothing . That takes a lot of faith .

It takes no faith whatsoever. Science has already demonstrated that happens all the time, all around you. It's called the zero-point field. Google it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You probably don't think that the drivel you just typed is on the same level as those who claim intelligent deign, but it is.

It's not drivel at all. Ask any engineer.

Well then you have overstated your case. Many gods defined by man interfere in the universe, but not all. Furthermore your assertion that any interference must be conclusively detectable is a religious assertion, and nothing less.

Any interference would be detectable. That's not a religious assertion, that's plain old physics.

If a god does not interfere in our universe one can't even come to a conclusion that such a god exists in the first, other than as a mental exercise.

Last of all, you bring up another problem..."Many gods defined by man..." The old Dire Straights song contains a line that goes something like "Two men claim they're Jesus. One of 'em must be wrong."

I can see how that could seem to be the subtext given how the evangelical atheists have monopolized the last years of the dialog. On the other hand a handful of theists argue in a form similar to mine, thus raising suspicions that I might be "one of them". The funny thing is there has been a rhetorical inversion of sorts between the currently fashionable evangelical atheists and a certain subset of theists. Not too long ago it was the atheists arguing for the unprovability [either way] of God and theists arguing for the significance of proof. Plenty of theists are still stuck in the dark ages, but the more sophisticated of them embraced the clear force of logic and moved to what some would call a liberal theology which is more comfortable with the underlying ambiguity. Their rhetorical structure is essentially identical to that of the classical atheist except for a "turning of the will" (to use a snippet from the recent obituary for Martin Gardener). I suspect a cadre of atheists disliked the appearance of being supplanted (which wasn't really the case) and launched the more evangelical branch of atheism to the vanguard. This newer evangelical atheism often uses as a retort your argument that the unprovability of God (which is actually a tenet of an older atheism) is a dodge by theists. This strange tactic is only enabled by the fashionability of shunning philosophical essentials. Almost nobody does epistemology any more because most epistemological frameworks are so damn uncompelling. (This is what is so refreshing about Rand. Granted her philosophy is also rife with overstated cases, but I have to respect her for forthrightness and her courage.) Throw in a dash of postmodernism and one can just pick and choose beliefs about what is significant (like "reality", "proof", "reason") without ever being held to the task of defining them. After all, anyone who demands a definition is just playing silly theoretical games...

I think the simplest way to state my position is I don't have one. I am completely disinterested in believing in or against the existence (here using the term loosely ) of a deity. If there is one, it may very well strike me with a blinding light and turn me into Balaam or Moonbeam, but until that happens I suspect a being that transcends the universe most likely wouldn't give two shits about how much effort I put into reinforcing my choice of hypotheticals. There are mathematicians who argue against the Axiom of Choice. I don't much care about the aesthetic issues but I'll use it when it suits me. I am free to use it without believing in or against it.

Similarly, viewing my life from a functional perspective I don't much care to worry about beliefs at all (well, those with religious force which are adopted for purely religious reasons, that is). In fact I think people who obsess about framing their beliefs too strictly are generally looking for a way to rationalize the fact that their actions don't comport with their purported beliefs. Only a person who struggles to follow his beliefs worries about what it is that he believes! (Granted,by tthe standard of the typical unexamined life I probably have put a relatively large amount of energy into understanding my ideas. However I think this is more indicative of the general public's lack of interest in thinking than of my depth of introspection.) There are things which I trust to various extents. For the most part they are empirical facts. Pretty much everything else that is more abstracted than that IMHO requires too large a grain of humor to be taken as seriously as a typical religion. Then again there is probably a brand of Buddhism that has an attitude which resembles mine, I'm not sure...

Fair enough.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

nonlnear: Then again there is probably a brand of Buddhism that has an attitude that resembles mine, I'm not sure...

M: 'Form is here emptiness, emptiness form' popped into my mind. Hehe

TLC and I go way back. I came to the conclusion that he is a bully who wins his imagined victories by dogged determination to to exhaust his opposition by making them feel as big a fool as he is by arguing endless bull shit. He pulls you into a cesspool expecting you to drown before he does. I take him on occasionally because I have a unique gift. I have a garden that blooms from the application of cesspool fertilizer. A mirror isn't tarnished by the image it reflects.

PS: Just saying.... You do very well yourself, with your deep intelectual honesty. To be unattached to isms and stuff like that is very much like what I feel, not knowing anything, I think.

It's amazing that Moonie and I have such similar opinions of each other. However, when I look into a mirror I can see myself. Moonie, by his very nature, never can and is therefore completely devoid of introspection and can never know himself, even though he claims to. But somehow he has never come to recognize that flaw in the online persona he projects.

 

[nonlnear]

It's not drivel at all. Ask any engineer.

I have an M.Sc. in mechanical engineering. Does that count?

