@EduardoVallejo

"Being an atheist is NOT a belief in there being no God."

Wrong.

Atheist (dictionary.com)

noun

1.a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

To quote Carl Sagan: "I don't want to believe, I want to know".

If you are suggesting that Atheism is an Organised System of Belief as is religion, etc, etc, then, my good sir, you are barking up the wrong tree in my opinion.
Though Atheists, for example, may place their trust in things Logical, Rational and Scientific, etc, we do not Idolise it, venerate it, genuflect before nor even worship it for we, like most scientists as well, all know that Logic, etc, can often err but Religions always loudly, vehemently and ceaselessly proclaim that they can never err "for God is their guiding light and God can never be wrong or in error."
I tend to think that, should you choose to open up your eyes and take a good, long look at Atheists, you may find, to your surprise possibly, that Atheists see the world and Humanity as it really is, i.e. Flawed, Faulted, Imperfect, often disgusting even abhorrent at times, but still a wonderful place none-the-less just as is Humanity itself.
In my opinion, most Atheists are the TRUE Humanists in this world.

I can’t see how a lack of a belief in God can ever be interpreted by anyone as a belief system. Atheism is the opposite of theism, if theism is a belief in god then atheism is an absence of belief in god...that is quite unambiguous as far as I’m concerned. Those who say atheism is just another religion are usually religious and cannot grasp the concept of having no belief in god, assuming wrongly that atheism is an organised system in opposition to religion, which of course it isn’t. However we do atheism no service at all if we become proselytisers and follow cult like figures whom many consider to be the leading lights of atheism, because we then begin to mirror religion, and that confirms the belief in those who say that we are a religion.

I don't think you're in much danger of anyone here trying to convert you to theism, but argumentation, on the other hand...

Theist apologists often try to define Atheism as the assertion there is no God, and Agnosticism as a lack of belief in a God. I strongly reject this framing. Because Theists do not absolutely know nor can prove there is a God, they equally could be termed Agnostics as well (which most would no doubt find as disagreeable as do many of us), thus rendering the term fairly useless. Plus, Agnostic is what I used to consider myself back when I wasn't aware of the plethora of counter-apologetic claims which I am now so well versed in. And on top of that, Agnostic also has the connotation of one who is lost and unsure regarding the matter, of which I am certainly not. And lastly, defining Atheist in such a rigid manner is a sly and underhanded attempt on apologists' part to shift the burden of proof from them onto us.

The two types of atheist are sometimes called 'hard' and 'soft' atheists. True hard atheists are rare, but it is a common straw man argument used by theists, to suggest that all atheists are of that type.

I don't use labels. Just do not believe in bullshit.

Copied from Dictionary.com. Atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings". "Denies" pretty much sounds to me like does not believe, not just keeping an "open mind". As an Atheist I deny the existence of an invisible omnipotent man.

I think you're on thin ice. Disbelief and non-belief are the same for some people, but not for all.

Agnostic atheists don't believe there is/are a god/gods because of a lack of evidence, but don't claim certain knowledge of this nonexistence. That is non-belief, but not disbelief (if I understand your terms). Disbelief would be a position of certainty about whether gods exist.

Gnostic atheists are convinced of the nonexistence of god/gods. That is both non-belief and disbelief.

All this is just semantics in any case, and I'm moved to ask (as I think others have)- does it move us forward particularly?

I'm an Antitheist Atheist Humanist. I think all religions do more harm than good.

I don't believe in the possibility of god(s) - that's for agnostics to debate.

But we argue the labels all the time on this Agnostic/Humanistic site. Apparently it's inevitable despite dictionary definitions.

As a child I called myself an Atheist because religion was so powerful at the time and I wanted a label that showed how strongly I disagreed. As they became less powerful and less of a threat to me, I thought more about the label of Atheist which at the time did suggest disbelief in god. I changed to the label of Agnostic thinking it more accurately showed my thinking. Today, the terms Atheist & Agnostic are so alike with only technical differences that I'm happy to label myself under either banner. Both are great. I personally don't add multiple labels together because it dilutes the core label.

I'm an atheist, and an anti-theist.
I have zero interest in the humanist movement.

I also am extremely resistant to any attempts at "re-branding" the term "atheist",
as I am to anyone else's ideas of what constitutes "morals".

It's pretty simple really, but if you tell people you are atheist, the will ask "how can you PROVE there are no gods?", so you tell them you're an agnostic atheist and they pretend they don't understand.
To make it simple, would you believe the only way you can be happy is that an invisible floating unicorn is sprinkling happy dust on you? No, then you are a non believer. Can you prove it doesn't exist? No, then you are agnostic as far as knowledge is concerned.
It's the same with all gods. It's impossible to prove they don't exist, unless of course the make a claim like " god is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

i just wish more people understood the terms. i’m an agnostic atheist, so i don’t believe in any gods but wouldn’t claim knowledge. a gnostic atheist would claim to know there is no god. just like a gnostic theist claims to know there is one.

When it comes up, as the subject often does in my rural, very Christian small town, I refer to myself as "not a believer." People seem to bristle less at that than if I say I am an atheist, and they are less likely to treat me as though I just claimed to be a member of some cult. It means the same to me, either way, but semantics matter a little in this case.

I find even funnier when a religious person tries to convert me because has the interpretation that an agnostic is "someone who hasn't made up his
/her mind about the existence of God". They tend to argue even stronger than with an atheist.

