@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

"Frank and I are just RESISTING an attempt to artificially reduce atheism to "soft atheism", ie an absence of belief. We are saying that "hard Atheism" also exists (it was covered by the definition provides by Thomas) and is much more assertive than that."

We all know that already. We don't need education on it. (ok, or many of us have heard of the stalwart writers on the subject).

"My personal atheism is certainly not well defined by a mere absence of belief."
fine with me and probably others. Don't lecture me that hard atheiem exists.

"I suspect that definitions are an area where some posters feel 'safe', and that's why they constantly revert to it in an attempt to avoid less safe subjects."
This is annoying.

What exactly are you pumping for us all being angry at?
I'm angry at plenty, but that's not part of athiesm.

Just wondering why that particular semantic issue gets discussed so often on these threads... Often it's invoked to argue that some other discussion about Atheism is illegitimate, because you know, "Atheism is nothing".

I believe in Atheos... the No God of non existence. And, I believe that everyone who doesn't believe in No God is going to die.

Does believing in Atheos, the deity of people who don't believe in deities, make me an Atheist?

I also believe that the thousands of passionate words spent on who is or isn't an atheist is rather funny. And, for that matter, I believe that all people who don't collect stamps are non-stamp-collectors whether or not they make a hobby of it (are there any other hard non-stamp collectors?).

I've some clues why people read us, scary fascination, god help them.

I see my spelling deteriorated.

I don't know about all that, that atheism is nothing, often told..

I'd be interested.

Only the individual poster can know for certain if they are atheist or otherwise. I do not presume to have that kind of information. I get annoyed only when others try to define my take for me or push their belief on me to change what I know about myself. Dictionary definitions are in general correct for most situations.

People play fast and loose with definitions, even when they are not individually directed. They look around to find a definition which will support their thesis. I am bemused that biggest loud-mouth in this thread is not an atheist--perhaps this member's reading comprehension is such that the title and the OP did not sink in.

Yoiks. And on that note.......

Thank you. In return, after reviewing your links, I grant you that different dictionaries disagree with one another about the meaning of words like atheist and atheism.

Indeed, Webster's dictionary appears to disagree with itself: On one hand, an atheist is "a person who believes that god does not exist". On the other hand, atheism is is either "1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness", or "2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity" or "2b : the doctrine that there is no deity" where disbelief is "a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real". It seems the dictionaries are just as confused about the issue as we are.

Yep. That was all I was a-sayin'. To say that it's absolutely, definitely not an ideology is to speak for many, many other people, and that's not usually very accurate or very wise, in my experience.

I've an old imac and hearing difficulties, so I'll just suppose what she might have said...
and can only agree.

Did I not imply that before? I suppose I did that only in my mind.

Snort, sorry re that post.

I want to go on record as noting that the biggest loud mouth in this thread....and in most threads...identifies himself as an atheist.

You are incorrect.

You're kidding.

Okay...I'll accept you can feel that way, Ossobuco.

I will reword my comment:

I want to go on record as saying that the guy I consider the biggest loud mouth in this thread....and in the forum in general...identifies himself as an atheist.

eh?

You said I was incorrect...and I accepted that I was.

So I corrected myself.