Kevin_Levites:
Atheism requires that we have faith in the idea that it is best to perceive the Universe as it is rather than believe that the Universe is what we wish it to be…
Of course there is an element of faith but it isn’t the same kind of faith as the religious type. It’s more like trust than any kind of religious variant, trust in the scientific method works, that in evidential terms it still works.
UK Atheist
Are there? Atheism isn’t a philosophy or a choice, you simply are or aren’t … what different ways can there be to “approach” it?
No they don’t. Atheists have beliefs too.
I believe there are aliens in the universe, can’t prove it and certainly wouldn’t state it as any kind of truth, but I believe it to be likely that somewhere, some when they probably exist. I believe my mum and my dear late dad loves/d me but I can’t prove however, that they have been/were always there for me and that I’ve experienced nothing close to hunger or poverty suggests I’m probably right to hold such a belief.
Thanks COG! Who’s side are you on??? 
In anything, never mind a god, and no I doubt he really believes that, he’s just clutching at straws, as the fact would destroy his claim that atheism must involve beliefs or a belief system. We should note again that the current dictionary definition of atheism would include all, not exclude large numbers of those who don’t believe in any deity from being atheists, the way @Sherlock-Holmes archaic definitions retrieved from relatively obscure philosophy encyclopaedias would.
It’s all a risible apologetics trick that’s in vogue, to laughably try and reverse the burden of proof from those who make the claim, onto those who don’t believe it. The idea any credible philosopher would see epistemology turned on its head like this is also equally risible. Even in an 87 year old tome on philosophy I’d bet that definition has some qualifying remarks, as otherwise it would be very poor reasoning from any philosopher, I suspect when he says philosopher he means religious philosophers as well. The number of apologists who have dredged that tome up as well is highly suspicious, as if they are simply searching for what they want online, and have been no closer to those university’s philosophy departments than I have to Mecca.
Exactly so, and all one need to is read a dictionary to see that faith has a primary definition and a secondary religious definition to know the word is being disingenuously misrepresent when apologists liken confidence in the methods of science to faith in the doctrines of archaic unevidenced superstitions based on the anecdotal vacuity of “spiritual conviction” over evidence or proof, the two notions are mutually exclusive.
i think a fairer assertion would be can be different ways to approach atheism, but for me it is the default position I was born with, and nothing apologists have offered is at all compelling, so I remain an atheist. Some people however suffer a far more virulent indoctrination in religions than I was subjected to. In the UK we are pretty lucky that religions are not as pervasive as elsewhere, and their power is largely neutered. The next step is to stop the House of Lords “parachuting” Bishops in.
He’s just being deliberately disingenuous, if you rea the thread from the start you will see. No human being could function without forming beliefs about the world they perceive, it is how our brains work, as an atheist I simply lack belief in any deity or deities.
Ok, but by saying you believe it, you are actually asserting it to be true. Personally I’d stick with I don’t know, and withhold belief until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated, I am not swayed to belief solely by mathematical probabilities. However it seems prima facie to be a relatively innocuous belief at least.
Buddhists are atheists: They have beliefs that do not include a god
Babies are Atheists: They don’t have the ability to conceptualize a god
People get Angry at god: Can lead to antitheism… a brand of atheism.
Satanists are Atheists - similar to Buddhists and they do not worship Satan.
Nhialism leads to Atheism
Existentialism leads to Atheism
Stoicism leads to Athsim.
The Chinese Communist Party is Atheistic.
There are IN FACT many different ways to ‘let go of a god belief’ Atheism is letting go of god beliefs and there are many different ways to do that. There are many different ways to approach atheism.
Wiccans are atheists.
New Age Chakra Meditation, Crystal using believers are atheists.
Woo woo magic believers who call themselves spiritualists without a belief in god are Atheists.
Atheism ‘Specifically’ is non-belief in God.
Indeed, good post sir…
Well, that depends on what you mean by gods, doesn’t it? Wiccans much the same as I don’t accept that atheism is limited to non-belief in creator deities. Same with Satanists, if they literally believe in a Devil then no, they aren’t. Most modern Satanists seem to adopt the label almost as a specific criticism of theism.
I agree that babies are born atheist, however they don’t believe in much of anything so it’s a bit irrelevant.
I don’t care what can “lead” to atheism, atheism is still one part of a binary affair. If you believe in a god or gods, you are a theist, if you don’t, you’re an atheist.
Communism is not specifically atheist, maybe the Chinese brand is, I don’t know and don’t really care overmuch as it doesn’t impact my basic argument.
To my mind, you are misusing the concept of “approach” as I used it and as the original post to which I was replying used it. I used the word more to mean define or consider rather than become.
Atheism is not believing in a god or gods but IMO does not require one to specifically believe there is no god or gods.
