Exactly, and there's no need for a word that signifies you don't believe in the things you mentioned.

@Gawd

I have been an atheist since age 13, when I realized the Bible is just a book of stories written by men.

It was a hard winter in Michigan that year. Restless and bored, my little brother, 10, and I read the World Book Encyclopedias.

Rationalist philosophers Spinoza and Descartes inspired me. In the 1600s when heretics were burned at the stake, they were bravely anti-church, anti-theist (god) and anti-clergy. Their philosophies led to the 18th century Enlightenment that valued science over religion.

@Gawd

"I'm an atheist" is a clear, understandable way to tell people.

Don't want to argue with you.

@LiterateHiker I don't have much of an issue with the word atheist. It's atheism which I dislike.

Exactly!

I do. The end times beliefs of the born again evangelical X-tian community is a threat to the very existence of civilization. Which belief is a consequence of the Zionist psyop that produced the Scofield study bible.

Beautifully said.

I do feel that atheists can and do push their non-belief in God onto others. Perhaps not in the same way that religious zealots do, but still none the less.

Atheists will often use this belief as evidence of intellectual superiority.

A sort of " Hey I am going to show my intellectual superiority by proving your God does not exist.

This may be in response to zealots who often use their religion to tout their moral superiority, but it does happen often.

I have found myself guilty of it and that was how I was able to pinpoint it in others.

Sorta. This is one of the religionists' arguments. That there is an equivalency.
I think an absence of belief is just that. I do not believe there are no gods. I just have not been provided reasons to believe.
That is,I find no rational justification to provide attention to the point of credence.
And therefore, my rebuttal is, "Show me evidence enough that will require such acknowledgement."
This is how science works. Believers do not understand the concept of demonstrable repeatable evidence. And their doctrines admonish them to remain so.
And, this is why it is so difficult to converse with believers about reality.
Their response can be, "You don't have to believe in gravity for it to exist."
That is true. But, I can demonstrate directly that gravity affects my life.
And then they will say, "I can do the same about god."
But their demonstrations are all indirect secondhand hearsay.
This is because religionists are confined by their belief. And that box is extremely difficult to open.

I rather say "I don't believe in god(s)" rather than "I believe no god(s) exist. In that way it is clear that it is not a belief, but rather simply the lack of it.

@TheMiddleWay Science is the fundamental learning tool of humans, from birth. Trial and error, that results in reality. Religionists obstruct this basic human mindset.

There is no way to prove there is no god. That is why atheism is not a reasonable position with respect to how it all began.

There is a difference between that statements, "I don't believe in god(s)." and "I believe there isn't any god(s)."

The first is merely a lack of belief while the other is a belief. I associate with the first.

@Gawd

If someone doesn't believe in God & rejects the idea of God; are they defined as athiest?

@gNappyHead Yes. That is the core basis for the term atheist.

@wordywalt Well there is no consistent claim that says that just because someone doesn't believe in god means they came to that conclusion through "serious thought" or "philosophical thinking".

@gNappyHead Oh, really? Prove your assertion. I do not think you can.

@wordywalt
Just two quick examples:
My mother is an atheist that says she doesn't believe in god basically because she has dealt with a bunch of people that go to church & she thinks they are assholes. She also denies climate change, spends money on holistic healing, & believes in western karma.

One of my brothers is an atheist & a nihilist. He says that science & the big bang is just as rediculous as any religious, that's it's all bullshit, & he believes nothing & nothing matters; who cares.

Now I know that those are anecdotal but when the assertion is that you only come to atheism through serious thought & philosophical thinking, then in only one example we can show that it's clearly not the case here or it's not the case there. Therefore it must be possible to come to an atheist conclusion without those processes.

Great point.

I think you are mixing categories. Stamp collecting is an activity, although some may have a belief in that activity. Atheism is a belief, although some may perform activities based on that belief

@TheMiddleWay Yes but string theory is based at least on SOME science. Religion is based on only some fables passed down for generation.It's like believing in Santa.

