Logical.

[nitsuJ]

the definition of logical: "reasonable; to be expected" so far on this website in every thread that's posted from a christian view all that an atheist ever says is basically "there's no logic to believe in god because there's no proof" now i know you're sitting there thinking "yes that's right" and i know i'm going to have athiests jumping all over my case about it, but if something is illogical just because there's no proof, or reason to believe, then let's think about this: there is no reason to believe he exists because there's no proof of it that's logical to think of, just because there's lack of proof. there is no reason to believe he doesn't exist because there's no proof of it that's also logical to think of, just because there's lack of proof. to be logical something has to be reasonable, and since there's no proof either way of his existance, the reason to say god doesn't exist is because nothing has proved he's real. the reason to say god does exist is because nothing has proved he's not real. both statements above are logical, by definition. _____________________________ now for another point, you tell the christian to substantiate the reason to believe that god exists, let's take a look at the word substantiate: "to establish by proof or competent evidence" now, you tell the person that claims that god exists that they need to substantiate it, but when you claim god doesn't exist then that turns around on you and you need to substantiate it. can you substantiate god's existance? no it's impossible. can you substantiate god's non-existance? no it's impossible. feel free to hate on it, flame me, whatever you see fit, but you should know that both things in this post are true by nature, and it's on neutral grounds, neither statement leads towards the religious side or the atheist side

[Ardent Lost]

Funny thing is i was about to make a similar thread to this. Then i came across another thread where this argument was already established so i thought i would voice myself in there, and now i find this thread which is even more focused on the subject. So i'll simply copy and paste my reply from the thread i was about to reply in. I will include the quote i was using to reply, i hope the original poster doesn't mind. I could be considered agnostic, for the record. It is not up to the sceptic to prove the believer to be wrong, for the burden of proof lies on the believer to substantiate his claims. This is a complete cop-out. The burden of proof lies with anybody making a claim. Many atheists seem to mistakenly think that they are in the same camp as agnostics/neutral territory. They are not. They seem to feel that lack of the presence of god in their belief somehow equals lack of necessary proof. Atheism is a belief. It is not simply a "lack of belief". Atheists have no right to that term. A lack of belief is something agnostics hold. Allow me to illustrate my point with a simple diagram: believers---------neutral/agnostic---------atheists A believer is not neutral, and is not agnostic. An agnostic is not a believer and is not and atheist. An atheist is not a believer and is not agnostic. An atheist is making a claim - "god/deities do not exist". Atheism is a belief, and a belief cannot be a negative. This is a logical impossibility. Therefore, atheism requires proof. And before somebody says it, evolution is not proof. Now you'll say "one cannot prove non-existence", but this is a backward argument given its context. The people at the other end of the spectrum are in a similar boat. They cannot prove extra-dimensional matter exists. It's impossible. This impossibility is the foundation of an atheists belief, and the result of the fact that we cannot prove extra-dimensional matter exists is that the concept of god is called into question. This is fair. However, why should a christian's beliefs be called into question because they can't prove something that is impossible to prove, but then an atheist's beliefs not be called into question under the same circumstances? It's a double standard. The reality is that an atheist's views are impossible to prove, and therefore their beliefs should be called into question. If something is impossible to prove, by the very foundations of an atheist's beliefs, continuing to believe in that something anyway is illogical and a fallacy.