UK Atheist
Perhaps I should have been more specific and said “I believe it likely” because there is no way I can possibly know (at present) whether there are or aren’t but I’m a geek, a science fiction mad geek, so of course I kinda believe in them 
With regards to approach, I didn’t mean it the way people are assuming I did instead meaning something more like define or consider; I’ll try to be more precise in future.
UK Atheist
That’s true, but atheists may differ beyond that. Atheism is the entire set, atheists are subsets. So the descriptor Atheism should apply to all for clarity, but beyond that we may differ in any number of ways. Anyway I’m away for lunch, have fun.
Someone is confused and it isn’t me.
Then you are just wrong - Atheism is Specifically - A lack of belief in God or gods. (Not spiritual bullshit) You are confounding your skepticism with Atheism. Atheism is the rejection of God claims. It is not the rejection of rebirth, Taoism, Confucianism, Wiccian, or any other woo woo claim.
It’s not irrelevant at all. Why do Catholics rush to save their babies from hell? All babies are born in Original Sin. Unbaptized babies burn — Well, until they invent special places for them to go, and then un invent them - and then invent them again.
You are confusing your skepticism and other ideologies that you may have with Athsim.
Then you probably shouldn’t have made such an inane claim. I demonstrate you are wrong, and your argument is “I don’t care?” Really? How obtuse are you? Communism kills your basic argument.
Approach: come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time.
“the train approached the main line” a way of dealing with something. “we need a whole new approach to the job”
FACT: There are many ways to approach ATHEISM. Perhaps you sould clarify your position because what you have said so far is obviously not what you meant.
Now you are just muddying the waters. No one asserted a person specifically believe there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief in God claims. ‘NON BELIEF IN GOD" Is not "Believing there is no God.’
Again you are confused., If you tell me “There is a God.” and I say “I don’t believe you.” I have not asserted that I believe there is no god. I do not believe your claim,. I have made no assertion about God. I have asserted my belief.
As previously stated, to my mind, you are misusing the concept of approach as I used it and as the original post to which I was replying used it. I used the word more to mean define or consider rather than become.
APPROACH: start to deal with (a situation or problem) in a certain way
Maybe you should understand that English is a more complex beast and that words frequently have multiple definitions?
I quote, “I don’t accept that atheism is limited to non-belief in creator deities.” In other words, it ALSO applies to non-creator deities. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote rather than what you’d like to think I was saying?
Catholics are weird but then they’re Christian so why wouldn’t they be?
Thanks, but I know exactly what an atheist is (and isn’t). That you wish I didn’t is neither here nor there.
Which would be nice had you actually demonstrated I was wrong, especially since, as said earlier, communism is not specifically atheist.
Theists frequently do claim exactly that and I was merely clarifying. The rest of your argument on this point is therefore a non sequitur
UK Atheist
Oh Fuck! Someone save me from this dishonest ******(
Well the assertion “God exists” is not a religious claim but a metaphysical one. I do not describe myself as a “religious person” in a similar way to Idris Elba’s recent statements that he does not describe himself as a “Black actor”, I refuse to enable you to stereotype me.
I believe that God exists, that the universe exists as a result of a will, an intent, a mind if you will, rather than a consequence of some laws and some prior state.
No definition of atheist that I’ve ever seen refers to “religion” but only to God, a belief or not, that there’s a God. Asking and insisting that take up some “religious position” is unrelated to discussing atheism.
That’s fine, I do not believe some claims presented to me. Any claims about reality must be rationally, systematically evaluated in some way and a decision made upon the basis of that evaluation.
I claim that God exists, that the universe we are all part of was created, not as some outcome of deterministic laws but of intent coupled with unfathomable power. I can and have presented the reasoning I use to justify my view, you are free to reject or not as you see fit.
It seems that many a naïve atheist rejects the claim that God exists on the basis of their distaste for certain religious practices and organizational structures. They seem to imply (IMHO) that there’s no evidence for a God but only evidence for perverse and destructive and persecutorial human social structures, they reason from that that to tolerate any possibility that there’s a God serves as a green light to all of the religious fanaticism. The think that a belief in God is the cause of religious evil.
But logically this is unsound, even if all these horrible systems were caused by God that cannot serve as evidence that there is no God.
I used to be an outspoken, very vocal atheist, I’ve crushed many a theist in the past in discussions about this and used my knowledge of science and mathematics and so on, as my main weapon, I know the territory well.
Please share with us all, the scientific research results that demonstrate that all babies do not have beliefs, of course you believe this but why?
Are you saying that the statement I made, that you are responding to with this quote, stereotypes you? Are you saying that the statement I made, that you are responding to with this quote speaks about religion?
Isn’t a belief in creator gods a claim about reality?
And did the god you claim exists create the universe?
Your god’s intent? Does this unfathomable power include omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
Maybe. Not sure what the quantity of many is, though. The same or greater number may think this AND be atheists ( instead of BECAUSE).