Is atheism a religion?

[Curious George]

Before you stated, that "New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods". My question was where is this stated in New Atheism? A simple question, based on your truth assertion. so back it up.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

All new atheists follow in Flew's footsteps and claim that an atheist is not a theist. This is the origin of claiming atheism is a psychological state. This is the consequence of how atheism is defined. If it is no longer defined by a claim it but a lack of belief that any god exists, then it is now a psychological state. I am surprised you don't already know this.

Now your revised comment is just a psychological state lacking belief, period.

Yes that would be a subset. This is how babies are defined as atheists.

More shell games. I say that both are the same, Atheism is the position or BELIEF that God does not exist, because no evidence of any kind can suggest that a God does exist.

This is strong atheism. Also called classical or philosophical atheism. Ypu are making the claim that no god exists.

Since Atheism IS a psychological state of believing, by your own definition it cannot also be a psychological state of a lack of belief.

You have somehow misinterpreted what I have said. Classical or philosophical atheism is the belief that no god exists. New athiesm is the belief that atheism is defined by not being a theist. Therefore a new atheist classifies a baby as an atheist. This does not make the baby a new atheist. Because the baby also lacks the belief that atheism is dedined as being not a theist.

Now what does it mean to not be a theist? It means that one does not have a belief that a god exists. We call this a psychological state because it describes a state of mind.

The definition of a psychological state includes defining it as a mental condition. Most people describe a mental condition as requiring some kind of treatment.

Lol that is blatant equivocation. Happiness is also a psychological state. Most people do not believe happiness requires treatment. You are using a pejorative definition for mental condition.

If I said that many people like you have a mental condition, what do you think most people would think I meant? So why are you asking me why I would think a mental state would NOT need treatment. Clearly, you are inferring that Atheism is a mental condition, and not a philosophical position.

No clearly you are confused. On the off chance this is not just intellectual dishonesty. I will state that psychological state as I have used it, does not require "treatment."

Unless there is such a thing as a philosophical state, as well? Is it also a psychological state to ignore the total absence of evidence that produces the lowest possible degree of certainty? The only proven psychological state of disbelieving in a God or in anything spiritual, IS AFTER A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY. This is also a plain fact to see.

hey if you take exception to defining atheism as not theism, more power to you. I am the wrong person to engage in that argument.

As I have stated before(and ignored), it is not my claim that NO GOD(S) exists. That is a nonsense claim.

I disagree. I think in light of the evidence, that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

.
I claim there is no evidence to support a belief that A GOD EXISTS. Please learn the difference.

i understand the difference. This is why ultimately, you are a new atheist.

I also hope that the change in font size will eventually remind you, every time you attempt to misrepresent Atheism, to fit your false equivocations and presuppositional biases.

I have in no way misrepresented atheism.

Does this mean that the converse is true(all psychological states lack a belief)? How about the inverse(if a person has a belief in God, he does not have a psychological state)?

No that is just bad logic. The contrapositve is true though.

All you have proven is how well you can manipulate philosophical truths and ideas, although both premises fail. Here's another philosophical truth used by Aristotle, that also fails. He stated that all things in reality either existed inside of the mind, or outside of the mind. He claimed since God was far to complicated to be comprehended inside the mind of man, therefore He must exist both inside and outside of the mind. Therefore, God must exist. This is also a philosophical claim. And, is the same intellectually dishonesty, as the pseudo-sophistry you're trying to peddle.

Not even close to sure at what you are driving here.

So either show that the two definitions of Atheism are different, and that a non-belief in anything is a clinical psychological state, or move on.

Lacking belief is a description of a state of being. A state of being that turns on psychological aspects is a psychological state. Belief or lack of belief turns on psychological aspects. Therefore, lacking belief is a psychological state.

 

[PureX]

Do these atheists you speak of have to keep reminding themselves that no gods exist? Are there people wondering around reminding themselves that Santa Claus doesn't exist? I just can't imagine what that would be like.

These " true believers" (atheist or theist) have to keep reminding themselves and everyone else that they are right, because their opinions about reality are not a facts of reality even though they are asserting them to be.

 

[`mud]

This whole thread is bordering insanity !

 

[PureX]

For the last time. I can't speak for all Atheists and free thinkers, but I don't claim that NO GODS EXISTS. That would be a silly claim. Even more sillier than A GOD EXISTS. I am claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that a GOD EXISTS.

Well, that's equally silly, since there is plenty of evidence to suggest the existence of "God". Your dismissal of it does not mean it isn't evidence, as you are not the decider for all humanity what is evidence and what is not.