[nitsuJ]

Funny thing is i was about to make a similar thread to this. Then i came across another thread where this argument was already established so i thought i would voice myself in there, and now i find this thread which is even more focused on the subject. So i'll simply copy and paste my reply from the thread i was about to reply in. I will include the quote i was using to reply, i hope the original poster doesn't mind. I could be considered agnostic, for the record. This is a complete cop-out. The burden of proof lies with anybody making a claim. Many atheists seem to mistakenly think that they are in the same camp as agnostics/neutral territory. They are not. They seem to feel that lack of the presence of god in their belief somehow equals lack of necessary proof. Atheism is a belief. It is not simply a "lack of belief". Atheists have no right to that term. A lack of belief is something agnostics hold. Allow me to illustrate my point with a simple diagram: believers---------neutral/agnostic---------atheists A believer is not neutral, and is not agnostic. An agnostic is not a believer and is not and atheist. An atheist is not a believer and is not agnostic. An atheist is making a claim - "god/deities do not exist". Atheism is a belief, and a belief cannot be a negative. This is a logical impossibility. Therefore, atheism requires proof. And before somebody says it, evolution is not proof. Now you'll say "one cannot prove non-existence", but this is a backward argument given its context. The people at the other end of the spectrum are in a similar boat. They cannot prove extra-dimensional matter exists. It's impossible. This impossibility is the foundation of an atheists belief, and the result of the fact that we cannot prove extra-dimensional matter exists is that the concept of god is called into question. This is fair. However, why should a christian's beliefs be called into question because they can't prove something that is impossible to prove, but then an atheist's beliefs not be called into question under the same circumstances? It's a double standard. The reality is that an atheist's views are impossible to prove, and therefore their beliefs should be called into question. If something is impossible to prove, by the very foundations of an atheist's beliefs, continuing to believe in that something anyway is illogical and a fallacy. THANK YOU! finally someone agrees, and yes it is like that, i'm a christian and i've been quite active in this section (my post count is all from the R/S threads except for 4 or 5 probably) of the forums and in every thread i've posted in i've been told since i claim god is real i need to prove it, but the atheist claims that he doesn't exist so it's not fair to say it's only up to the christian to prove it then i get the phrase that's something like- "it's illogical to believe in his existance because there's no proof", well it goes both ways "it's illogical to believe in his non-existance because there's no proof" i've been trying so hard to get this point across and no one seems to understand it, and to think i've been called dumb and everything else just because i'm trying to make this point. i've been saying the whole time there's no proof either way of his existance, i'm glad you came along, thank you again!

[really]

Thus, forget about proof. It is part with a limited, linear paradigm. Listen harder... Move inward...

[bcomp]

Ah ardent... totally agree. In a maxim, Agnostics lack belief in gods, while Atheists believe in the lack of gods. Unfortunately, most people confuse the two, though they're very different. To add to your argument, belief without evidence requires faith, so not only is Atheism a belief system, but a faith system. Ironically, Atheism is basically a non-theistic religion that worships (in a manner of speaking) the excellence of nature, the complexity of evolution, and the achievement of science. There's no harm in that though... I'm sure protective Atheists will misinterpret my use of the word "religion." Here I use it not to ascribe theistic fervor so much as philosophical direction; as a label for one's mindset, not one's deity preference. If that makes sense... I wish Atheists and Theists would stop arguing so much... maybe even work together. Philosophical/religious prejudice is so much more dangerous than racial or gender prejudice. We should all work together to fight it. [Edit:] I'm a Christian-Deist.

[nitsuJ]

to anyone who replies to this thread, post what belief you have, like- christian, hindu, buddhist, muslim, catholic, satanist, atheist, agnostic, etc. etc. i'm curious

[bluefinger]

This video deals with similar points brought up on here, such as Atheism being a faith (lol): Response to "Atheists have Faith, just like Theists" by the Atheist Experience: For some reasons, Youtube vids aren't working in Firefox, so try viewing it in IE if you really want to. EDIT: Linkies I can view vids now... had to reinstall flash player.

