I am an atheist, doesn’t mean I know for SURE there is no god. It is however my personal belief that there isn’t one.
so what about people who don’t care whatsoever because questioning the existence of “god” is absolutely irrelevant?
Since you guys can’t seem to get out of this, and since any other discussions (including my posts 
) seem to be ignored because of it, let’s go with dictionary definitions, shall we?
the·ism
/ˈθiɪzəm/ [thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
a·the·ism
/ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
In other words, theism is believing in a god or gods, and atheism is not believing in a god or gods.
In other words yet, according to a atheist there is no god. According to an theist there is a god.
There’s Greek prefix that signifies doubt: “apo-” (if my two-second skim of this was correct). One who hasn’t made up his mind could then be called an apotheist.
Agnosticism and gnosticism and their combinations with atheism, theism or apotheism are another matter altogether.
So if someone has a complete and utter belief in the nonexistence of sentient toasters, are they crazy?
I believe there is no ‘GOD’ whatsoever. There is no real evidence that there is a god, so I’m not sure why I am crazy think there isn’t one. I do acknowledge that there isn’t sufficient evidence to claim god has been proven NOT to exist, but I hardly think it’s fair to expect anyone to sit around providing proof that all imaginary things are imaginary. We are such limited creatures. It wouldn’t take much for a being to be viewed as a god to us, but there is a long way to go to get to an infallible omnipotent being that most theists believe in.
One other thing. There is some definitions that agnosticism ( and it’s sub branches ) a kind of ‘soft’ atheism. So if you believe such definitions, there really is only two categories.
Not sure if you think that’s me. I’m just confused.
Lack of belief != Belief in lack. But, if you really want to call it “belief there is no god” (kind of weird because when I’m sitting on my ass watching TV, I’m not driving a not-car; I’m not driving a car), please tell me why you’d “call them crazy”?
Atheism and agnosticism relate to two different things. Atheism relates to belief and the lack of it. Agnosticism relates to knowledge and the lack of it.
I don’t know. I don’t believe.
I’m an agnostic atheist.
If they don’t believe in a god, they’re an atheist. Theism is only the active belief in a god. If you don’t actively believe in a god, you’re an atheist. That’s kind of the definition, y’know?
I’m not saying I agree with the definition. I’m just saying it’s a common definition. I’m more firm about Atheism meaning you DO NOT believe. I’m not sure how ‘I’m not sure what I believe’ fits in. I’m not even sure how you can not know what you believe.
The “common definition” is many times wrong. Just because many people believe something to be true doesn’t mean it is. If 95% of the population believes that the Earth was created in six days just a little over six millennia ago, does that mean that that is exactly what happened?
Well, on this front, if you don’t know what you believe, by default, you’re an atheist. You are lacking an active or positive belief in a deity.
@daniel
Depends what you put inside the word god.
I firmly believe in a transcendence of the being which would be not unlike a form of shintoism, yet based on the solipsistic notion of feeling - and only that. However, just like in shintoism (or plenty of other spiritualistic bullshit), each of those feelings can be interpreted in theistic terms. Therefore, from that point of view I can be seen as a gnostic theist.
Yet I don’t see my beliefs as related to the traditional notion of “god” and my “theistic” views don’t place the feelings at their base much higher than observable concepts. And, if I try to think about the god that people argue so much over, I’m actually at loss completely. For a reflexion on such an immanent god, I am so purely agnostic that it makes theism totally irrelevant to my thinking. I know that the prefix a- means “not”, but in that case I don’t see myself as a not-theist, but as someone to whom the principle of theism is purely out of question.
So even though I can be called of a gnostic theist from a certain point of view and yet agnostic on a higher level - I don’t see how I can call myself an atheist (or a theist for that matter).
You’re still an atheist if you’re not a theist. The belief in the supernatural (transcendence of being, whatnot) is something else entirely to the question of theism (belief in deities) and the lack of it (atheism).
An atheist can believe in the afterlife, enlightenment, space aliens that abduct and probe people, and other such ideas without losing their atheist status.
Once more, for shits and giggles: Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you don’t believe in deities, you’re an atheist. If you believe in deities, you’re a theist. It really is that simple.
It would be simple if it was. Where’s the line? So Shintoism is a theistic religion just because they put names on the “spirits” they believe in?
Actually, I was just replying to myself 
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Depends on if these “spirits” are deities or not. To me, a deity is a supernatural being capable of consciously interacting with and changing reality, and is worshiped by people. Usually, this supernatural being is capable of governing and organizing the universe. Not sure if the Shinto spirits are that way, though.
Atheists can certainly believe in spirits.
EDIT: Regarding your edit: The social context has to be changed. Atheism really DOESN’T mean anything more than “not a theist”. People are always going to have misconceptions. Education is key, here, even if it does feel like you’re talking to a brick wall at times.