I can easily point out Godly paradoxes; the question of evil, suffering, and diseases, and cruelty in the world; the non-answering of prayers; no violations of physical laws ever; no evidence for resurrections and miracles; and no evidence for the existence of anything that is supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual.

Paradox is a conceptual problem, not an existential problem. The universe presents us with lots of paradox. Nevertheless, the paradox 'exists'.

These truths trump your bandwagon fallacy.

"Truth" is a matter of opinion for we humans, as we are not capable of verifying it beyond our own subjective perspectives.

So spare me your philosophical gymnastics and pseudo-sophistry. We are not talking about proof, we are talking about degrees of certainty.

Certainty, by definition, is not less than certain. You are misusing the term. What you mean is that there are degrees of surety. Which are, of course, totally subjective and relevant only to the one doing the assessing.

I have presented rational and philosophical evidence and reasons that supports my lack of belief. What is the rational and philosophical evidence and reason that supports your belief, that God does exist? Never mind, like all the rest, I don't expect a rational answer. One uses science, and the other uses faith.

So far, all you've done is try and insult me, and little else. Science has never addressed the question of the existence of "God", because it is unable to do so. You have not presented any reasoned evidence for your opinion that no gods exist because you don't have any. So the only course left to you is to attack me, which isn't working because I have not asserted that any gods exist. So from what I see, you have no idea what your arguing about, or even why.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do these atheists you speak of have to keep reminding themselves that no gods exist? Are there people wondering around reminding themselves that Santa Claus doesn't exist? I just can't imagine what that would be like.

Easy, they do not go around wondering about anything, but it appears you do.

 

[wellwisher]

I read an interesting perspective on this question in "Dawkins' God" by Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian and biochemist. He argued that atheism, which he defined as the conviction that there is no God, is just as much a faith-based belief as belief in God. This was on the basis that it is a fairly well known result in philosophy that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Interestingly Dawkins conceded the same point, in a discussion at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford with the Archbishop pf Canterbury, some years ago, agreeing that strictly speaking he was agnostic rather than atheist - although he qualified it by saying he was 99% confident no God exists.

However while one can thus argue that atheism is a worldview based on a belief or conviction that cannot be definitively demonstrated, I do not think it is fair to call atheism a religion, as it has none of the trappings of a religion.

Buddhism is considered a religion even though it does not worship deities. Not all religions worship deities. Atheism is similar to Buddhism in that both religions do not worship deities. Both are faith based. The difference is Buddhism is based on developing higher human potential through introspection. This is done by avoiding the mass mind of culture and looking within. The atheist religion also tries to develop higher human potential but through materialism and extroversion and by participating in the mass mind of contemporary science and politics.

Atheism has it own mythologies. There are two main reason for this. The first reason is there are more than one science theory for many of the questions of reality and existence. For example, there are more than one theory for the workings of the universe. We have the standard model, a Wave model and String theory to name a few. All these theories cannot be true at the same time, therefore some are mythology supported by science.

As another example dark matter and dark energy have never been seen in the lab to prove they are real and not mythology. These are inferred through observations in the light of past theory. They are the needed fudge factor to account for gaps. This is not much different from theism inferring God from mysteries of the universe. For some, the beauty of nature causes them to infer the need for a God, which like dark energy, has never been seen in the lab.

Another reason is science is an evolving paradigm. As new discoveries appear, the old way of thinking is gradually changed. However, the old way does not change very fast, such that the obsolete is often maintained; mythology. For example, in 2004 it was discovered that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface. Although this has been proven by science to be true, this is not yet a key premise of earth and climate science. What is still believed and taught does not include or properly interface this new discovery. Therefore, what is taught is a type of fantasy or mythology. The mass mind reinforces this mythology and fights any change toward closer reality. It may have to do with money and prestige which ar important for extraversion.

This is an artifact of science not being able to turn on dime, However it causes misinformation and fantasy to be perpetuated as gospel. Man made global warming does not include this in any of the models that are considered a done deal. Buddhism would deal with this through introspection and departure for the mass mind. Atheism by being extroverted and part of the mass mind follows the consensus even if obsolete and fantasy. This is the nature of the atheist religion.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

All new atheists follow in Flew's footsteps and claim that an atheist is not a theist. This is the origin of claiming atheism is a psychological state. This is the consequence of how atheism is defined. If it is no longer defined by a claim it but a lack of belief that any god exists, then it is now a psychological state. I am surprised you don't already know this.