[nitsuJ]

post a link to it

[nitsuJ]

according to a definition of faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing being confident that there is no god would be considered faith, by nature

[Serkat]

according to a definition of faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing being confident that there is no god would be considered faith, by nature That's the wrong definition. Faith is belief without evidence. Also, only a small fraction of atheists say that it is impossible for god to exist. Actually, I've never met one. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) (a-theism). Everybody is born atheist. There can be no evidence for the non-existence of something. That is logically impossible. Hence, there can be no faith in atheism. Hence, this thread fails. Again and again. Even though the English language discerns between faith and belief (which the German language doesn't, so you can imagine the semantic confusion when debating religion), you guys still insist that having a belief system is equivalent to having faith in something. That is ignorant. Also notice that faith has multiple meanings as well, one of which you posted above. E.g. I could say "I have faith in science". That would merely mean that I trust in science as a system for the advancement of human knowledge. It doesn't have anything to do with religious faith.

[nitsuJ]

the definition of logical: "reasonable; to be expected" so far on this website in every thread that's posted from a christian view all that an atheist ever says is basically "there's no logic to believe in god because there's no proof" now i know you're sitting there thinking "yes that's right" and i know i'm going to have athiests jumping all over my case about it, but if something is illogical just because there's no proof, or reason to believe, then let's think about this: there is no reason to believe he exists because there's no proof of it that's logical to think of, just because there's lack of proof. there is no reason to believe he doesn't exist because there's no proof of it that's also logical to think of, just because there's lack of proof. to be logical something has to be reasonable, and since there's no proof either way of his existance, the reason to say god doesn't exist is because nothing has proved he's real. the reason to say god does exist is because nothing has proved he's not real. both statements above are logical, by definition. _____________________________ now for another point, you tell the christian to substantiate the reason to believe that god exists, let's take a look at the word substantiate: "to establish by proof or competent evidence" now, you tell the person that claims that god exists that they need to substantiate it, but when you claim god doesn't exist then that turns around on you and you need to substantiate it. can you substantiate god's existance? no it's impossible. can you substantiate god's non-existance? no it's impossible. feel free to hate on it, flame me, whatever you see fit, but you should know that both things in this post are true by nature, and it's on neutral grounds, neither statement leads towards the religious side or the atheist side that doesn't fail, it's the truth, as for atheism being a "belief of lack of gods" the definition according to dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. the definition according to wikipedia: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. the definition according to the official site of atheism: Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. oh yeah the official atheism site just went there. which one of you is wrong about your definition of atheism, you? or is the official website of atheism wrong? and wait wait wait, before you say atheists.org doesn't know what they're talking about, check out richard dawkins' website, he even has them in his atheist resources. looks like atheists believe in NO higher being not the lack of, so therefore you don't know the correct definition of it and neither did the guy in the video.

[nitsuJ]

Also notice that faith has multiple meanings as well, one of which you posted above. E.g. I could say "I have faith in science". That would merely mean that I trust in science as a system for the advancement of human knowledge. It doesn't have anything to do with religious faith. you said- "Faith is belief without evidence" therefore it'd also be fair for you to say "i have faith in god not existing" you believe he doesn't exist, but have no evidence to show he doesn't exist. that statement still falls into your definition of faith. it doesn't have anything to do with religious faith.

[bluefinger]

