I have nothing to say, I just want to point out this.
:retard: Oh gawd, I made too very common spelling errors while typing quickly, I must be retarded.
I’m not saying anything, I just wanted to point it out.
And I just wanted to make the same mistake again for comedic effect. 
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong.
First off, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in deities, not the disbelief in deities.
Second of all, on what do you base your assertion that the majority of people who call themselves atheists actually simply hold science of religion? Just because that’s the case with most people you know, doesn’t mean that goes for most atheists in general. I know that’s not the case for most atheists I know.
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less.
The fact that many people you know fall under your definition of it doesn’t mean squat. It only means that there’s some sort of common ground for the atheists you know.
I think we are going to start defining atheism according to the lowest common denominator of belief.
I honestly don’t see a difference between lacking belief in deities and disbelieving in deities.
There isn’t one.
Also, I like the way that the thread about ask an atheist has turned into an argument among atheists.
Because atheists aren’t a cohesive group?
Lack of belief in deities = I don’t believe that deities exist
Disbelief in deities = I believe that no deities exist
For instance, agnostics have lack of belief but not disbelief in deities - that is, they don’t take a stance.
That gave me lots of good lulz 
That doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t believe that deities exist then you believe that no deities exist.
That doesn’t make any sense, Kai, guga. Disbelief is not “belief in no”. It’s “no belief”.
But what do I know? I guess I’m actually driving right now even though I’m not behind the wheel of a car.
Also, agnosticism don’t speak on belief.
Agnosticism relates to what one can know, not believe.
I don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God because such a being is self contradictory.
I don’t believe any gods exist because that would be an unsupportable belief.
However, I must acknowledge that I don’t really KNOW what if anything initiated existence, but because of the limitless possible origins, saying it is a god is about as likely as any other ( lack of evidence you see ) So while I guess you could say I’m agnostic, I’m a pretty damned skeptic one.
If I asked a layman whether he believes or not in Quantum Physics, he would say “What the Hell is Quantum Physics?”
In this case, strictly speaking, he does not believe in Quantum Physics, but you can’t say that he believes that Quantum Physics is wrong.
The same way, a person may take a humble opinion and say it doesn’t know if God exists or not. That means this person does not believe that God exists, but does not believe that God doesn’t exist as well.
@daniel: you might be right, I don’t know the correct definition of the word. I was just explaining what burb was trying to say.
It has absolutely nothing to do with atheists I know. I actually personally know very very few atheists. Don’t jump to conclusions about my logic. Anyway, I just looked up the definition of atheist. The very definition of atheist supports what I have said and will also end this ridiculous argument over atheist’s stance on deities.
“Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.”
So, if by the common definition of atheist you believe there are no deities in any way shape or form, then how do think the universe was created and how the universe operates? Some religions and spiritual beliefs involving large amounts of LSD lack a deity so technically fall under atheist, but how many people go around calling hippies and bhuddists atheists? You can’t be agnostic because they say “I have no fucking idea what’s going on” and therefor don’t believe that there are no deities. So besides bizarre occult explanations such as pseudoscience, the only explanation left is science. Therefore, using the common definition of atheist, besides a few exceptions atheist=someone who believes in science rather than religion.
And on top of this, all prominent figures in atheist organizations use science as an explanation of the universe. Show me someone like Charles Dawkins who is a hippy or a bhuddist.
People believing in science over religion have no dictionary name so we are popularly called atheists. spiritualists and bhuddist and whatever-ists have their own names that are used to denote them, so they have no need to steal atheist. It’s like when ODB was trying to be an asshole because everyone uses MW to mean modern warfare and he wanted to use MW to mean Mecha Warrior. MW popularly means Modern Warfare, so if you want to say Mecha Warrior then go use an acronym people will actually recognize as Mecha Warrior.
As I see it, I’m an atheist because I see no reason to consider the possibility in the first place. That’s what I mean by lack of belief versus belief of lack.
Strictly speaking, I believe there is no god, but since I don’t see any reason to consider the possibility of the existence of god in the first place, I’m reluctant to say I have disbelief in god, rather than no belief.
