[imiric]

> your extreme atheists aren't much different from your extreme believers; they both have strong beliefs about things they can't prove, and for some reason want to go off on them.

You have a mistaken understanding of what atheism is. It is not a belief in anything, but an absence of belief in a deity.

> there are a whole lot of things that we all go around everyday "not believing."

Sure, and yet theism is part of 75% of the world population and influences everything from education to politics. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about atheism within appropriate settings.

[amanaplanacanal]

The word seems to be used both ways, despite what anyone might like: either as a person who doesn't believe in a god, or as a person who believes there is no god. It's a subtle difference.

[gumgumpost]

>You have a mistaken understanding of what atheism is. It is not a belief in anything, but an absence of belief in a deity.

I consider that to also be a wrongly held position, because you'd need proof either way. So atheists are just making a bet. I think agnostic is the most valid position as far as I am concerned, lacking proof of one or the other. I do not know. We can get into technicalities as well. What exactly do we mean by God? What if some religious God does exist but it's wrongly interpreted by believers? What if there's some highly technologically advanced entity that meets the criteria as far as the more primitive religious perspective is concerned? Do we have proof such thing exists? Do we have proof such entity cannot exist in our universe? I find both perspectives shortsighted.

Having certainty something that can be perceived as God by believers cannot exist in our universe is in the end a belief, with no proof.

[imiric]

> I consider that to also be a wrongly held position, because you'd need proof either way.

Proof that something doesn't exist? Ever heard of Russel's teapot?

The burden of proof is on the claimer.

> What exactly do we mean by God?

Absurd question. Pick up any holy book, or ask any believer. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't hold those beliefs.

A famous Dawkins quote is apt in this discussion:

> We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

> Having certainty something that can be perceived as God by believers cannot exist in our universe is in the end a belief, with no proof.

Again, you're mistaking what atheism is. It's not being certain that a deity cannot exist—it's not having any reason to think that it does.

People who claim certainty in either direction are equally delusional. The problem is when a belief crosses into realms of reality, defines the identity and culture of people, and influences the rest of society. Based on history and personal experience, theists are far more prone to this than atheists.

[novemp]

Are you agnostic about unicorns?

[jrm4]

Again, I'm more talking about "atheism in effect" than I am "textbook definition."

I'd say, sure, it's reasonable to discuss, but it's often overblown. The older I get, the less significance "atheism" feels like it has just about anywhere.

No shade to anyone, but I have very little interest in "internal beliefs that seem not to affect people much," which atheism seems to fall square into.

[nwhnwh]

"but an absence of belief in a deity" nope.

[HDBaseT]

What is atheism then in your view?

[nwhnwh]

Fear combined with mental disorder.