that doesn't fail, it's the truth, as for atheism being a "belief of lack of gods" the definition according to dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. the definition according to wikipedia: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. the definition according to the official site of atheism: Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. oh yeah the official atheism site just went there. which one of you is wrong about your definition of atheism, you? or is the official website of atheism wrong? and wait wait wait, before you say atheists.org doesn't know what they're talking about, check out richard dawkins' website, he even has them in his atheist resources. looks like atheists believe in NO higher being not the lack of, so therefore you don't know the correct definition of it and neither did the guy in the video. There is no official organisation or voice that dictates the beliefs of all atheists. People have their own definitions upon what their atheism entails, and to what degree they go. There's a lot of different 'strains' of atheism which really vary from individual to individual. Any organisation which tries to do so is effectively trying to herd cats. It just isn't going to happen. The problem with dictionaries, is that they only use popular definitions of words, definitions that are used on a day-to-day basis. In a way, on a day-to-day basis, one can say "I don't believe in a God" just to make their position clear, though in debate, that same person would define their position more clearly to something that fits in to his/her viewpoint. All in all, don't argue from semantics. I'll quote an article on Encyclopaedia Britannica on Atheism: Comprehensive definition of atheism Reflection on this should lead to a more adequate statement of what atheism is and indeed as well to what an agnostic or religious response to atheism should be. Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals. This atheism is a much more complex notion, as are its various reflective rejections. It is clear from what has been said about the concept of God in developed forms of Judeo-Christianity that the more crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God because the concept of God is said not to make sense—to be in some important way incoherent or unintelligible. Such a broader conception of atheism, of course, includes everyone who is an atheist in the narrower sense, but the converse does not obtain. Moreover, this conception of atheism does not have to say that religious claims are meaningless. The more typical and less paradoxical and tendentious claim is that utterances such as “There is an infinite, eternal creator of the universe” are incoherent and that the conception of God reflected in such a claim is unintelligible, and in that important sense the claim is inconceivable and incredible—incapable of being a rational object of belief for a philosophically and scientifically sophisticated person touched by modernity. It is this that is a central belief of many contemporary atheists. There are good empirical grounds for believing that there are no Zeus-like spiritual beings, and as this last, more ramified form of atheism avers, if there are sound grounds for believing that the nonanthropomorphic or at least radically less anthropomorphic conceptions of God are incoherent or unintelligible, the atheist has the strongest grounds for rejecting belief in God. Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do not succeed in making a coherent factual claim. The claims, in an important sense, do not make sense, and, while believers are under the illusion that there is something intelligible to be believed in, in reality there is not. These seemingly grand cosmological claims are in reality best understood as myths or ideological claims reflecting a confused understanding of their utterers’ situation. It is not a well-taken rejoinder to atheistic critiques to say, as have some contemporary Protestant theologians, that belief in God is the worst form of atheism and idolatry, since the language of Jewish and Christian belief, including such sentences as “God exists” and “God created the world,” is not to be taken literally but symbolically and metaphorically. Christianity, as Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian who defends such views, once put it, is “true myth.” The claims of religion are not, on such account, to be understood as metaphysical claims trying to convey extraordinary facts but as metaphorical and analogical claims that are not understandable in any other terms. But if something is a metaphor it must at least in principle be possible to say what it is a metaphor of. Thus metaphors cannot be understandable only in metaphorical terms. There can be no unparaphrasable metaphors or symbolic expressions though, what is something else again, a user of such expressions may not be capable on demand of supplying that paraphrase. Moreover, if the language of religion becomes simply the language of myth and religious beliefs are viewed simply as powerful and often humanly compelling myths, then they are conceptions that in reality have only an atheistic substance. The believer is making no cosmological claim that the atheist is not; it is just that his talk, including his unelucidated talk of “true myths,” is language that for many people has a more powerful emotive force.

[nitsuJ]

There is no official organisation or voice that dictates the beliefs of all atheists. People have their own definitions upon what their atheism entails, and to what degree they go. There's a lot of different 'strains' of atheism which really vary from individual to individual. Any organisation which tries to do so is effectively trying to herd cats. It just isn't going to happen. The problem with dictionaries, is that they only use popular definitions of words, definitions that are used on a day-to-day basis. In a way, on a day-to-day basis, one can say "I don't believe in a God" just to make their position clear, though in debate, that same person would define their position more clearly to something that fits in to his/her viewpoint. All in all, don't argue from semantics. I'll quote an article on Encyclopaedia Britannica on Atheism: who cares about encyclopedias? we have an official atheist organization throwing out the definition to the general public now. obviously there is an official atheist organization, you can't dodge that fact anymore, even the beloved atheist richard dawkins acknowledges that it's the official organization of atheism, and according to them atheism is "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own." there's no way to get around that one anymore, if you want to fight that there is no organization you better go tell that to richard dawkins and the members of that organization and argue that's not what an atheist is, because we all have to know you're smarter than someone who's dedicated most of their life to atheism.