Any interference would be detectable. That's not a religious assertion, that's plain old physics.

I do not know what physics books you have been reading, but it certainly is neither plain nor old physics!

If a god does not interfere in our universe one can't even come to a conclusion that such a god exists in the first, other than as a mental exercise.

You are framing the postulated interference in artificially narrow terms. What exactly do you mean by "plain old physics"? Unless you think I am talking about literalist jokes like the sun standing still. I assure you I am not.

It is entirely possible for divine interference to be statistically indistinguishable from white noise. This is not a novel trick to hijack quantum mechanisms for God either. It is implpicit in such ancient sentiments as "Your way was in the sea And Your paths in the mighty waters, And Your footprints may not be known.", and "Thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test". Attempts to pin the deity down to testable rules have always been taboo - at least to the more mystical strains of theistic traditions. Of course that may very well be a convenient construction to avoid the possibility that there is nobody behind the curtain to begin with. It is hardly an argument for a God. However it makes it clear that anyone claiming that another person's deity must be detectable is either ignorant, dishonest, or a bit of both.

Last of all, you bring up another problem..."Many gods defined by man..." The old Dire Straights song contains a line that goes something like "Two men claim they're Jesus. One of 'em must be wrong."

Odds are both of them are wrong. (Of course I am using my entirely unsubstantiated and indefensible "odds". ) On the other hand they could both be right.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I have an M.Sc. in mechanical engineering. Does that count?
I do not know what physics books you have been reading, but it certainly is neither plain nor old physics!

So you design systems based on inherently chaotic and random subsystems? How do you achieve reliable results doing that? I've worked in engineering for over 25 years and have never known such an engineer. Please do expound on such a new design paradigm. I'm fascinated and would like to hear more.

As far as plain old physics, allow me to explain. Any physical interaction in the universe demands that energy be expended. There are no exceptions to that rule. As an engineer, surely you understand there is no way around that. Any expenditure of energy leaves traces in the electro-magnetic field and is detectable. C'mon, I shouldn't have to explain such a basic concept to you.

You are framing the postulated interference in artificially narrow terms. What exactly do you mean by "plain old physics"? Unless you think I am talking about literalist jokes like the sun standing still. I assure you I am not.

Explained above.

It is entirely possible for divine interference to be statistically indistinguishable from white noise. This is not a novel trick to hijack quantum mechanisms for God either. It is implpicit in such ancient sentiments as "Your way was in the sea And Your paths in the mighty waters, And Your footprints may not be known.", and "Thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test". Attempts to pin the deity down to testable rules have always been taboo - at least to the more mystical strains of theistic traditions. Of course that may very well be a convenient construction to avoid the possibility that there is nobody behind the curtain to begin with. It is hardly an argument for a God. However it makes it clear that anyone claiming that another person's deity must be detectable is either ignorant, dishonest, or a bit of both.

Odds are both of them are wrong. (Of course I am using my entirely unsubstantiated and indefensible "odds". ) On the other hand they could both be right.

Sorry, but I don't take scripture as having scientific intent or merit. Positing a sort of Schrödinger's Cat (since they could be right, or wrong, they are both) based on that scripture wouldn't seem to have any merit either, other than as philosophical gymnastics.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's amazing that Moonie and I have such similar opinions of each other. However, when I look into a mirror I can see myself. Moonie, by his very nature, never can and is therefore completely devoid of introspection and can never know himself, even though he claims to. But somehow he has never come to recognize that flaw in the online persona he projects.

Hehehehehehe In a world where I'm rubber and you are glue you manage to stick yourself with pinpoint accuracy.

You made the mistake of trying to drag a sewer rat down to your level. What you do for me is shower me in flattery. My biggest fear is I will faint from the perfume of your words.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you design systems based on inherently chaotic and random subsystems? How do you achieve reliable results doing that? I've worked in engineering for over 25 years and have never known such an engineer. Please do expound on such a new design paradigm. I'm fascinated and would like to hear more.

As far as plain old physics, allow me to explain. Any physical interaction in the universe demands that energy be expended. There are no exceptions to that rule. As an engineer, surely you understand there is no way around that. Any expenditure of energy leaves traces in the electro-magnetic field and is detectable. C'mon, I shouldn't have to explain such a basic concept to you.


Explained above.


Sorry, but I don't take scripture as having scientific intent or merit. Positing a sort of Schrödinger's Cat (since they could be right, or wrong, they are both) based on that scripture wouldn't seem to have any merit either, other than as philosophical gymnastics.

I will not permit any philosophical gymnastics. And if you have been working in engineering for 25 years you might want to get out and smell the roses. They are lovely this time of year.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Hehehehehehe In a world where I'm rubber and you are glue you manage to stick yourself with pinpoint accuracy.

You made the mistake of trying to drag a sewer rat down to your level. What you do for me is shower me in flattery. My biggest fear is I will faint from the perfume of your words.