Yes that would be a subset. This is how babies are defined as atheists.

This is strong atheism. Also called classical or philosophical atheism. Ypu are making the claim that no god exists.

You have somehow misinterpreted what I have said. Classical or philosophical atheism is the belief that no god exists. New athiesm is the belief that atheism is defined by not being a theist. Therefore a new atheist classifies a baby as an atheist. This does not make the baby a new atheist. Because the baby also lacks the belief that atheism is dedined as being not a theist.

Now what does it mean to not be a theist? It means that one does not have a belief that a god exists. We call this a psychological state because it describes a state of mind.


Lol that is blatant equivocation. Happiness is also a psychological state. Most people do not believe happiness requires treatment. You are using a pejorative definition for mental condition.


No clearly you are confused. On the off chance this is not just intellectual dishonesty. I will state that psychological state as I have used it, does not require "treatment."
hey if you take exception to defining atheism as not theism, more power to you. I am the wrong person to engage in that argument.

I disagree. I think in light of the evidence, that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.
i understand the difference. This is why ultimately, you are a new atheist.


I have in no way misrepresented atheism.


No that is just bad logic. The contrapositve is true though.

Not even close to sure at what you are driving here.

Lacking belief is a description of a state of being. A state of being that turns on psychological aspects is a psychological state. Belief or lack of belief turns on psychological aspects. Therefore, lacking belief is a psychological state.

Lol that is blatant equivocation. Happiness is also a psychological state. Most people do not believe happiness requires treatment. You are using a pejorative definition for mental condition.

Happiness is also an emotional state, and in a manic state you would need treatment. A baby can also be defined as a pure idiot, or a hundred other names. Why an Atheist? The state of thought, awareness, perception, existence, not breathing, or even death itself, can be considered as some kind of psychological, physical, or mental state. You know exactly what people are saying, and in the context they are saying it. Why this unnecessary need to obfuscate, distort, falsely equivocate, and play this philosophical shell game with the meanings of terms?

I'm still waiting on the answer to my questions. I claim that Atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of a God, because of the total lack of evidence supporting a belief. Not because of any psychological state or personal need to believe that NO GODS EXISTS. Not for any reason other than the total lack of evidence. As long as you can't provide any evidence to convince me, my position is valid. I even defined the evidence that would convince any Atheist(at least me). So I'm not interested in you psychological and equivocation obfuscations. So, what is this NEW definition that defines NEW ATHEISM? And what makes it different then the classical definition? Do you think that Atheists should be convinced that a God exists? Why? Is there any common denominator between the two Atheisms? Also, does classical Atheism claim that NO GOD EXISTS(S), or that there is no evidence to suggest that A GOD EXISTS?

I have also provided rational evidence to suggest why I am convinced why a God does not exist. Perhaps you would like to address them, rather than cherry-picking terms and their meanings. No. I didn't think so.

i understand the difference. This is why ultimately, you are a new atheist.

If you understand the difference, then why do you keep repeating this half truth?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well, that's equally silly, since there is plenty of evidence to suggest the existence of "God". Your dismissal of it does not mean it isn't evidence, as you are not the decider for all humanity what is evidence and what is not.
Paradox is a conceptual problem, not an existential problem. The universe presents us with lots of paradox. Nevertheless, the paradox 'exists'.
"Truth" is a matter of opinion for we humans, as we are not capable of verifying it beyond our own subjective perspectives.
Certainty, by definition, is not less than certain. You are misusing the term. What you mean is that there are degrees of surety. Which are, of course, totally subjective and relevant only to the one doing the assessing.
So far, all you've done is try and insult me, and little else. Science has never addressed the question of the existence of "God", because it is unable to do so. You have not presented any reasoned evidence for your opinion that no gods exist because you don't have any. So the only course left to you is to attack me, which isn't working because I have not asserted that any gods exist. So from what I see, you have no idea what your arguing about, or even why.

It is taking an inordinate amount of patience, to avoid telling you what I really feel. But attacking you would be an intellectual waste of time. Let me summarize this rant.

You, dismiss a paradox as something that only exists in the mind,. You claim that it is existential and exists, thus committing a reification error.
You claim that truth is only an opinion, and does not lie beyond our subjective perspective. Therefore, it is only relative. Nothing to do with the absence of evidence.
You change "degree of certainty" to mean only less than certain, and claim it is being misused.
You claim that there is plenty of evidence to suggest the existence of God, but provide not even one example.
You also claim that I am not the decider for all humanity, on what is evidence, and what is not. Who then does decide what is evidence?
You claim that science has never addressed the existence of God, because it can't. Hint: Why can't science address it?