@Remiforce Nonstampcollector's point is that if you label what not believing something is, can we label what NOT collecting something is? There is a argument that anatheism shouldn't even be labeled. Like, it's simply not believing in something. Do we have a label for people who don't believe in fairies? How about people who don't believe in astrology? Are there names for people who don't believe in ghosts? And, getting back to Santa, what's the label for people who don't believe in Santa? Not believing in god is the on'y thing we put a label on that refers to something not believed. It's rather silly really. Like; Hello, I'm Belinda, I'm a non-stamp collector, a non Santa believer, a non fairly believer,... I mean, this labeling thing could go on endlessly. Atheism is the ONLY thing we label people on about NOT believing in something.

@TheMiddleWay suffragettes were actually women who were fighting FOR the vote. Wanting to change a law and fighting for rights is different from "believing in" something on nothing more than "faith'. Believing that something should be done or not done is not the same as believing in a mythology. And when a scientist believes in string theory, they don't just believe "in" it based on some mythology passed down. They believe it might be part of our physical world based on some math and research. They are also open to science that might disprove the theory. The same way "Believing" in evolution is not a religion. It's belief in a theory based on the science that we have. So far I have never seen science to back up the theory of theology. There isn't any. It's a guess that some primitive people came up with to explain what couldn't be explained. And then, they convinced others to believe that it was real (and very profitably too I might add). Not believing something is not the same as believing in something.

I'd say that we certainly all have our delusions.

That makes sense.

We KNOW that there is a sun, we BELIEVE that it will shine on us tomorrow. Not all thoughts are beliefs, many are proven scientific facts and realities that we accept because they are proven and are experienced.

@nogod4me I appreciate your stance, and generally agree. But, if we are going to get into this type of discussion...I stand by the idea that there are no scientific facts. There are only constructs which explain things at our current level of understanding, or at our general level of awareness. Like your sun analogy, you might contend that the kitchen table is solid...but it is not. It IS solid "for all practical purposes." ...but it is very far from solid, given that it is about 99.999% empty space. It helps us to think of it as solid, but that shouldn't be confused with a "truth." Using the term "Scientific fact" for anything humans have ever discovered or defined is always a misnomer, and the term "scientific fact" is actually most analogous to saying "for all practical purposes." Yep, for all practical purposes, a sun is a sun, and the table is solid, and atheism isn't a belief. But those are all incorrect.

Again...I'm not trying to be shitty. You are fully welcome to call them scientific facts...but since we're here in this discussion, just to have it mentioned, there is no scientific fact, only proclamations which are gross oversimplifications based on general consensus, "for all practical purposes" and "for the sake of this discussion".

@Athena Reference Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. In your example, if you say you "don't believe it", it is because you believe you are stating a fact. Without checking behind every door, every single time, you cannot know (schrodinger)

And...speaking of monsters... there ARE monsters behind every door. If you were a fly, the spider hiding in the carpet is a monster. While the spider may not be a "monster" to you, they are monsters none-the-less. Definitions can change, which proves there is no fact. What you are labelling as "fact" is based on your perspective and definition. Fact, by definition, is not based on perspective or definition.

@nogod4me Also, reference WILCO's brilliant perspective bending song "jesus don't cry". Particularly the line "each star is a setting sun". It's all about how you define a sun. By all definitions of a sun, every location on the earth has billions of sunsets everyday day.

@APaleBlueDot If you fly into the sun and are consumed, I'm sure science can explain very well what happened to you, just as bashing your head against a "solid" table will have a very real effect on your head, and that is a fact.

@nogod4me It's funny. By utilizing different perspectives, one of us can see that we are both right, while the other cannot.

@Athena Ahhh, Athena! Such is existence! It feels nonsensical and entertaining, until someone loses an eye. Thought experiments are very entertaining to me too, clearly. Being derided for them, is a little less so...but it's part of the process.

@APaleBlueDot We may both strike our thumb with a hammer and have a different "perspective" on it, but the reality is both of our thumbs will be hurt. I don't need nonsense to explain it.

@Athena Exactly.

There is a difference between that statements, "I don't believe in god(s)." and "I believe there isn't any god(s)."

The first is merely a lack of belief while the other is a belief. I associate with the first.

@Athena Exactly, thank you. Another example: A god cannot exist in contradiction, it cannot be god and not be god at the same time.

@nogod4me If you believe the evidence of your eyes, you are sure the sun revolves around the earth. Science tells us the opposite is true. Technically this conclusion is an appeal to authority, an informal logical fallacy, but it's the best evidence we've got.