This has to be the most over posted topic ever. It's not that complicated. I don't fucking believe in god.
Call me what you like.

I think I'm a Humanist then...

Pure semantics.
Disbelief and non-belief are the same exact thing.
I'm agnostic, not atheist. Big difference.

but i, as an atheist, DO have a belief. i believe there are no gods of any kind. i don't just fail to believe in any; i believe there are none. it's not a belief SYSTEM, any more than my belief that my hands are attached to my wrists is a system. it's not a religion. but it is, individually, a belief, at least in my case. i am aware that there are those who call themselves atheists whose atheism simply means they fail to believe in any deities. that's fine. a word can be used in more than one (related) way. some prefer to call that view of atheism as agnosticism, but i don't call myself an agnostic because the evidence that there are NO deities is the evidence we have that people are making it all up (so it's not really evidence of a negative lol). (it's like knowing there is no santa claus because you saw your dad wrapping your present and putting on the red suit.) i don't sweat it.

but i don't think i am misusing the term when i call myself an atheist. regarding your statement that "Being an atheist is NOT a belief in there being no God. Disbelief is not equivalent to non-belief, and I would be happy to explain that difference to anyone who doesn't readily see the difference. " i find myself disagreeing with the first half (being an atheist CAN most certainly be e belief in there being no god and i am an example of that) but i agree with the second half (certainly disbelief is not equivalent to nonbelief -- but then again, the two are not mutually exclusive, either, and i am, again, an example of their coexistence). seeing and understanding the difference doesn't necessarily drawing the same conclusion from that different that you do.

many people here (and elsewhere) make strong assertions about what an atheist is or isn't, as well as what an agnostic is or isn't, and even the comparative merits thereof. people may call themselves what they will within the boundaries of these much disputed terms, but my mind, while open, is not, to misquote someone whose identity i have furthermore forgotten (shame on me!) so far open that a thought can enter and exit without stopping at all in between. there may be more than one definition for a word, and dictionaries are not (oh my, here comes a christian term and i have never been christian) gospel, but agreeing at least generally on definitions helps us understand one another. an assertion that real atheists (not only eat quiche and wear pink but also) don't BELIEVE there are no gods but rather just refrain from believing in any flies against one of the known and generally agreed-upon definitions of the word. you can't just make up a rule like that. i mean you can, but people might laugh.

g

"While atheism is merely the absence of belief" this statement gave me pause. It suggests on the surface that to be an atheist is not to believe in anyhing; philosophically or otherwise. I truly believe there is no God figure. That belief is real.

I can back it up (should I choose, which I don't at this time) by pointing out how the Physical Laws of the Universe, as discovered through scientific experimentation, satisfactorily explain most phenomenon much better than any religion. Not only are they are consistent in most circumstances regardless of the actors (I use this term to include both living and nonliving paricipants) they are replicable (unlike miracles) But when they appear not to be consistent they still follow the Physical Laws when eventually understood.

Rather than attempting to respond to all the comments I received on my recent post about atheism, allow me to try to clarify some things that some either found confusing or simply misundertood what I was saying. 1) Please understand that those lexicographers who compile dictionaries do not set out to provide the last word on meanings; instead, they attempt to learn how most people most of the time are using the words. In other words, a dictionary is intended to be descriptive not prescriptive. 2) My point about atheists having open minds, and trying to offer a helpful way of looking at that, I offered the idea of differentiating between non-belief and disbelief. Apparently that proved more confusing. My point is that as a true atheist proceeds through life with an open mind, s/he has simply not encountered any valid reason either to believe or disbelieve ideas about God or gods, but is receptive should compellng evidence ONE WAY OR THE OTHER presents itself. 3) True atheists are trying neither to prove nor disprove ANYTHING; they simply do not either believe nor disbelieve, in the absence of that compelling evidence or experience. 4) Atheists are not automatically or inherently anti-religion; they neither subscribe nor oppose on the basis of their atheism. The problems present by religion are the subject of another and in some ways more complicated discussion, and the subject has little to do with theism. 5) My understanding of humanism is of the recognition that there is value and potential good in humanity, rrespective of any religious beliefs; being a humanist means that one sees the responsibility for creating moral and ethics guidelines for living emanating from humans themselves not a theist based system of religioous beliefs. It means recognizing both the power of creation as well as the limits of that power that are bestowed upon us inherent to our being human. It acknowledges that we are all "in the same boat" and that we need to treat eacch other as though we do indeed recognize it.

Knowledge sometimes CLOSES a Mind so can Education. As when you are in the Known of an Event. Example... Many here are in the Known trump is a Liar... we had seen the Traitor Lie... We had been educated of what a Traitor may be... And many here see Treason on his acts... My Mind is Closed to the Traitor not being a LIAR or to the Liar not being a TRAITOR. History will look at the Current Events and provide the Future Generations with a VERDICT. I have No Problem with an Open Mind but neither with a Closed Mind. I can argue that the way humanity uses the Term christian, muslim or any of the other religions and sects is unfortunate. I don't believe there is a god... that's it, I stopped arguing the religious over 45 years ago. If I at the end of this existance find out I was wrong... So I Was Wrong. That's it. No Argument now or then. Mankind been known to be Wrong before so has I. And I don't discuss or try to prove me Right. I just do not believe in the "concept of a god". Simply. My Mind Closed to Discuss or to Argue My Point. Neither trying to Convert or De-Convert anyone. Simply!!!