You are totally correct. From your subjective perspective, I have no idea what I am talking about. From my perspective, I can certainly understand why.

 

[Curious George]

Happiness is also an emotional state, and in a manic state you would need treatment.

Price of tea in china? I did not say manic.

A baby can also be defined as a pure idiot, or a hundred other names. Why an Atheist?

because it fits into the categorization of atheist by new atheists. That is since the baby is not a theist and atheist is defined as not a theist, ilthe bany is therefore an atheist.

The state of thought, awareness, perception, existence, not breathing, or even death itself, can be considered as some kind of psychological, physical, or mental state. You know exactly what people are saying, and in the context they are saying it. Why this unnecessary need to obfuscate, distort, falsely equivocate, and play this philosophical shell game with the meanings of terms?

It is not an obfuscation. It is a psychological state because that is all that it is. There is no philosophical claim.

I'm still waiting on the answer to my questions. I claim that Atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of a God , because of the total lack of evidence supporting a belief.

The bold is the claim, the statement following headed by the worded "because" is reasoning.

This claim that no god exists is a positive claim. This makes you a strong atheist. Being a strong atheist means that you are an atheist by classical atheism and by new atheism.

Not because of any psychological state or personal need to believe that NO GODS EXISTS. Not for any reason other than the total lack of evidence.

so not for other reasons... still even as an atheist umder the classical atheism, you must have a psychological state that is lackimg a belief in a god. Therefore you do have the psychological state described by new atheists.

As long as you can't provide any evidence to convince me, my position is valid.

That is not how validity works.

I even defined the evidence that would convince any Atheist(at least me). So I'm not interested in you psychological and equivocation obfuscations. So, what is this NEW definition that defines NEW ATHEISM?

New atheism is defined by the belief that atheism is defined negatively. This means that new atheists believe that an atheist is defined as not a theist.

And what makes it different then the classical definition?

Classical athiesm defines atheist as a person who believes no god exists.

Do you think that Atheists should be convinced that a God exists? Why?

That qould be quite ironic as I am an atheist.

Is there any common denominator between the two Atheisms?

Yes, classical atheists would be considered atheists by new atheists.

Also, does classical Atheism claim that NO GOD EXISTS(S), or that there is no evidence to suggest that A GOD EXISTS?

That no god exists. It is the disbelief in the existence of any god. This would entail that they believe, given the weight of the evidence known to them, it is more likely than not that no god exists.

I have also provided rational evidence to suggest why I am convinced why a God does not exist. Perhaps you would like to address them, rather than cherry-picking terms and their meanings. No. I didn't think so.

what would you like me to address. You do realize I believe no god exists?

If you understand the difference, then why do you keep repeating this half truth?

I am not repeating a half truth. Hopefully this post clarifies any misunderstanding.

 

[exchemist]

Buddhism is considered a religion even though it does not worship deities. Not all religions worship deities. Atheism is similar to Buddhism in that both religions do not worship deities. Both are faith based. The difference is Buddhism is based on developing higher human potential through introspection. This is done by avoiding the mass mind of culture and looking within. The atheist religion also tries to develop higher human potential but through materialism and extroversion and by participating in the mass mind of contemporary science and politics.

Atheism has it own mythologies. There are two main reason for this. The first reason is there are more than one science theory for many of the questions of reality and existence. For example, there are more than one theory for the workings of the universe. We have the standard model, a Wave model and String theory to name a few. All these theories cannot be true at the same time, therefore some are mythology supported by science.

As another example dark matter and dark energy have never been seen in the lab to prove they are real and not mythology. These are inferred through observations in the light of past theory. They are the needed fudge factor to account for gaps. This is not much different from theism inferring God from mysteries of the universe. For some, the beauty of nature causes them to infer the need for a God, which like dark energy, has never been seen in the lab.

Another reason is science is an evolving paradigm. As new discoveries appear, the old way of thinking is gradually changed. However, the old way does not change very fast, such that the obsolete is often maintained; mythology. For example, in 2004 it was discovered that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface. Although this has been proven by science to be true, this is not yet a key premise of earth and climate science. What is still believed and taught does not include or properly interface this new discovery. Therefore, what is taught is a type of fantasy or mythology. The mass mind reinforces this mythology and fights any change toward closer reality. It may have to do with money and prestige which ar important for extraversion.