It seems to me you are getting lost in the argument, & are not willing to accept the simple claim a belief in non existence is a belief

@Remiforce And many people believe that disease is caused by demons and the earth is flat. So what, like I said, "belief is fickle.", most belief is based upon ignorance, I will accept proven facts over belief any day.

You are just trying to change the narrative with this ridiculous statement: "belief in non existence is a belief"

Of course I accept the fact that things can be non-existent, atheism is the absence of belief in god(s), belief doesn't have anything to do with it. No one has offered any evidence to believe.

@nogod4me If one has the absence of belief in god(s), then one must have the belief god(s) do not exist. The absence of belief is belief, just as the failure to make a decision is a decision. If you belief belief is absent, that is belief

Of course, your belief has nothing to do with the reality of the situation, as belief does not determine reality

@Remiforce Now you are just spewing nonsense, which is boring. You are trying to conflate acceptance of facts with belief. Which is just childish nonsense.

As I said before: "I do not have a belief about something that doesn't exist." I couldn't care less.

And, of course I accept the fact that things can be non-existent, atheism is the absence of belief in god(s), belief doesn't have anything to do with it. No one has offered any evidence to believe.

This post that I wrote may help you to understand: "If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible."

The word atheism does not mean against god or gods. That would imply that god(s) exist.

"The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities."

@nogod4me I didn't say against gods; I said 'against a belief in gods' (theism is the belief in god(s)). Or - what you said in your last sentence - with a few added words...

@CatWomanDiana Atheism is not against the belief in god(s) either, you are thinking of those who are anti-theistic. The "a" in atheist means "without" not "against".

To my mind, agnosticism does not refer generally to "no knowledge", but specifically to "no knowledge of whether god exists or not". Agnosticism may etymologically mean "no knowledge", but colloquially & as an ideological expression, it refers only to "no knowledge of god's existence or not"

I fail to see the distinction in your last sentence, "atheism isn't 'a belief in no gods, it's 'against a belief in gods'". You might want to rethink this sentence--it sounds like word salad

dictionary.com is not the authority for the meanings of words. No dictionary is. We are.

@indirect76

Don't be ridiculous. Didn't you attend school?

@LiterateHiker Yes and I was taught the proscriptive approach to language in school. That is, there is a set of rules from which language is derived.

Later in life I learned of the descriptive approach to language. That is, language is also derived from actual usage.

Both approaches have their strength and weaknesses, but neither are authoritative.

Doctrine: belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Atheism is the absence of belief.

How do you TEACH someone NOT to believe in something that DOESN'T exist?

Atheism is not a religion.

You may be interested my post here: "If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible."

You are confusing "acceptance" with "belief". You can accept scientific facts, but you must believe religious doctrine.

Believing in evolution and reason is not required to be an atheist.

You're definitely incorrect here. Atheism does not incorporate evolution and reason or anything else. It is one thing - the lack of belief in god(s). That's it.

You're assumptions regarding my disdain miss the point. An atheist is merely someone who doesn't believe in god(s). Period. My disdain is any other association, assumption, or otherwise made about being an atheist. Ie, When people think that if you're an atheist then A,B,C,D, etc. must also be true about you. Which is incorrect. All it means is that the person does not believe in god(s). nothing more.

That puts it quite well. I don't have any problem with my agnosticism being labeled a belief. Agnocicity? oh wait, agnocentrism. Heheh.

@Slartibartfast lol we can call ourselves fred but it won't change us! on the other hand, being mislabeled is akin to being misunderstood, and no one likes that, right?

g

@Slartibartfast by the way, good job on those fjords!

g

You're two examples of being an atheist don't seem to differ. Feel free to elaborate.

As for your comment regarding "ism", I think you need to re-read my post. I never said you cannot be an atheist without having a philosophy. My expressed issue is associating a philosophy to being an atheist when it is merely not believing in god(s). You can be as philosophical as you want as an atheist but my point is that none of those philosophies are atheism.

@Gawd Sorry but I think you should reread my response. I understood your post just fine but your response to mine does not seem to be related to what I said.

g

@genessa I think it is. But that's ok, we can disagree.