I don’t disbelieve in fairies, because why consider the possibility in the first place? See what I mean? I guess the point I’ve been trying to make is that rejecting the belief, disbelieving, believing in the lack, or whatever, of god implies that belief in god is the default stance, while the default stance should simply be the lack of belief, since there should be something to base belief on.
@garth: noooooo, you’re absolutely wrong. Atheism has nothing to do with choosing science over religion. Someone can be a theist and still choose science over religion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god, or, I’ll concede, the belief that there is no god. Any additional characteristics or beliefs or methods for perceiving reality (i.e. science) have nothing to do with being atheist or not.
There are plenty of atheists who are atheist simply because they do not believe there is a god, without “choosing science over religion.”
Also, stating that atheism is (“generally”, if you will) choosing science over religion is stating that there is either science or religion. There are plenty of people who are not interested at all in science, nor religion.
Science versus religion is a false dichotomy.
Stop right there. No, atheism doesn’t say that. Okay, continue…
That question goes beyond the confines of atheism. I can answer that question but it’s kind of irrelevant to the subject of atheism.
Simple answer: If you say anything but “Yes” to the question of “Do you believe in at least one deity”, then you’re an atheist.
Not quite. Science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive. Many devoutly religious people “believe in science”. Atheism is not “science belief”. It’s just a lack of belief/disbelief in deity/deities.
If someone doesn’t believe in a deity, then they are, by definition, atheist. If they’re a hippie or Buddhist or whatever, that’s irrelevant. If they believe in science, that’s irrelevant. Anything other than a lack of belief in deities is irrelevant to atheism.
Except, as I’ve already shown, many theists believe in science. “Belief in science” is not a theism/atheism question.
I’m a liberal, politically speaking. I am also an atheist. A friend of mine is an atheist. He’s a hard-right conservative. Don’t think that a Buddhist or a spiritualist can’t be atheist.
According to the dictionary, you are right. But according to what people actually say you are wrong. If you walk up to someone randomly and say “I’m an atheist.” the VAST majority of the time they will immediately assume that you support your claims with science. And it is not a flawed assumption seeing as atheist leaders so often back their claims with science. Stop trying to be the non-conformist and use the words the way people understand them. People perceive atheists as people who believe religion over science. If you took lots of LSD and believe in some spiritual bs, then call your self a spiritualist because that label’s public perception most accurately matches your beliefs.
Basically there’s a fine line between a group being misunderstood by the public and people mislabeling themselves as a part of that group. Spiritualists calling themselves atheist is a case of mislabeling, not a case of the public having a misunderstanding.
Very well, if you want a broader definition that most definitely is not a false dichotomy then you can take atheist to mean someone who uses scientific logic to understand the world and religious/spiritual as someone who uses false logic/emotions to understand the world. Also, an integral part of science is the scientific method. If you believe in science you must believe in the scientific method. However, religion and the scientific method ARE mutually exclusive as the scientific method involves using logic to solve mysteries and problems while religion involves fairy tales and imagination to solve mysteries and problems. Therefor anyone who believes in religion can’t believe in the scientific method and in turn doesn’t believe in science.
You have missed the point just about as much as is physically possible. Atheist popularly means someone who believes in science over religion. If you have some other definition that may be backed up by the dictionary, you’re still wrong. The phrase “how come” makes absolutely no sense according to the definitions of both words. But anyone who claims someone is misusing the words when they say “how come” is wrong because the vast majority of people will immediately understand how come to mean “why”. They would be even more wrong if the word “why” didn’t exist and “how come” was the only way people knew how to say “why” as in the case of the word “atheist”.
Atheism is the default position. It not only encompasses those who reject a belief in god that has been put to them, but also includes people without knowledge of god(s). Small children, isolated non-god believing cultures etc.
It’s a lack, not a rejection. I’m an atheist when it comes to ALL gods. Even the ones I’m not aware supposedly exist. I don’t reject the ones I don’t know of, but I don’t believe in them just the same. You can’t exclude those who aren’t within our or a related culture.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Just because that’s how you (and possibly people around you) interpret “atheism” doesn’t mean the “vast majority” of people do.
I can say with 100% certainty that that is not the case.
What you interpret as “what people actually say” is a generalization you’re making based on your personal experience. This does not make it true. As evidenced by all the people disagreeing with you in this thread alone.
tl;dr: you’re being self-centered