This is an artifact of science not being able to turn on dime, However it causes misinformation and fantasy to be perpetuated as gospel. Man made global warming does not include this in any of the models that are considered a done deal. Buddhism would deal with this through introspection and departure for the mass mind. Atheism by being extroverted and part of the mass mind follows the consensus even if obsolete and fantasy. This is the nature of the atheist religion.

The usual muddling of atheism and science, I see.

And the usual introduction of the irrelevant distinction between what can and what can't be done in the lab, as if this has anything to do with what makes something science.

But I suppose I should be grateful that none of water, hydrogen bonding, entropy or liberals features in your post. This may be some sort of record, in fact.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously...
I stated that "There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings."

There is no objective verifiable evidence to support this 'belief.'

​

I do not believe that that the golden plates ever existed, but I have no evidence to confirm that they did not exist.

I do not have any objective verifiable evidence that Ogun nor Zeus exist or not. Any conclusions I would make is based on 'belief.'

Likewise I have no objective verifiable evidence either way, and any conclusions I make are based on belief, Your conclusions would also be based on 'belief' and not the evidence.

Thank you for finally addressing the questions. If you want to use objective verifiable evidence as your criteria, please explain why you consider any god to be The Real God. The writings of Bahá'u'lláh are not objective evidence, neither are the writings in the Koran or the Gospels.

 

[ecco]

Correction...
phi·los·o·phy
/fəˈläsəfē/
noun

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

I don't see how this is a "correction" of anything I posted.

Here is what I was responding to...especially the part I bolded

That's what philosophy is all about: logically defending an asserted position on the truth.

 

[exchemist]

ecco previously...
I stated that "There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings."



Thank you for finally addressing the questions. If you want to use objective verifiable evidence as your criteria, please explain why you consider any god to be The Real God. The writings of Bahá'u'lláh are not objective evidence, neither are the writings in the Koran or the Gospels.

Perhaps the use of objective verifiable criteria is thought appropriate for the study of nature, but not necessarily for the study of all other areas of human thought.

I, for example, certainly do not rely on objective verifiable criteria to help me respond to a book or listen to music.

 

[ecco]

Mathematics is an ideology that acts like language. It's doesn't "prove" anything but that it's conceptually ideal: like justice, perfection, and infinity.
The real question is why anyone would think they should need to.

If you want to assert that mathematics is an ideology, then there is no reason to continue this conversation.

I see no point in engaging with people who make up definitions whenever it suits their purpose.

 

[ecco]

... but I don't claim that NO GODS EXISTS. That would be a silly claim. Even more sillier than A GOD EXISTS.

Gods are nothing more or less than the creations of man's imaginings. As such I will assert that no gods exist.
Likewise, I will assert that Santa Claus does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that psychic snowflakes do not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Cottingley Fairies do not exist.
Mickey Mouse
Superman
Bart Simpson

Need I go on?

 

[PureX]

If you want to assert that mathematics is an ideology, then there is no reason to continue this conversation.

I see no point in engaging with people who make up definitions whenever it suits their purpose.

A collection of abstract ideals, like 'equality','nothing' (zero), 'infinity', and so on, interrelated, is called an ideology. It is a way of conceptualizing our experience of existence. Keep in mind that there is no such state as "equal to". The only way two things could be equal to each other is for them to be the same thing, or for us to simply ignore the ways in which they are not equal. Math isn't objectively real, it's a way of perceiving and interacting with what's objectively real. Like language.

 

[PureX]

Gods are nothing more or less than the creations of man's imaginings. As such I will assert that no gods exist.
Likewise, I will assert that Santa Claus does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that psychic snowflakes do not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Cottingley Fairies do not exist.
Mickey Mouse
Superman
Bart Simpson

Need I go on?

And yet everyone of these exists in your mind, which is obvious to everyone but you, apparently.

What I find fascinating, here, is that you don't believe that what you think is "real". And yet you keep on thinking that you know what's real and what isn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

ecco previously...
I stated that "There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings."

There is absolutely NO objective verifiable evidence for this philosophical/theological assertion.

Thank you for finally addressing the questions.

If you read my posts the questions were already answered.

If you want to use objective verifiable evidence as your criteria, please explain why you consider any god to be The Real God. The writings of Bahá'u'lláh are not objective evidence, neither are the writings in the Koran or the Gospels.

I use objective verifiable evidence ONLY for science. I all ready answered this question several times. Like before you fail to read or comprehend my posts. NO Theist, Deist, Monist, nor Atheist claims are based on objective verifiable evidence. I all ready stated several times that my beliefs are based on other considerations NOT the subject of this thread, as you persist wandering all over the place OFF TOPIC.

