I'll try another angle. If you ask me if there are an odd or even number peanut M&Ms in the jar I would have to be honest and say I don't know. I then ask you how many and you state that there an odd number. If I don't believe you then I still don't know. Why should my rejection of your claim suddenly mean that I know there is an even number?

So you wouldn't be curious enough to count them and find out?

Or would you prefer to stay in the dark, not ever knowing the real answer.

Your thoughts on what I have said remain distinctly opaque. Are you willing to accept that atheism is a rejection of a claim or are you not?

No. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC

Might I ask if, as you say, atheism is a belief that there IS NO God, how does that differ from a religion's belief that there IS a God?

Ergo...both belief's form a religion of sorts.

...Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC

Might I ask if, as you say, atheism is a belief that there IS NO God, how does that differ from a religion's belief that there IS a God?

Ergo...both belief's form a religion of sorts.

My understanding is that a religion needs some form of organisation, rather than just a single belief. But perhaps a single belief could be sufficient for a minimal religion.

But in principle I agree with you

SC

Might I ask if, as you say, atheism is a belief that there IS NO God, how does that differ from a religion's belief that there IS a God?

Ergo...both belief's form a religion of sorts.

Of sorts?

Religion

"B1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

If atheism is a religion of sorts, then not collecting stamps is a hobby of sorts.

Ah, found the quote I was trying to remember:

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." - Don Hirschberg

Might I ask if, as you say, atheism is a belief that there IS NO God, how does that differ from a religion's belief that there IS a God?

Ergo...both belief's form a religion of sorts.

Of sorts?

Religion

"B1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

If atheism is a religion of sorts, then not collecting stamps is a hobby of sorts.

Discarding stamps is a hobby.

Not a very productive hobby, with little to show for its achievements, but I'm not trying to sell atheism.

SC

Discarding stamps is a hobby.

Not a very productive hobby, with little to show for its achievements, but I'm not trying to sell atheism.

SC

Ah, but you can't discard stamps that you don't have!

As for being productive, that would be a poor reason to believe in something (which I wouldn't have thought is a matter of choice anyway) and I don't know how productive it is to believe in god or what one has to show for its achievements: but I'm not trying to sell anything either.

None of my business what someone does or doesn't believe and it would be a pointless endeavor anyway...

Might I ask if, as you say, atheism is a belief that there IS NO God, how does that differ from a religion's belief that there IS a God?

Ergo...both belief's form a religion of sorts.

Of sorts?

Religion

"B1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

If atheism is a religion of sorts, then not collecting stamps is a hobby of sorts.

It appears to me that you have a self inflicted gunshot wound to your foot with this definition...

""B1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

The final part saying "or any such system of belief and worship" applies to any atheist I have ever known, talked to or corresponded with.

An atheist certainly has the belief there is no God and they do worship their own ideology in a non-existent God.

Your comparison with stamp collecting, while somewhat inventive, is not germane. Stamps are tangible objects, beliefs are intangibles. You can collect stamps and put them in a stamp book. Where do you put the intangible beliefs except in your mind.

I have my own individual beliefs which I will not bore you with. I respect your right to believe there is no God and simply ask that you offer me the same respect for my own particular beliefs.

I am using the "generic" you in this matter and not addressing my remarks to anyone in particular. Cheers.

The final part saying "or any such system of belief and worship" applies to any atheist I have ever known, talked to or corresponded with.

An atheist certainly has the belief there is no God and they do worship their own ideology in a non-existent God.

Your comparison with stamp collecting, while somewhat inventive, is not germane. Stamps are tangible objects, beliefs are intangibles. You can collect stamps and put them in a stamp book. Where do you put the intangible beliefs except in your mind.

I have my own individual beliefs which I will not bore you with. I respect your right to believe there is no God and simply ask that you offer me the same respect for my own particular beliefs.

I am using the "generic" you in this matter and not addressing my remarks to anyone in particular. Cheers.

First of all, can't use half a sentence and ignore the rest of it let alone the rest of the definition and then pretend you've refuted the whole thing. Not to mention you ignored all the other descriptions.

What system of belief in god or gods are atheists worshiping? No self-inflicted wound there. And I can't speak for these remarkably uniform atheists you know but there is NOTHING that requires an atheist to worship anything, let alone any system of belief in god/gods nor any ideology.

