I believe in Atheism...

[Flyndaran]

There is far more evidence for unicorns than there is for an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god.
We have paintings of unicorns and supposed eye-witnesses that weren't considered nuts at the time.
How many people do you know that claim to have seen this god critter and weren't obviously loopy in other ways?
How nearly impossible is it to wrap one's mind around the idea of a loving god that doesn't help people out at all, lets them suffer, and is ultimately responsible for all the good and bad that exists in the universe?
A simple intelligant stealthy horse with a horn that is impervious to poison and can sense virginity isn't even in the same ballpark of illogical-ness.

I am not simply an atheist, for I don't believe in any superstions. Some would call me a rationalist, but others take offense to the implication that they aren't rational so I'm stuck without a proper term to label myself for easy conversation.
I was born this way lacking the ability to have or even understand faith. Most would call this a weakness or even a real form of brain damage. I won't dispute this as in the literal sense of lacking the "god module" as it has been called or some other neural section.
I prefer to call it a strength, or even a furturistic evolution.

Every atheist that I have met started out religious, can understand faith etc., but through introspection and logical analysis came to their present interpretation of reality.
I don't really fit in with these people. They can understand "the other side" of the discussion. I can't. It's not a matter of won't, bigotry, or refusal to study. I've tried. The concept just doesn't fit with my neural architecture the way it does in nearly every other human.

[AFPheonix]

No he's saying that the physical evidence for such a being is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant.

Of course there's always a CHANCE that there's a tooth fairy, but it's pretty vanishingly small, so there's no point in dwelling on it.

[Slytovhand]

My lack of superstions is not a belief, dang it!
"You" believe that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and I don't. That does not make me have a belief.

Calling my interpretation of reality that is completely based on rationality and facts a belief is insulting.
"Your" interpretation of reality that is completely based on faith, books, and flies in the face of "normal" reality is a belief.

So, what you are saying is that it is absolutely, 100% IMPOSSIBLE, beyond even the merest shadow of a doubt that a) you are not some figment of some entities (not necessarily a 'god') imagination, nor that of a computer simulation, nor that there is some form of mutli/universal creator that brought all of this into existence.

Funny - even the most professional and skilled and knowledgeable scientists - including good old astrophysicists looking at the origins of the universe - don't have that level of .... conviction.

Personally - I believe what I believe. There are things I don't believe. I'm not so arrogant (call it hubris) that I can't possibly be wrong....

[Flyndaran]

My lack of superstions is not a belief, dang it!
"You" believe that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and I don't. That does not make me have a belief.

Calling my interpretation of reality that is completely based on rationality and facts a belief is insulting.
"Your" interpretation of reality that is completely based on faith, books, and flies in the face of "normal" reality is a belief.

[Sylvia727]

Or, wait, I've got an idea! Why don't we use the prefix "a" for words that start with a consonant, and the prefix "an" for words that start with a vowel, and that way we have an easy way of indicating lack of something! Why, we wouldn't even have to rewrite any dictionaries, then, since that's what already is done!

I have always read the prefixes "a/an" as meaning "the loss of something where it should be or is expected to be". All three of your examples indicate this. Language being a living, twisting thing, this may not be a nuance that other people read into it.

In any case, putting the word "god" into it focuses the belief on G/god(s) and the lack thereof. If it is a belief about something else, then it needs a new name. If it is a belief about God, then I fail to see how it is not a religious belief. Perhaps not a "religion", per se, but still a religious belief.

Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake.

So, lack of religion is a religion?

No. That's exactly what I didn't say. If one asks an atheist what religion he is, the answer "atheist" makes sense and fits in context. Even though "atheism" is a lack of belief, I tend to class it as a religion for simplicity's sake. Kind of like how black isn't an actual color. If you ask me what color my shirt is, I'll say "black", not "my shirt doesn't reflect any light and so is colorless". People understand that when I refer to black as a color, I'm not implying that it should get its act together and be more like its big sister red, who is an actual color.

To say that lack of something is simply a form of that something is a way of forcing somebody else to accept your beliefs. <snip> To say that it is a religion is showing a massive amount of disrespect for atheists. And to think that you are one of the ones asking for respect in other threads, but unwilling to show it here.

*cracks up*

I'm just going to assume that your brain operates on a very different wavelength than mine. Nothing in my four sentence post indicated intolerance, force, disrespect, or hypocrisy. If that's what you read, then I apologize for whatever share of the miscommunication is mine. Also, I may be reading too much into your comments on this and other threads, but you seem to be under the impression that I'm an evil theist trying to force others to conform to my mainstream religion. I'm not sure why that might be, but I'd like my posts to be dissected from the correct perspective.

