One of the central tenets of every religious tradition is that all others are wrong, or so incomplete that they represent a threat to humanity, IME; intolerance is fundamental to every religious doctrine.
All of those doctrines are unburdened by evidence to the same degree.
This sounds a lot like you’re attempting to convince us that the best way for humanity to live is for all of us to tolerate the unjustified beliefs of others.
Evidence? What evidence are your referring to here? If you’re referring to evidence for the non-existence of gods, that’s not atheism. That would be antitheism, not atheism.
Why would I be afraid of the word? I was
I’m not sure where this is coming from. What it means. What is the same on both sides? What does greeted appropriately mean?
Much of what I say is what an atheist would say and much of it is what a theist would say. We’re just people. The distinction isn’t that great.
Ah, now I think I understand. You see disagreement with your worldview as problematic. Either I must think like you or I’m wrong, and I must think the same way regarding you? That’s groupthink. You think that my disagreement must insist on your conforming? No. It doesn’t. I’m not going to conform to you and you are not going to conform to me. As it should be.
Uh, okay. Were is my thinking on atheism.
Definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
A dictionary definition is the current common use of a word. That is problematic due to the definition of gods. The full definition I gave earlier in this thread, but in part, a god can be, but is not limited to “An adored, admired or influential person or anything given supreme importance. Money, for example.” To not believe in those gods existence is illogical.
However, having said that, the simple definition of atheist as given by @Cognostic in this thread is perfectly rational and logical. That is, atheistic, as in antithesis or without theism. Gods. So, I’m apolitical meaning without politics. That doesn’t mean I deny the existence of politics. An atheist doesn’t deny the existence of gods, like a theist doesn’t deny the existence of other gods. The Bible mentions many gods. Some mythological, some supernatural, some mortal and some . . . uh, I thought there was another I was thinking of but I’ve gone blank. Maybe that’s it. The Bible writers were henotheistic. Tammuz, (Ezekiel 8) is the Sumerian king Dumuzi. I think I spelled that right. Sumerian kings were deified upon their death. So, he was the god Tammuz. Ezekiel didn’t deny the existence of Tammuz, as a god, but Tammuz wasn’t Ezekiel’s god. The Bible calls Satan (with the definite article) the god of the world. But he isn’t their god. He’s just a god.
So, it isn’t us vs. them and it isn’t black and white. In my opinion. And you had better agree with me. Joking, of course. 
Faith has two meanings. 1. Trust. Belief. There are things that an atheist trust or believe in. God isn’t one of them. 2. Adherence to a specific religion. For example, a Catholic is of the Catholic faith.
Definitely not.
Oxford Dictionary on faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
I keep bringing up the Borrowed English word credit, from Middle French crédit (“belief, trust”), from Latin crēditum (“a loan, credit”), neuter of crēditus, past participle of crēdere (“to believe”). The verb is from the noun. Words from that would be credentials, credible, credence, credo. I like words. If you want to know a word you have to look deeper than the definition or current meaning. Etymology. Semantics. Especially lexical.
Evidence in general. You’ve answered your own question in agreement with my estimation. Little to no evidence.
I’m glad we agree that there’s no objective evidence for the existence of gods.
Yeah. Evidence, truth, data, even doctrine is less relevant than ideology.
Well, what is the alternative? Isn’t that atheist religion that thinks only it is right? All theism dangerous? Right and wrong are subjective terms. Like good and bad.
But we have no control over what other’s believe or don’t believe. As for their actions, well, just watch out for those.
No. I provided objective evidence for the existence of gods several times already in this thread. We agree that evidence of the non-existence of God is nothing to do with atheism, correct?
You’ve done nothing of the sort.
Welcome! Yes they did. They also have their own translation. Quick question, are you partial to a particular translation.
BTW - my “atheist” definition is with-holding belief. I do it for a lot of things. Big pile of disbelief until sufficient evidence is met to warrant my confidence that it’s “as true as humanly possible”. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information.
Edited to add: HOLY SHIT!!! Just realized I’m really late to this thread 
Of course I did. Perhaps you missed it? I’ll do it again. No problem. Oxford definition, emphasis mine.
Atheism: “disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”
God: 3. an adored, admired, or influential person.
“he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god”
Eric Clapton and Kim Jong-un are gods. They exist.
Done. Easy.
No, not really. I use as many as I can. I like the NWT. I used to like Darby. Not really though. I use Bible Hub so I can compare.
Other than with-holding belief I think my theism is the same as your atheism. Perhaps I’m with-holding disbelief? I have to think that through. I’m 55 years of age and I’m on statins and beta-blockers which, I think, are worse than the shit I was on in my younger days. Weed and whiskey.
That changes nothing If Theists believe in the existence of gods. Atheists do not.
A = without Theists - belief in god.
Science is a Methodology not a belief system. It is used because it works. When you find something better we will use that.
That’s pretty much what I’m saying.
Ideally. Theoretically. Like everything else it is subject to corruption. Just look at the recent Plandemic. I say recent because they’ve been fabricating and manipulating pandemics for over a hundred years. I have nothing against science, but . . . real boats rock.
And that’s why we have this thing called “Independent Verification.” The only thing that has ever debunked science is more science. As we speak science is once again attacking itself on Big Bang cosmology. 10 years from now, the entire landscape of what we believe concerning the origins of the universe may alter. When we get new information, our perceptions and beliefs change and adjust to those perceptions. That is how science works.
The only thing that has ever changed science, is more science.
What I’m adumbrating here is that you believe everything is subjective and open wide to any interpretation - all possible claims and positions on anything.
Not only does this continually enable one to shift the goalposts or lose everyone in vagueness when it suits you, but I think it also demonstrates that you’re unwilling to take a genuine stand for something despite the consequences because, hey, we should tolerate anything people believe whatsoever.
I’m putting on my Amazing Kreskin hat and predicting that debates with you will always be ultimately fruitless, therefore.
So it goes.
Fourth from the right. I didn’t smile much, I was very serious about everything.
I had everything to be happy about. I graduated second highest in my group, top academic and destined to be in the highest grade class, aero engine technician. FYI I did graduate top of my class in that group too.
I can not determine what was wilful, it was indoctrination from day one. At that age nothing is wilful, you are a very young child eager to listen and please. And none was either opposed, where I grew up in was a military base, where god was casually accepted just like air. No one dissented, no one offered a counter position, god WAS.
I grew up in a theist family, and accepted the god proposition fully, in fact so much I considered organized religion too soft, more of a social club than a place to seriously attempt to communicate with our creator.
It’s a CHUD! 
You have your mords wixed.
An atheist is not convinced a god exists, thus an atheist is incapable of accepting the existence of gods.
For me, I must have a good reason and valid evidence to accept a god exists. Not philosophy, not convoluted logic, just proof.
Which is muted by special interests. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that many militant fundamentalist science minded atheists think that religion is an enemy of science. Theists pretty much invented modern day science which isn’t saying much because everyone was theists at that time. The real threat to science isn’t religion or superstition, it’s special interests. Money. Corruption.
To me, the perfect example of science in action is the weatherman. He has the science, he has the training, he has the technology and he’s wrong about half the time. All you need to do is look out your door. Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
But what you say is true, then. Science is always correcting itself. Some examples, one humorous and the other serious. Both related.
