This applies to everyone

[Caliburn]

In my opinion atheism isn't a belief at all in fact it's the opposite it's the lack of belief. And besides they're just examples, you telling me every single belief is supposed ot be up there?

It's a believe, more precise you believe that there isn't a god (or gods). Whether you believe something is there or don't believe something is there, doesn't matter as in the end you still believe, what you believe is just different.

Same thing is when someone makes you choose between two options. If you decide to not take one of the two provided options, you still made a decision. The act of not deciding can be considered making a decision.

The believe maybe atypical, it's nonetheless a belief, a belief in absence.

No, they're just the only important ones.


It's still a belief, because you believe that there's nothing. Nothing is something, and that's what you believe in.

On the first part that's not true. Those quotes apply as much to the Islam and even Judaism as they do on Christianity and atheism. Or you place atheism against theism, which automatically contains all the (major) religions or you place atheism against the most prominent religions. Only placing atheism against Christiantiy is not only wrong, it will only cause problems as what you are saying now is that apparently only those two groups have problems and that all the others are completely clean. Islam is as much a major group as Christianity and atheism. Logically you can't start talking about every single religion in existence (hence why just using theism would have been the most ideal formulation), however if you are going to list specific religions, you should in the least name all the major ones.

You're correct about the 2nd thing.

Atheism is not a belief in nothing. Whoever keeps telling you that has a wrong view on Atheism. Atheism is indeed the lack of belief in deities. Atheism also doesn't mean to discourage the belief of others. We are supposed to be open to opinions and are willing to believe whatever may convinces us. That's why as an Atheist, people tend to ask the question "Do gods exist?". From that stand point, we may, possibly, never come across an answer to that question, thus never accepting the belief in a single god.

So if you meet an Atheist that refutes any belief in another religion, then it's not the fact of being an Atheist, it's the fact that the person is a completely *******. Same goes for if they were a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, etc. They just simply hide behind that facade as easily as we are willing to blame that religion.

Actually your view can be considered on itself wrong as apparently you seemingly assume that 'atheism' only has one clear definition, while that term is interpreted differently depending on the context. Theologists and philosophers don't look at it the same way. I'm neither a grand philosopher and certainly not a theologist and I think that applies to most people on NB. So for people like us the most simple definition for us of atheism is placing it against theism: not believing in god/gods against believing in god/gods, thus making our point valid that it's still a believe. You are using a far more unconventional definition and interpretation of atheism which is, in the least, not a more 'correct' interpretation than ours.

Not to mention what you are describing sounds hell of a lot more like agnosticism than atheism. I, even though traditionally I'm a catholic, consider myself an agnost in the most simplistic definition of that term, meaning I neither believe nor disbelieve. I currently don't see any reason to believe in a god because science provides, in my opinion, more viable and trustworthy alternatives, however at the same time I neither rule out the possibility that there might be something bigger. Honestly said I personally find your definition of atheism not very appealing as it makes them appear like whimsical, indecisive people who change religions whenever it floats their boats.

To me it's simple: atheist and theists are opposites and the agnost stands in the middle of them. That's definitely not a correct, universal truth, however I'm pretty sure that for the most normal layman, like me, that's the most used and understood interpretation of those terms.

PS: To the maker of this thread, next time you will be infracted as what you are doing is in fact one-picture post spamming, which is against the rules. Provide your own input from the start.

 

[-Yard-]

I have neither a strong belief or a strong disbelief. I'm completely indifferent between the two and don't really care one way or the other. So, does that just make me indifferent?

 

[Jonesy161]

It's a believe, more precise you believe that there isn't a god (or gods). Whether you believe something is there or don't believe something is there, doesn't matter as in the end you still believe, what you believe is just different.

Same thing is when someone makes you choose between two options. If you decide to not take one of the two provided options, you still made a decision. The act of not deciding can be considered making a decision.

The believe maybe atypical, it's nonetheless a belief, a belief in absence.



On the first part that's not true. Those quotes apply as much to the Islam and even Judaism as they do on Christianity and atheism. Or you place atheism against theism, which automatically contains all the (major) religions or you place atheism against the most prominent religions. Only placing atheism against Christiantiy is not only wrong, it will only cause problems as what you are saying now is that apparently only those two groups have problems and that all the others are completely clean. Islam is as much a major group as Christianity and atheism. Logically you can't start talking about every single religion in existence (hence why just using theism would have been the most ideal formulation), however if you are going to list specific religions, you should in the least name all the major ones.