It boils down to personal interpretation of what a deity is, yes. But I have to admit that I mostly don’t want to be called an “atheist” because in a social context, it means more than just a-theist. When you say “I’m an atheist”, people always have the misconception that you believe there is no god.
EDIT : Haha what a mess with all the edits. Anyway, thanks for the discussion :]
What I’m confused about is the concept of “believe there is no god”. Let’s say you have this misconception. My question is: So what? If you really think that atheists believe there is no god, what does that mean to you?
Humans can’t live without conflict, and it’s easier to start an argument over conflicting beliefs (provides fuel for useless, endless “prove this” and “prove that” debates) than over a simple lack of belief. Fundamentalism stems from nothing else than that, and many religious people have fundamentalist tendencies*.
*either because they lack culture, education or simply will to think about their own beliefs
If your question was directed to me, I just don’t like people having misconceptions about me especially for something as touchy as religious matters - unless I control it on purpose - because it might artificially affect an interaction which didn’t have to be tainted with stupid religious thoughts.[/SIZE]
Beliefs are not always created equal. Belief that the moon is made of rock is NOT equivalent to the belief that the moon is made of cheese. One has literal truckloads of evidence; the other has none whatsoever.
Not my definition, but again a lot of athiests define the belief in spirits as an extension of the belief of deities, as spirits do fit the prototypical definition of at least some characteristics of deities. Spirits are often refereed to as ‘supernatural’ and that super natural beings ( ones existing outside natural definitions ) stem from a supernatural force that could be viewed as a deity. Definitions get messy quickly. Because the term deity is a bit difficult to define ( technically a deity can simply be an nondescript all encompassing force ) it is difficult to exclude spiritual definitions as being theistic in nature, while not definition. To me it’s just a general label. I don’t believe there is a ‘god’ in any sense that I’ve heard described in form. So by common definitions I’m an atheist. My reasoning is that I believe everything has a nature to it. from the most minuscule to the massive and beyond our comprehension. To me there is no ‘supernatural’ , but rather a nature to existence we don’t perceive, or haven’t experienced. I’m not about to believe something without reason, because reason is how I define reality. I like to hope it’s how most people do.
Studies have shown that it is normal for young children to develop some kind of interest in a God, an entity they can turn to whenever they have the need for it. As they get older, they go to school, they learn about the world and the universe through subjects like science, astronomy and biology. At this point some of them become atheists. Not everyone has acces to a (proper) education thus they will have no knowledge whatsoever about things like astronomy and they will still believe in a God to solve the ‘big questions’ of the universe. The same goes for children that were raised in a family that takes religion very seriously - also known as “Get 'em young, and the possibilities are endless.”
There’s a 1 hour video on YouTube explaining this whole process in detail, but I forgot the name (it was posted on this forum a while ago).
Proof is all around you, for example a huge amount of Americans (not trolling here) still believe the Earth is 6000 years old, this obviously shows they are not educated properly in certain fields.
Many people also think that atheists believe that everything around us just came to be after the Big Bang, ignoring the whole process of evolution or the nuclear fusion in the cores of stars that is responsible for creating the heavy elements that the entire world including all life is made out of.
You slightly exaggerated with this 3000, the Heliocentric model of our Solar System was proposed for the first time in the Hellenistic period. Later this concept was forgotten for a long time until Copernicus studied some of those works and wrote his own book.
That’s very naive to think that now we have very deep understanding of the Universe. There weren’t much theories in physics that survived in their original form for longer than 100 years.
There are few evidences, but they are not very credible. Still, they are enough to put a thesis that God exist.
I never claimed that God exists. I assume rather something quite opposite.
And that’s a very good theory, but it doesn’t mean it’s final.
Thank you, but I will read some articles (books maybe?) about it myself when I get interested.
I would describe myself as an Atheist Agnostic too, but I have a different explanation for it. If someone ask me if God exists, I would say that I don’t know but it’s very, very unlikely. If someone ask me if the biblical God exist, then I would say that there is absolutely no chance for that. It’s illogical, irrational, and defy a common sense.
Numbers doesn’t exist either but still you can have knowledge about them, right?
Yes, I agree.
Dude, I was referring to the Big Bang Theory 
Right. I mean NO! …ehem, anyway, it’s amazing how we, humans, must all understand, isn’t it? Just cannot leave it as “well, I don’t know it and probably I never will”.
Really??? Dammit, in that case read my understanding of God a few lines above.
They must have used a metaphor .
Probably they are both wrong… Because, you know, only I can be right, right? :retard:
Well, you know what I meant! Besides, the “before the Big Bang” phrase is incorrect only within the domain of theory that the whole world started to exist at the moment of the Big Bang