OJ Simpson goes to Jail

My point is about what defines atheism. Atheism is not a 'thing', it is -for lack of a better phrase- a 'non-thing'.

Omaha, who's feathers were clearly ruffled, mentioned he does not 'mess with me' for being an atheist. This shows a common theistical misconception of what atheism really is. It's not a lifestyle, it's not a religion, and it's certainly not a fundamental, faith-based attitude. It is simply a non-belief, perhaps a 99.99[ad infinitum]% rejection of the mind-bogglingly unbelievable and illogical. As I said, I would love to see him 'mess with me' for being an atheist. I really would.

It's safe to say that to be a nihilist one would have to be an atheist. But that's not to say that atheism teaches nihilism, nor does it teach anything. Though, IMO, it does pave the way for freedom of interpretation, in many walks of life. I wouldn't call myself a nihilist as I have far too much faith in people.

Agnosticism, within a religious context, is someone who believes that the likelihood of God's existence is directly in the centre of either being true or false. Which, to me, is as misguided as those who firmly believe in God's existence. If something cannot be proved or disproved, it does not mean chance plays no role in the equation. Which also means atheism is not necessarily a firm belief in the answer being false. It seems if you were to look at what we currently know about the universe, particularly when it comes to evolution, God's existence is a very unlikely thing indeed. But that is still not proof of his non-existence. (And it is that last sentence that theists tend to latch onto in solidifying their already rock-hard faith.)

Agnosticism in life? I guess that's another matter. Perhaps I am too?

Steven, an observer could say that you make the same arguments, react to others', debate, counter-debate sometimes with irony, like any support of any religion would do in such a debate in order to support his views and would ask how is this any different, how the "non-thing" is any different than the "thing"?

Demetris, an observer could say you continue to misunderstand what I say.

The 'non-thing' is very different to the 'thing'. "Atheism" (that dreaded word) is very different to religion simply because it is not a religion. It is not anything but a DISBELIEF. Is that a particularly hard concept to understand I wonder?

...and of course I make the same arguments (at a fundamental level at least). Why would I change them? I've had no reason to. Just the same you wouldn't change yours!

Well in that sense, yes, I suppose atheism is a belief. A belief that God doesn't exist. But it's based on reason rather than faith. I haven't read an atheist bible telling me that no god exists.

Then again, is belief the right word? Belief is usually married to the word faith in a religious context. As I've said, the belief that God doesn't exist is perhaps more of an informed assumption.

Faith is indeed based on what the Bible has to teach. Indeed religious beliefs are an informed assumption from those teachings. But no one of religious faith would ever admit to having their faith classed as an assumption, not least in my experience.

The 'faithful' simply know what they believe to be true despite evidence against many of their core beliefs. I, on the other hand, assume they are not true based on other information. The information I have used to come to this assumption also requires faith. And, as I previously stated, that is where my faith in people lies. I trust the scientific peer-to-peer system, and like any good scientific mind I also don't take what any scientist says as the Gospel.

Religious faith is very different to faith in your everyday life.

I think I should specify something. Like Michael said, religious people and their faiths come in all shapes and sizes from the extremely moderate to the horribly fundamental. I tend to argue my points against the latter of these individuals.

No, but plenty to do with OJ (the juice)

If there was one, you'd actually rave about it like any other religion does about their holly books.

Everyone is an atheist when you think about it. One faith rejects all others. The reason you're not a Mormon is pretty much the reason I am not a Christian, or any other religion for that matter.

My 'atheism' is exactly the same as you not believing in vampires and werewolves. (Who knows, perhaps you do?) And once we reach a certain age we all become Father Christmas atheists! So, technically, you're an atheist too. (And I emphasise the word technically. Take solace in the fact that I don't consider you an atheist. )

Unfortunately you seem to have a negative reaction to the word and have adopted an all too common misinterpretation of what it really means. Either that or you're unwilling to admit to someone like me "atheism" really isn't all that bad.

Exactly, a theos - without god. So excluding, say, Shiva or Apollo if you believe in Allah or God isn't being atheist. BTW. Allah and Christian/Jewish God are the same person basically and not only because of the Semitic similarity of the terms (arabic Allah is VERY similar to Hebrew El/Elohim), but also because the biggest book in Quran is basically an analysis of both Testaments.

What you say makes you actually an agnostic - literally the person who doesn't know (that is, it can't be decided if God exists or not, because we have no proof for that). Also you chose the other result of the Pascal bet.