[SmoothGroove]

I'm agnostic, or the "implicit definition of atheist" if wikipedia is anything to go by . The concept of God is illogical and can not be proven or disproven. Here's a nice discussion about it: http://www.christianforums.net/viewt...p?f=44&t=30080 (i'm not a christian so I dunno why I have that link ) Either way, that is reason why I am not religious. Particulary not a church-going christian. The Christian faith is based on the teachings of a book edited by a corrupt church, how do I discern what is the word of God and what is the word of the Church, and how do I know that the Bible's writer wasn't trying to add a new book to the fiction section when he wrote it? Why is LATIN considered the holiest language to perform a church service in, when latin bears no relevance to God, Jesus or the Bible? Furthermore, since the "word of God" was passed by word of mouth before being written down, how exaggerated were Jesus' actions? Some little children believe that George Washington could literally never tell a lie, all it takes is one generation to skew a story un-repairably. Regardless, we could replicate pretty much everything Jesus did back in ye olde day, it weren't so hot . I can rattle on for yonks, but ust little inconsistencies like that occur in all the major religions i've looked at, and they just peck away at me . I'm not a fan of the "Fuck religious people" atheists either though, I think people's beliefs should be respected, though I don't think it is unfair to question people about them if they are willing to answer.

[bluefinger]

who cares about encyclopedias? we have an official atheist organization throwing out the definition to the general public now. obviously there is an official atheist organization, you can't dodge that fact anymore, even the beloved atheist richard dawkins acknowledges that it's the official organization of atheism, and according to them atheism is "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own." Encyclopaedia Britannica is one of the most reliable encyclopaedias you can get, so I can use that as my reference pretty confidently. Also, official atheist organisation? Please... now you are beginning to sound like just another one of the many fundamentalists that pop in to the FSTDT forums I frequent to. People have their own ideas of what atheism is, and are pretty much free to express them, but it doesn't mean I have to subscribe to the exact definitions just because some organisation says so. That is not the point. "Lack of belief in deities" is what Atheism means if you dissect the word, and it is a position one takes on a single question, that of "Does God(s) exist?". Say anything other than yes, and you are an atheist. So what if there is an organisation though? There's also one in Austin, Texas called the ACA, though they act more like a community organisation and offers a sort of social meet up for like-minded people to come together. Perhaps all this American Atheists organisation wishes to do is promote a more positive image of Atheism and lend a bigger voice to Atheists and like-minded people. It still does not dictate what people HAVE to believe in order to qualify as an atheist. there's no way to get around that one anymore, if you want to fight that there is no organization you better go tell that to richard dawkins and the members of that organization and argue that's not what an atheist is, because we all have to know you're smarter than someone who's dedicated most of their life to atheism. lolwut? Sense, you are making none.

[nitsuJ]

Encyclopaedia Britannica is one of the most reliable encyclopaedias you can get, so I can use that as my reference pretty confidently. Also, official atheist organisation? Please... now you are beginning to sound like just another one of the many fundamentalists that pop in to the FSTDT forums I frequent to. People have their own ideas of what atheism is, and are pretty much free to express them, but it doesn't mean I have to subscribe to the exact definitions just because some organisation says so. That is not the point. "Lack of belief in deities" is what Atheism means if you dissect the word, and it is a position one takes on a single question, that of "Does God(s) exist?". Say anything other than yes, and you are an atheist. So what if there is an organisation though? There's also one in Austin, Texas called the ACA, though they act more like a community organisation and offers a sort of social meet up for like-minded people to come together. Perhaps all this American Atheists organisation wishes to do is promote a more positive image of Atheism and lend a bigger voice to Atheists and like-minded people. It still does not dictate what people HAVE to believe in order to qualify as an atheist. lolwut? Sense, you are making none. atheism is either "belief of lack of gods" or "no gods" and if it's the "lack of" then the entire people that follow the atheist organization and richard dawkins both don't know what they're talking about according to you. as for you telling me to dissect the word atheist, how's this tickle your fancy? In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". yeah i know about britannica, but now you have an atheist organization saying the definition of atheist means they believe in no god at all, all the while richard dawkins agrees with this, so for you to say that's not the definition of atheism you're basically stating, whether you want to admit it or not, the organization and dawkins both are pretty much dumb and don't know shit when it comes to atheism. and as for you not getting any sense out of me saying something about dedicating most of their life to atheism, richard dawkins has dedicated most of his life to the spreading of atheism.