The comparison - as can be seen clearly - was to NOT collecting stamps and it was to the effect that it can not be called a hobby, any more than not believing in god can be called a religion: it was a metaphor and it is obviously germane. You need to read it again if you think I was comparing stamp collecting to religion - all the stuff about tangibles and intangibles is what is not germane.

For the record, I absolutely do unequivocally respect your right to your beliefs and would fight for it. I will not, however, do as you ask and respect you FOR your beliefs - but I'm certain, even with what little I know of you, that you are worthy of respect for much more valid reasons.

Let me be clear: just as you didn't say you respected me for not believing in a god - and I wouldn't expect you to - I don't respect people for believing in one. I don't find such a thing inherently worthy of respect, moreover there have been and are plenty of people - I'm sure you'll agree - who are believers but deserve no respect.

Let me be clear: just as you didn't say you respected me for not believing in a god - and I wouldn't expect you to - I don't respect people for believing in one. I don't find such a thing inherently worthy of respect, moreover there have been and are plenty of people - I'm sure you'll agree - who are believers but deserve no respect.

I respect you for standing for your beliefs and, yes, I will agree there are both believers and non-believers that earn no respect.

We will have to agree to disagree as I have already said more than I usually do when discussing this issue.

This is not an issue I like to discuss. Now if you want to talk gun control or Obama, let me know.

The final part saying "or any such system of belief and worship" applies to any atheist I have ever known, talked to or corresponded with.

An atheist certainly has the belief there is no God and they do worship their own ideology in a non-existent God.

Your comparison with stamp collecting, while somewhat inventive, is not germane. Stamps are tangible objects, beliefs are intangibles. You can collect stamps and put them in a stamp book. Where do you put the intangible beliefs except in your mind.

I have my own individual beliefs which I will not bore you with. I respect your right to believe there is no God and simply ask that you offer me the same respect for my own particular beliefs.

I am using the "generic" you in this matter and not addressing my remarks to anyone in particular. Cheers.

First of all, can't use half a sentence and ignore the rest of it let alone the rest of the definition and then pretend you've refuted the whole thing. Not to mention you ignored all the other descriptions.

What system of belief in god or gods are atheists worshiping? No self-inflicted wound there. And I can't speak for these remarkably uniform atheists you know but there is NOTHING that requires an atheist to worship anything, let alone any system of belief in god/gods nor any ideology.

The comparison - as can be seen clearly - was to NOT collecting stamps and it was to the effect that it can not be called a hobby, any more than not believing in god can be called a religion: it was a metaphor and it is obviously germane. You need to read it again if you think I was comparing stamp collecting to religion - all the stuff about tangibles and intangibles is what is not germane.

For the record, I absolutely do unequivocally respect your right to your beliefs and would fight for it. I will not, however, do as you ask and respect you FOR your beliefs - but I'm certain, even with what little I know of you, that you are worthy of respect for much more valid reasons.

The astampcollector example can be confusing to many people so I try not to use it. It is also further along the logical line so I don't see the point in trying it when they are unable to grasp the fundamentals such as atheism being a rejection of a claim. I have gone to great lengths in this thread to explain what atheism is, by using a multitude of examples to go each step to the logical conclusion. No reasonable argument has been given against any step and yet the outcome has been 'I don't believe you'. The logic is standing there on its own 2 feet so it is not a question of believing me, it is a question of not believing in logic. I can subjectively believe that 2+2=5 but it equals 4 regardless of my personal opinion. It's axiomatic.

No. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC

Theism and atheism address belief while gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge.

Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary.

I'll go back to the jury example because that illustrates the logic best (IMO) because it is in everyday use. A claim is made against the defendant and the jury is asked to decide if they are guilty or not guilty. The jury is NOT asked to decide if the defendant is either guilty or innocent. Why?

No. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC

Theism and atheism address belief while gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge.

Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary.

I'll go back to the jury example because that illustrates the logic best (IMO) because it is in everyday use. A claim is made against the defendant and the jury is asked to decide if they are guilty or not guilty. The jury is NOT asked to decide if the defendant is either guilty or innocent. Why?