You sure are super dense.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Price of tea in china? I did not say manic.

because it fits into the categorization of atheist by new atheists. That is since the baby is not a theist and atheist is defined as not a theist, ilthe bany is therefore an atheist.

It is not an obfuscation. It is a psychological state because that is all that it is. There is no philosophical claim.

The bold is the claim, the statement following headed by the worded "because" is reasoning.

This claim that no god exists is a positive claim. This makes you a strong atheist. Being a strong atheist means that you are an atheist by classical atheism and by new atheism.
so not for other reasons... still even as an atheist umder the classical atheism, you must have a psychological state that is lackimg a belief in a god. Therefore you do have the psychological state described by new atheists.

That is not how validity works.

New atheism is defined by the belief that atheism is defined negatively. This means that new atheists believe that an atheist is defined as not a theist.

Classical athiesm defines atheist as a person who believes no god exists.


That qould be quite ironic as I am an atheist.

Yes, classical atheists would be considered atheists by new atheists.

That no god exists. It is the disbelief in the existence of any god. This would entail that they believe, given the weight of the evidence known to them, it is more likely than not that no god exists.

what would you like me to address. You do realize I believe no god exists?



I am not repeating a half truth. Hopefully this post clarifies any misunderstanding.

You made the sarcastic remark that "that most people do not believe that happiness needs treatment". Since you were stating the obvious for most cases, I thought you should also be aware of the exceptions. So I used "Manic", which has everything to do with a state of happiness, and nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Except in your mind.

because it fits into the categorization of atheist by new atheists. That is since the baby is not a theist and atheist is defined as not a theist, ilthe bany is therefore an atheist.

I stated babies can be called anything you want, why pick Atheists?. Unless you can demonstrate some objective observable characteristic that supports your labels, a baby as an Atheists, a Theist, a Buddhist, or what ever, becomes just another one of your category errors; an argument from ignorance; or just begging the question. The obvious question is how do you know this? You simply take whatever part of a definition you need, and twist it to fit whatever narrative you create. Just because you define something one way, doesn't mean it applies in another way. Are all animals Atheists? Is that computer an atheist computer. By your category error even the trees are atheists. Your category must be consistent.

You are obviously another person that doesn't know the difference between claiming that "no God(s) exists, and that God(s) does not exist. In the first claim an Atheist needs to prove, and the second claim, the believer needs to prove. Atheism is based totally on the believers inability to prove his claims. If he could, there would be no Atheists. Categorizing an Atheist is just as silly as categorizing Theists. I certainly can't prove that no God(s) exist, so why would any Atheist make that claim? If New Atheist make this claim, they must prove it. My personal BELIEF however, is that not only does no God(s) exist, but that no God can exist. If any God were to enter our reality, reality itself would no longer exist. All the Natural and Quantum laws would become so unstable that they would collapse. The Laws of physics can't be violated, and the laws of Causality can't be ignored. What you fail to realize is that space time is not stagnant. Hundreds of thousands of years have already happened in the future. If there were any God in the future, we wouldn't be having this debate. We wouldn't exist at all.

That no god exists. It is the disbelief in the existence of any god. This would entail that they believe, given the weight of the evidence known to them, it is more likely than not that no god exists.

It is truly sad to watch how you make up your own logic, and manipulate what others say. It is like watching someone trying to convince themselves that they are right. NO GODS EXISTS, is a knowledge claim. I would be saying that I know that NO GOD(S) EXIST. My claim(no matter how you try to distort it), is a DISBELIEF THAT A GOD(S) EXIST, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT BELIEF. Nothing more, nothing less. In other words I personally do not believe that a God exists, because of the total lack of evidence. If believers could produce even one bit of evidence for the existence of God, we would actually be having a debate.

what would you like me to address. You do realize I believe no god exists?

No I did not realize that you believe that no God exist. And, certainly not based on anything that you've said.

 

[exchemist]

A collection of abstract ideals, like 'equality','nothing' (zero), 'infinity', and so on, interrelated, is called an ideology. It is a way of conceptualizing our experience of existence. Keep in mind that there is no such state as "equal to". The only way two things could be equal to each other is for them to be the same thing, or for us to simply ignore the ways in which they are not equal. Math is "real", it's a way of perceiving what's real. Like a language.

This post seems to betray a curious lack of understanding of mathematics.

Mathematics is not concerned "conceptualising our experience of existence". Mathematics is an entirely abstract system of quantitative logic.