More than likely, what you are smelling does not eminate from my words.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I will not permit any philosophical gymnastics. And if you have been working in engineering for 25 years you might want to get out and smell the roses. They are lovely this time of year.

I have roses growing in my backyard and smell them frequently, tyvm.

Another poor assumption from Moonie. Go figure.

 

[bfdd]

Epic fail. Atheism is a lack of belief buddy. There are some who take it a step further and claim "There are no gods", but they are a tiny minority. Theism = with god/gods. Atheism = without god/gods.

It does not mean a claim that god/gods cannot possibly exist. It simply means you haven't bought into the theistic claims and are unconvinced that such a thing exists. It takes no "faith" to disbelieve in god, santa claus, or universe creating pixies. Without a single reason believe in these things, it takes no "faith" to say I don't believe in them. You simply haven't bought into the bullshit claims made by people claiming they exist, which makes you an atheist, aclausist, and afairyist.

If you don't currently hold a belief in a god/gods, you are an atheist any way you slice it. Regardless of whether you are certain or not, if you currently hold a belief, that makes you a theist. If not, you're an atheist. Stop pretending you've discovered some sort of "middle ground" buddy. You haven't. The issue is a perfect dichotomy.

An Atheist is someone with a lack of belief in a God or Gods. In order to be an Atheist you have to acknowledge Theism then deny it. It's all personal beliefs, hence beliefs. Wtf are you talking about Atheists don't believe there isn't a God or Gods? You cannot prove either way so it's a belief. Also I stated my personal beliefs, I don't believe or disbelieve in a God, but I will live my life like there isn't because I simply don't care. That doesn't make me an Atheist because I can argue for or against the case. Nor am I an Agnostic because that would require me to believe in something, but like I said that isn't the case.

I believe all religions are right and wrong. The only thing I would say I have that is a "religious" belief of mine is that people should stay the fuck out of other peoples business when it comes to matters of religion or spirituality.

 

[nonlnear]

So you design systems based on inherently chaotic and random subsystems? How do you achieve reliable results doing that? I've worked in engineering for over 25 years and have never known such an engineer. Please do expound on such a new design paradigm. I'm fascinated and would like to hear more.

As far as plain old physics, allow me to explain. Any physical interaction in the universe demands that energy be expended. There are no exceptions to that rule. As an engineer, surely you understand there is no way around that. Any expenditure of energy leaves traces in the electro-magnetic field and is detectable. C'mon, I shouldn't have to explain such a basic concept to you.

Ah so there it is. Even after my most careful (if simplistic) attempts to delineate what is meant by transcendence, you are still incapable of dealing fairly with a postulated entity that is not an integral part of the physical universe - even when such an entity is explicitly stated as such. You seem to have had mental sex with your abstracted physical models and lost the emotional detachment needed to see the limitations of the underlying assumptions. Love is blind and all...

Sorry, but I don't take scripture as having scientific intent or merit.

Nor do I. It is a mystical sentiment, nothing more. It speaks to transcendence. Of course given your argument (the one that boils down to "any God must be an integral part of the physical universe - even if that is not the case") it is not surprising that you would completely miss the point that this implication is not scientific per se, but rather pointing out that such a deity is totally undiscoverable through scientific means, like claims about the beauty of a poem or the sublimity of pi.

Positing a sort of Schrödinger's Cat (since they could be right, or wrong, they are both) based on that scripture wouldn't seem to have any merit either, other than as philosophical gymnastics.

It is nothing of the sort; I was simply pointing out the false dichotomy. There is nothing quantum going on there.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have roses growing in my backyard and smell them frequently, tyvm.

Another poor assumption from Moonie. Go figure.

But you said that you had been working as an engineer for 25 years. I naturally read that with my engineering hat on and assumed you meant, as any good literalistic engineer would, that you had worked 25 years continuously and without any sort of break. I guess the illustration that certain assumptions are inherent to certain forms of thinking was wasted on you.

You always assume it's me that's the fool when I reflect you to yourself. Here's hoping that when you develop enough muscles to see the real me you'll be ready to look at yourself.

 

[woolfe9999]

An Atheist is someone with a lack of belief in a God or Gods. In order to be an Atheist you have to acknowledge Theism then deny it.

Actually that's incorrect. A possible atheist is one who has never considered the issue. Do you believe in flying spaghetti monsters? Probably not, and you've probably never considered the issue. In practice, atheists will generally, as you say, "acknowledge theism then deny it." But that doesn't mean very much. It's only "acknowledged then denied" because it's such a commonly held belief. Other than that, there is nothing special about "atheism" that requires a particular label or to describe it as some sort of belief system unto itself. Some atheists may express it that way, and for those atheists it's a belief system. But the idea of "atheism" isn't a belief system. It isn't a "thing" at all, actually.

- wolf