
Atheism is not just another religion. It's more of a 'refusal-of-belief' system - or, at most, a 'tries-to-believe-only-that-for-which-there's-evidence' system.
Occam's razor, an' all that.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:22,
archived)
Occam's razor, an' all that.

It's the belief that there is no god.
Otherwise, one is an agnostic.
(Or believes there is a god, obviously).
All religions are based on belief.
Well - that and strong social control mechanisms.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:23,
archived)
Otherwise, one is an agnostic.
(Or believes there is a god, obviously).
All religions are based on belief.
Well - that and strong social control mechanisms.

in which case,if you are,just stay the fuck away from reality.you talk too much sense.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:24,
archived)

Nope. You're conflating a positive belief ("the world is thus-and-so") with a negative belief ("the world is not thus-and-so"). Atheism, qua atheism, is a negative belief.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:26,
archived)

does not make it an even, 50-50 likelihood one way or the other.
I think most atheists would accept that no-one can ever know for sure, but base their position on an overwhelming lack of evidence for God's existence, rather than any dogmatic belief system.
I don't refuse to believe in God, I just haven't been given a convincing reason to do so.
Whether or not you consider this position to be truly atheist or not is more an argument of semantics, rather than theology.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:38,
archived)
I think most atheists would accept that no-one can ever know for sure, but base their position on an overwhelming lack of evidence for God's existence, rather than any dogmatic belief system.
I don't refuse to believe in God, I just haven't been given a convincing reason to do so.
Whether or not you consider this position to be truly atheist or not is more an argument of semantics, rather than theology.