Garth: No. One can be a spiritualist and an atheist. An atheist simply doesn’t believe in a deity. It has nothing to do with ‘believing in science’. It’s really that simple. “But many people say…”
Yeah, and many people believe Saddam did 9/11 or that pots of gold are at the ends of rainbows. Belief does not mean “fact”. You can believe I believe in Satan but that doesn’t mean I do. You can believe that atheism is “science belief” but that doesn’t mean that it is.
Guys, its Christmas. Can’t we all just calm down and celebrate the birth of our savior?
In winter?
This is my main issue with your post. We have constantly stated over and over that Athiests are NOT one large group. That’s the point of Athiesm, for it to avoid organized religion because of a disbelief in a deity. That is the one defining similarity. I believe danielsangeo has said it: Just because as a group, athiests have the common similarity in not believing in a deity doesn’t mean they’re an actual group, so you would be wise not to treat it as one.
Person 1: “But Richard Dawkins says this. You have to agree with Dawkins.”
Person 2: “Why?”
Person 1: “Because he’s your leader.”
Person 2: “…”
Person 1: “And Christopher Hitchens says–”
Person 2: facepalm
Are you doubting the glory of our Lord and Savior?
Let us pray for the salvation of his eternal soul.
As I have said before, atheism is the default. If you don’t belief that deities exist, then you are an atheist. The only thing that two atheist have to have in common is the disbelief in deities, every other character trait can be different. You can be an atheist but believe in ghosts and fairies. It is a divided group anyway, but the sort of scientific atheist that respects Dawkins, Hitchens and keeps up to date in that sort of thing would be what I would consider a Humanist.
Yes, but:
That is, there are 3 definitions.
1, God does not exist.
2, I’m not sure, but I reject the idea that God exists. (<- me)
3, I don’t know anything, don’t ask me!
That said, this discussion is void. There is more than one definition of atheism, period. You can’t say one definition is better than another, it is exactly like arguing about which accent is better, say, British or German. Definitions of words do not change the truth, just changes how it is reported. Now we need to stick to one definition and move on to some actually meaningful discussion.
Since the majority of people in this discussion (including Burb, Daniel, Max, Dust, myself and possibly others) consistently agree that the definition of atheism is lack of belief in deities, let’s stick to this definition, whether you like it or not.
So, moving on, by this definition, you may be an atheist and not believe in science. However, researches say that less religion conviction implicates higher level of education in average.
Also,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Therefore, despite being an irregular group, it is a lightly regular in education and moral values.
I disagree. The definition is lack or rejection of belief in deities. Any connotation is a colloquialism, and while that’s fine when talking to people who hold the same definition to be true, when talking in a broader context (i.e. an international forum), the most basic, official, original, whatever, definition should be used.
And atheists aren’t better educated and whatever as a group. Just like people who eat better aren’t healthier as a group. It’s a characteristic that has certain causes and/or effects.
I see ‘atheism’ as a three-step word.
A-the-ism.
Lack of belief in god or deity.
If you answer the question “Do you believe in a god?” with anything other than an affirmative answer (“Yes”, “Yeah”, “Yup”, “Uh huh”, etc), you’re an atheist. By definition.
Anything else and I do mean ANYTHING else, is beyond the scope of atheism. Views on religion, views on politics, views on science, views on ANYTHING…nothing to do with atheism. Sure, it might be what a specific atheist believes in or what worldview that atheist subscribes to, but it’s not “atheism” we’re talking about anymore.
It’s really a simple, succinct, and very easy concept to understand…unless you can’t understand the phrase “I don’t believe” like a certain person that will not be named.[COLOR=‘Black’] (Someonerandm)
Atheism: “I don’t believe in deities.”
and then there’s gnostic and agnostic atheism, of course
Oh god, I don’t even want to BROACH the subject of (a)gnosticism right now! :fffuuu:
All my personal friends define atheism as believing God does not exist, that is, they define atheism as strong atheism. That alone means that there are more than one definition of the term, even if other definitions are local or if they are not the original meaning of the word.
Also, there is Wikipedia and various articles that state that atheism have various possible definitions.
Culture always changes definitions, and there is no reason to say that changing meanings is wrong.
For instance, the website of the organization “American Atheists” define Atheism as a very specific set of beliefs, including the non-existence of deities or anything supernatural (although they say “lack of belief”, note the entire text):
Source: https://www.atheists.org/atheism
After that text follows a very restrictive definition of Atheism given in Supreme Court of the US, stating that “an Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god” and “believes that heaven is something for which we should work now”.
An atheist might think that, but that’s not what atheism is. Others might define atheism as “believing God does not exist” and some atheists might also believe that…but that’s STILL NOT ATHEISM. I don’t know the word to use for “I believe god does not exist” but I can tell you one thing: That’s not atheism.
I consider the difference between “weak” and “strong” atheism to be one of vociferousness. A “weak” atheist, to me, is someone that just doesn’t believe in god(s) but goes on with their life without speaking on the subject unless prodded. A “strong” atheist (like me), actively speaks on the subject and loves the discussion that ensues. A militant atheist pursues the subject and pushes the discussion beyond a believer’s comfort zone (also me, sometimes).
Of course, strong atheists (and militant atheists) like myself frequently are compared to Hitler and I compare them to a dickfaced cockmaster and we all have a little fun. 
Of course, that’s my personal definition of “weak” and “strong atheism”. I could be wrong. 
This is going nowhere. Are you a linguistic that knows the origin of the word and what it actually meant when it was created or used? If not, honestly, you don’t have any authority to say what atheism is or isn’t.
The expression for that is strong atheism.
I do know the origin of the word and that atheism pre-dates theism in the English language, by a handful of decades, as I have researched the subject strongly (I have been called a “militant atheist” and I guess I could be considered guilty as charged here).
As for strong/weak atheism, I was simply providing my opinion and others like Flew or Martin provided theirs. shrug
Bold is what I meant with rejecting the belief in god.
And I absolutely agree with you, in essence. My point was that in a discussion with people who use different definitions of the word, it’s best to use the most basic one, which is ‘lack of belief in god or belief there is no god’.
amazing. ya’ll dont believe in intelligent design or a higher being, and yet still cant seem to agree on the details regarding the NON belief aspect?
can’t agree on the linguistics, but the rest of it is a personal matter
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.