I understand atheism in the more narrow sense, as a specific belief that there is no god. Not the opinion that the existence of God remains subject to reasonable doubt.

SC

No. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC

Theism and atheism address belief while gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge.

Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary.

I'll go back to the jury example because that illustrates the logic best (IMO) because it is in everyday use. A claim is made against the defendant and the jury is asked to decide if they are guilty or not guilty. The jury is NOT asked to decide if the defendant is either guilty or innocent. Why?

I understand atheism in the more narrow sense, as a specific belief that there is no god. Not the opinion that the existence of God remains subject to reasonable doubt.

SC

With all due respect, you understand it incorrectly. Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary.

I hold out both fists and claim I have a coin in my right fist. You reject my claim and that is it, that is all you have done. Your understanding of what atheism means is that you claim that I have a coin in my left fist. It is not the same thing.

If you believe that all religions are human constructs, with god being the sum total of all human perfections that are projected onto him/her, atheism is simply a decision that such constructs are not required/desired in that individual's life.

Faith is a suspense of disbelief, atheism is when disbelief triumphs. Neither is the only answer, it all depends on what question the individual wants to address.

No. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC

Theism and atheism address belief while gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge.

Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary.

I'll go back to the jury example because that illustrates the logic best (IMO) because it is in everyday use. A claim is made against the defendant and the jury is asked to decide if they are guilty or not guilty. The jury is NOT asked to decide if the defendant is either guilty or innocent. Why?

I understand atheism in the more narrow sense, as a specific belief that there is no god. Not the opinion that the existence of God remains subject to reasonable doubt.

SC

With all due respect, you understand it incorrectly. Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary.

I hold out both fists and claim I have a coin in my right fist. You reject my claim and that is it, that is all you have done. Your understanding of what atheism means is that you claim that I have a coin in my left fist. It is not the same thing.

You may take a broader understanding of atheism than I do. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why such discussions are so frustratingly futile. So long as we all have our concept of god and of atheism, then we are unlikely to reach a consensus.

Just to clarify: Am I right in interpreting that you believe that there may be a God?

SC

You may take a broader understanding of atheism than I do.

The is no broad or narrow understanding of a binary proposition.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why such discussions are so frustratingly futile. So long as we all have our concept of god and of atheism, then we are unlikely to reach a consensus.

I'll have to address this next time as it is getting late.

Just to clarify: Am I right in interpreting that you believe that there may be a God?

SC

I cannot claim that there is not (agnostic) while I have thus far rejected claims that there is (atheist). Ergo. agnostic atheist. A more pertinent question would be to ask why have rejected the claims thus far and why I am unwilling to make a claim myself.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why such discussions are so frustratingly futile. So long as we all have our concept of god and of atheism, then we are unlikely to reach a consensus.

There are as many gods as there are people who believe in them.

The reason, aside from it being late, why I wanted to reply to this later is because I wanted to garner my words. I have been in this game for well over 30 years and during this time one thing has puzzled me constantly. It can be logically shown that atheism is not a claim or a belief but simply a response to a claim. Granted, some confusion will occur since atheism is a definition of something which it is not. A member above pointed this out with the astampcollector example, I shall add another....

I meet someone at a party and ask their profession. They state they are a banker and go on to ask me my profession. I state I am not a banker (I'm an abanker). This all of the information that can be gleaned from my statement... That I am not a banker. I could be a painter, lion tamer, singer, barman or any number of things except a banker.

To get back to what has puzzled me for so long. Theists (for the most part) refuse to accept the logically coherent 'I reject your claim' but I have never found out exactly why. It could be a psychological defense mechanism such as Creationists refusing to accept evolution but I cannot see anything which would would be attacked. On the other hand it could be that theists (for the most part) are somehow incapable of understanding but I am again left wondering why this would be so. It could be that theists do understand but refuse to admit they do, but to what end?

What really gets me is that this is basic reasoning which every single person uses in their every day life. It has allowed mankind to cure diseases, to send people to the moon, it has allowed us to build computers and for those computers we built to use the very same logic. Everything mankind does is in some way attributed to this baseline logic. Every decision we make uses the same method as an 'AND', 'OR' or 'NOT' logic gate.

Notmyself.

