If that is what atheism is, then I would have to be an atheist. But I don't think I am. What really is being argued is a certain philosophical wankery involving our different perceptions of the concepts of faith and belief.

Like I said, I think lack of faith is faith, and disbelief is belief, a lack of statement is a statement in itself and all that crap.

but doesn't atheism involve being certain of the fact that there is no God?
I'm really just asking questions, i don't see the need to get so heated.

just relax a bit.

Em, please read what i asked before posting that. I kinda asked a reasonable question, bullshit though that is to the likes of you. Why the shit have i got involved in a religion discussion on the internet? I thought id learnt my lesson with the help of real life

Base atheism is arm-chair scientism.

As long as you don't demonstrate the vacuity of my argument, you are committing sophistry. Keep that in mind.

To make it clear, I don't really misunderstand it. I'm just questioning certain concepts. It's what I do to keep healthy.

No, it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Some people may be certain in their minds that there is no god and they may call themselves atheists, but that doesn't mean anything - it doesn't change the definition of atheism.

Now you are becoming meaningless.

In other words, if how people use a term has no relevance to what it means while we also can't have personal definitions, then language is neither esoteric nor public. Language is meaningless. Considering that you just understood what I've written, pookie is wrong somewhere.

Ok, that is much better.

Now, the other question I'd like to ask is why do people feel the need to define themselves as something?

And another thing, in a different world in which organized religion didn't play such a significant role, would atheism still exist?

do you think it's possible to not believe or disbelieve anything? in that case, what would you call yourself?

do you think it's humanly possible to not have some sort of spirituality of any kind?

Ive already outlined my position earlier in this thread. So if you are struggling i refer you to that. But with that in mind and assumed as common knowledge to this thread by now, you are either the most base level of smart arse or a simpleton on the level of a chimp (unevolved) pissing into its own mouth
Happy Christmas

again, Atheism isnt a definition, its the rejection of a definition. You cant have atheism without theism

Goodnight knox. It's 2:45am and I really need to go to bed.

is it really? so if i don't believe in any Gods am I automatically an atheist? Can I not reject that?

Re-asserting an assertion is not demonstrating an assertion.

Unreasonable as fuck.

You can choose to reject the definition in the same way you can choose to reject the definition of "girl", but it doesn't make it any less so.

Could you link me? My *which ever ad hominem you choose* is interfering with giving a fuck.

Does the definition of atheist apply to those who do not believe nor disbelieve in those Gods?

Pookie folds.

to think my participation in this discussion started by defending an atheist who was getting a jesus poke.

I cant help you with not giving a fuck, thats beyond my powers

If you accept the definition and accept that reasonable atheists accept that god or gods may exist then the definition is good.

You could call yourself an agnostic, but it pretty much means the same thing to me as atheism. You still lack belief.