That's how I see it too. As far as I'm concerned, gods are imaginary. That doesn't preclude the existence of something vaguely similar in concept, but to call such a thing God would be inaccurate.
Printable View
Merriam-Webster Definition of Atheism
Belief or disbelief without proof requires faith IMO.Quote:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
lol No.
Belief in something despite evidence requires faith.
Non-belief in something without any reason to believe requires nothing.
Merriam-Webster Definition of Faith
Not just belief in something despite evidence.Quote:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Exactly!
So if you have a firm belief that there isn't a "god" or higher power you wouldn't call that faith?
no, at some point it still requires faith. You have faith that there is not more information past what you've already have perceived in coming to your conclusion. And you have faith in yourself that you are not wrong or made mistake in your judgment.
EDIT: you're naive to think that you have no reason to believe. There is enough information out there to at least make you pause and think. The fact that a handful of religions have crafted our world is enough to make one question "is there something to this?"
Ugh, this stupid debate drives me almost as nuts as dumb Christians, especially since everybody I know IRL already knows the difference. Atheism doesn't come from sticking a- on the front of theism, it comes from sticking -ism on the end of atheos ("no god"). So yes, it means an assertive believe that there is nothing beyond the physical, not just passive non-belief.