Here is a dictionary definition of atheist. It is not rejection of a claim but rejection of a deity. It has nothing to do with gumballs, stamps or any other such thing. Just deities. I think it is you who are very confused.

From this website.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

efinition of ATHEISM

1

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids »

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

First Known Use: 1546

I am an atheist and I respect other people rights to believe in what ever they want. When people start to push their beliefs onto me is when I have a problem.

Notmyself.

Here is a dictionary definition of atheist. It is not rejection of a claim but rejection of a deity. It has nothing to do with gumballs, stamps or any other such thing. Just deities. I think it is you who are very confused.

From this website.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

efinition of ATHEISM

1

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids »

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

First Known Use: 1546

That's my understanding. Until Notmyself and the rest of us agree on a definition of atheism then there seems little point in discussion, and one can clearly understand the OP's confusion.

I think Someone earlier posted a Roman explanation of why it did not matter whether there was a god or not, which more accurately reflects my position. I also believe that faith is generally a good thing, insofar as it supports your moral position and encourages adherence to it, but that is straying from the topic

SC

Notmyself.

Here is a dictionary definition of atheist. It is not rejection of a claim but rejection of a deity. It has nothing to do with gumballs, stamps or any other such thing. Just deities. I think it is you who are very confused.

From this website.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

efinition of ATHEISM

1

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids »

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

First Known Use: 1546

That's my understanding. Until Notmyself and the rest of us agree on a definition of atheism then there seems little point in discussion, and one can clearly understand the OP's confusion.

I think Someone earlier posted a Roman explanation of why it did not matter whether there was a god or not, which more accurately reflects my position. I also believe that faith is generally a good thing, insofar as it supports your moral position and encourages adherence to it, but that is straying from the topic

SC

In future maybe we can just give our X, Y coordinates when answering questions as to our belief system:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

Notmyself.

Here is a dictionary definition of atheist. It is not rejection of a claim but rejection of a deity. It has nothing to do with gumballs, stamps or any other such thing. Just deities. I think it is you who are very confused.

From this website.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

efinition of ATHEISM

1

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids »

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

First Known Use: 1546

That's my understanding. Until Notmyself and the rest of us agree on a definition of atheism then there seems little point in discussion, and one can clearly understand the OP's confusion.

Which one?

( a ) is disbelief. In order for people to believe or disbelieve, a claim HAS to have been made for it to make any sense at all be it self proclaimed or otherwise. Did people disbelieve (for example) in nuclear energy 2000 years ago? You can either believe the claim (belief) or not believe the claim (disbelief)

( b ) is rather strange in that it is a knowledge claim rather than a belief claim and it is this which I shall turn my attention to first.

I keep going back to the 'jury' example because I think it better illustrates the dialectic reasoning needed to decipher the above definition. ( b ) would equate to 'innocent'

The prosecution states that the defendant is guilty of 'something'. You have to keep in mind that this statement is a claim and would not otherwise exist in exactly the same way that questions regarding nuclear power did not exist 2000 years ago. So, the prosecution makes a claim (guilty) and you the jury have to decide if you think the claim is valid (guilty (theism)) or not valid ((a) not guilty (atheism)). You are not asked if you think the defendant is innocent ( b ) as that would be a knowledge claim rather than a belief claim and it would also be an additional question. It is this 'additional question' I will address next.

I don't like the examples such as an astamp collector is someone whose hobby is not collecting stamps (if ( b ) is in any way a correct definition then that would be true) or baldness is a hair style (which would also have to be true) because the subject matter changes from that of a claim which could be confusing to some. I will however use one for now. You collect stamps while I do not... that makes me an astamp collector. I could collect postcards or I could collect dust, neither of which can be known without an additional question.

Johnno

Thanks for your response lannarebirth.

It leaves us no further forward on the question however of apostatism....I was raised a Christian....halfway Catholic and half simply Christian.

I have no belief....maybe I did for a while as a young kid. Does that make me agnostic...athiest or apostate?

Surely you believe something.

I was brought up Proddie, rebelled against it but had a spiritual thirst, which funnily made me an alcoholic.

Got into Hinduism and Buddhism for a few years now still believe in a higher being but reading a lot obout Stoicism