Personally I don't see atheism as a religion, but I do think it is a belief

I like that phrasing.

[Slytovhand]

Personally (and let's face it, that's all that matters ), I don't see atheism as a religion, but I do think it is a belief (believing in Santa Claus is not religious...).

Anriana - if you don't believe in my god, and my god is the only god, then you are an atheist. That's what it says in all those books, and that's the way it's been for thousands of years, and so many wars and people have died for it. And people who don't believe in *my* god will all die and go to hell - and that's *my* hell, not whatever hell you think you might have....

Since a 'theist'

Theism is a belief system incorporating a god or gods into the lives of humans

is specifically about god and incorporating, it's not merely about some vague concept - it's about a specific variant only.

This compares to a deist -

One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods

.

(quotes from google - define: theist/deist)

[Pedersen]

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name.

Amoral has the word moral in it, but the definition is the absence of morality. Guess we need a new word for that, too.

Anaerobic has the word aerobic in it, but the definition includes the lack of oxygen. Guess we need yet another new word.

Arrythmia is used to indicate the loss of heart rhythm. But, it includes rhythm in the world. Guess we need yet another new word.

Or, wait, I've got an idea! Why don't we use the prefix "a" for words that start with a consonant, and the prefix "an" for words that start with a vowel, and that way we have an easy way of indicating lack of something! Why, we wouldn't even have to rewrite any dictionaries, then, since that's what already is done!

Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

So, lack of religion is a religion? I think I might have to add to that critical logic failure thread I started. To say that lack of something is simply a form of that something is a way of forcing somebody else to accept your beliefs.

He's an atheist. He doesn't believe in any religion. He doesn't believe in any god. That's not a religion, that's the lack of religion. To say that it is a religion is showing a massive amount of disrespect for atheists. And to think that you are one of the ones asking for respect in other threads, but unwilling to show it here.

[Sylvia727]

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name. Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

[anriana]

Also, as a bit of a technicality, we are all atheists. We all have a certain 'non-belief' towards some aspect of the various worlds deities. I'm an atheist towards a Christian, Muslim and Judaic 'God'. They are atheist towards the shamanic spirituality. etc etc.

Monotheists believe in only 1 G/god, whether that's Jehovah or Ahura Mazda.

Polytheists believe in 2+ gods.

Atheists believe in 0 gods.

[Boozy]

I suppose atheism could be considered a belief of sorts, but I wouldn't say it's a belief that there is no God. It's more the belief that information provided by observation with the five senses, and analysis of that information with the logical mind, comprises the totality of being. Ergo, there is no God, because God would be both inaccessible to the five senses and illogical.

I'm not atheist, that's just my understanding of it. I'm quite open to being enlightened if I'm misinformed.

[Slytovhand]

Thought I'd start it as a seperate thread, as it comes up occasionally.

But specifically:

Originally Posted by AdminAssistant
(and lack of belief IS a belief - an atheist BELIEVES that there is no God)

No. Not so. Is lack of a steak dinner a different kind of steak dinner? I don't knit quilts. Is "not knitting quilts" a hobby? Is a lack of funds in my wallet actually funds that I can spend at a different store? No. Lack of belief is quite simply lack of belief. Nothing more, no mysticism, no rituals.

I'll tell you what I do believe, though. The similar notions of God as presented by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism present to me a very flawed, very human entity that does not possess the qualities or capabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Instead I see what primitive people thought such a being might be like.

I don't believe He's real in the same way I disregard Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. Do you consider your lack of belief in them to be a belief, or is it simply something you don't believe?

How about... an athiest believes that the creation of the universe can be fully explained using only natural laws and materials still found within the universe itself. There is no need to invoke any form of supernatural or external force of any kind.

Also, they believe that any and all phenomenon that occur within this universe can also be explained by similar laws and forces, again without any recourse to divine intervention. And thus, anything that religious believers would see as a 'miracle' an atheist believes there is always an alternative natural explanation for.

I have to use the term believes in such a way, because they don't actually know, and thus, it forms a belief only.

Also, as a bit of a technicality, we are all atheists. We all have a certain 'non-belief' towards some aspect of the various worlds deities. I'm an atheist towards a Christian, Muslim and Judaic 'God'. They are atheist towards the shamanic spirituality. etc etc.