[really]

That's the wrong definition. Faith is belief without evidence. Woops.. For those who ignore God, often ignore what faith means in its context. Many make the false assumption, by saying "god doesn't exist" therefore "faith means to believe in something which doesn't exist (or has no "evidence")". This is confusion. Everybody has faith in something, the only question is in what.

[nitsuJ]

i'll add another for you to bluefinger: In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. looks like the definition of atheism stands as there being a belief of no god at all.

[bluefinger]

i'll add another for you to bluefinger: In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. looks like the definition of atheism stands as there being a belief of no god at all. atheism is either "belief of lack of gods" or "no gods" and if it's the "lack of" then the entire people that follow the atheist organization and richard dawkins both don't know what they're talking about according to you. as for you telling me to dissect the word atheist, how's this tickle your fancy? In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". yeah i know about britannica, but now you have an atheist organization saying the definition of atheist means they believe in no god at all, all the while richard dawkins agrees with this, so for you to say that's not the definition of atheism you're basically stating, whether you want to admit it or not, the organization and dawkins both are pretty much dumb and don't know shit when it comes to atheism. and as for you not getting out sense out of me saying something about dedicating most of their life to atheism, richard dawkins has dedicated most of his life to the spreading of atheism. Blah blah blah blah... Right, let me boil this down into nice bitesize chunks for you: Atheos, godless, lack of or without God. You semantically word things to suit your needs. The origins are pretty clear. The organisation stated that Atheists hold a naturalistic viewpoint in general. I read through the site and can't see what you are going on about. Way to cherry-pick. No absolute dictations upon what an Atheist has to believe. Also, way to ignore my points and twist my words

[Serkat]

Stop throwing random definitions at us. Atheists are people who don't believe in god. THE END. looks like atheists believe in NO higher being not the lack of That's synonymous, now go play with your toys.

[nitsuJ]

lack means something is missing, the lack of a god means a god is missing, therefore it's godless, therefore atheists believe in no god. atheos means "godless, denying the gods, severing relations with the gods, ungodly." it is the root of the word atheism. as for me cherry picking on the website, look at that picture and tell me what's cherry picking about that definition? http://i36.tinypic.com/2lvl3me.gif

[bluefinger]

as for me cherry picking on the website, look at that picture and tell me what's cherry picking about that definition? http://i36.tinypic.com/2lvl3me.gif Because you ignore everything else on that page. Simple.

[Serkat]

lack means something is missing, the lack of a god means a god is missing, therefore it's godless, therefore atheists believe in no god. atheos means "godless, denying the gods, severing relations with the gods, ungodly." it is the root of the word atheism. LACK OF BELIEF. ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. THE END. as for me cherry picking on the website, look at that picture and tell me what's cherry picking about that definition? http://i36.tinypic.com/2lvl3me.gif That definition is bullshit. I know this might be news to you but there are some people out there who can think for themselves without having to follow some organization to do that for them.

[nitsuJ]

LACK OF BELIEF. ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. THE END. That definition is bullshit. I know this might be news to you but there are some people out there who can think for themselves without having to follow some organization to do that for them. ok you're not making any sense, you sit here and say atheists don't believe in god, then you say that Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. isn't a definition of atheism? that whole entire paragraph says there's no god, how is that definition bullshit?