You're correct about the 2nd thing.



Actually your view can be considered on itself wrong as apparently you seemingly assume that 'atheism' only has one clear definition, while that term is interpreted differently depending on the context. Theologists and philosophers don't look at it the same way. I'm neither a grand philosopher and certainly not a theologist and I think that applies to most people on NB. So for people like us the most simple definition for us of atheism is placing it against theism: not believing in god/gods against believing in god/gods, thus making our point valid that it's still a believe. You are using a far more unconventional definition and interpretation of atheism which is, in the least, not a more 'correct' interpretation than ours.

Not to mention what you are describing sounds hell of a lot more like agnosticism than atheism. I, even though traditionally I'm a catholic, consider myself an agnost in the most simplistic definition of that term, meaning I neither believe nor disbelieve. I currently don't see any reason to believe in a god because science provides, in my opinion, more viable and trustworthy alternatives, however at the same time I neither rule out the possibility that there might be something bigger. Honestly said I personally find your definition of atheism not very appealing as it makes them appear like whimsical, indecisive people who change religions whenever it floats their boats.

To me it's simple: atheist and theists are opposites and the agnost stands in the middle of them. That's definitely not a correct, universal truth, however I'm pretty sure that for the most normal layman, like me, that's the most used and understood interpretation of those terms.

PS: To the maker of this thread, next time you will be infracted as what you are doing is in fact one-picture post spamming, which is against the rules. Provide your own input from the start.

I applaud your interpretation or view point of what Atheism might be. However, I was using the EXACT definition of Atheism given by both Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Those 2 are OFFICIAL dictionaries, in which they use the word according to it's correct context (though I wouldn't trust Webster so much as Oxford). Atheism is, in fact, not a belief or religion. It is, in fact, a lack of belief in any god or gods.

Just to elaborate more on what Atheism is broken down... Atheism is not a 100% belief on there is no deity out there. It is a conclusion based on the evidence supplied to us. That doesn't mean there is evidence no god exists. It means that there is NO evidence that gods DO exist. Without proof of it, we take the route of not believing at all. That's why most Atheists (and any who doesn't should learn from this post) are in fact still open for possible reasoning, explanations or alternate evidence to support the existence of any one god. That means, if someone, somewhere, finds actual evidence on a specific god and proves their existence, an Atheist can and most likely will change their minds about their opinion as they have no other thing to believe in.

Another example can be mythological questions. "Does bigfoot exist?", "Are their aliens?", etc. Now, if you believe in their existence, by all means, pursue it, continue believing, nothing wrong in that. However, if your answer was NO, does that mean you believe they don't exist? Or you instead based the answer off of rational thinking, saying to yourself, I see no evidence, I see no point in wasting my time on it. Does your conclusion mean that it's a belief? No, it does not.

So basically, all Atheists SHOULD be open books, fresh unwritten pages in which someone can enlighten you on their faith. To become an Atheist is not to deny all religion, it's a rational decision based on your conclusion via the question "Do gods exist?". If one claims to be an Atheist and slanders all other religions, most likely, they're still religious but had a tragic past and wish to deny their faith, that or they're just a complete jerk.

The reason this is such a common misconception upon Atheism is due to the lack of the English Vocabulary throughout history. The general new Atheist tends to say "I believe there is no god" which is incorrect for an Atheist to say. They should instead say "I find no evidence to support these said gods" or "I don't believe in any god".

In short...
Theism=Belief in something
Atheism=No belief at all

 

[BlacLord™]

No, they're just the only important ones.


It's still a belief, because you believe that there's nothing. Nothing is something, and that's what you believe in.

Uninformed much? Lol

There are more Muslims than Atheists and probably more Buddhists too.

OT: No, it's an utter oversimplification.

@Caliburn Atheism is clearly defined, if you want to talk about variations, there are appropriate terms that have already been coined (Secularity, Agnosticism, Irreligion etc.).

 

[Bubbles The Powerpuff Girl]

The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no,’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God, that he is knowable, and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists, but simply non-theists.

I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system, while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult. Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God.

•"An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."
•"An atheist lacks belief in a god."
•"An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
•"An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry."
•"An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas."