Does Atheism = No beliefs?

You omitted the part of proclaiming that the idea was wrong, you stopped short of active disbelief to maintain the position that it is simply a response to a claim.It is actually possible for atheism to be a claim. I don't know why you guys cannot admit that.It's kinda funny, though, that the arguments are now that atheism can only be a response to a claim, and without a claim there is nothing to respond to and therefore no atheism. Because before, the arguments were that everyone is an atheist by default (because it is simply a lack of belief) until they hear about the concept of god. But now, hearing about the concept of god is required before someone can reject it and therefore be an atheist. Weird.Anyways, atheism is a broad brush and there are different levels to it. There is no one thing that is atheism. There are three categories:1) lack of belief that god exists
2) rejection of claim that god exist
3) active belief that god does not existTo insist that atheism is really only just one of those things is incorrect. Church attendance is not required for belief, and the point I'm making is that if you are promoting the belief that god does not exist then you are still an atheist despite not simply responding to a claim. You are arguing for it having to be a response to a claim, I'm showing where you are wrong. Why does it have to be phrased that way? Wouldn't a person proclaiming the belief that gods cannot exist be an atheist? I put quotes around that to make it look like someone else was saying it, a hypothetical character. It was a response to your argument that a rejection of claims requires the claim to exist.You can make beliefs and claims that would include the rejection of a claim that has not been made yet. In the example I provided, any and all non-natural beings are rejected outright, so if you come and claim that, say, an Argulsneezer exists, then if it is a non-natural being then it has already been rejected before it was even claimed. Well no, I'm seeing things from all sides. You are the one insisting that there is only one way to view this thing. I'm saying that your way is one of the ways, but that there are others too.I'm not sure why you can't accept that there are other ways besides yours?Sure, atheism can be a rejection of a claim. It can also be a simple lack of belief. But, it too can be a claim in itself.There's no reason to deny any of those. Why are you insisting that it can only be the first one? Well, one way is to reject a broader category that the thing would be included in.For example, if I claim that flying mammals do not exist, then I've already rejected the existence of bats even if I've never heard of them. It isn't an explicit rejection, but it follows logically. Consider someone taking the position that:"I will disbelieve everything that you claim, no matter what it is."Then no matter what you posit, they will have already rejected it.But this is getting pretty pedantic, and straying from the point relating to atheism. You're insistence that atheism has to have a claim to reject is wrong for other reasons too:Under the definition of atheism being simply a lack of belief in gods, an infant is an atheist before it can even verbally understand claims on gods existence.

The problem with you is that you are really bad at telling what people are thinking based on what they have written.I actually think that unbelief is the default. Nope, wrong again.I know the difference between nonbelief and disbelief.

Nope, not at all.A simple lack of belief in god, a rejection of the claim of god existing, and the active disbelief in the existence of god are all three a type of athiesm.I'm not insisting that only one of those three is athiesm, you are. I think you meant to say that I was not accurate. What I said fits with the wikipedia definition.You are erroneously limiting atheism to a narrow sense than it is. I am trying to explain that it is broader than you are allowing for. No, I'm not. Knowledge wasn't any part of it. I disagree. I agree with wikipedia that in the narrowest sense, atheism is the active disbelief in gods. In a more broader sense, it is the rejection of the claim of gods existence. In the broadest sense, it is simply the lack of belief in a god. No, a simple lack of belief in a god is actually less detail than the rejection of a claim of god's existence. As I've said, with a broader proclamation that logically includes the more specific concept. The phrase "No flying mammals exist." logically denies the existence of bats even if the speakers has never heard of one. It was a conditional in the if-statement I made. I understand what you are saying, in that you cannot explicitly reject a concept that has not been posited. That is not the issue here in the slightest. We are arguing what the meaning of the word is and you are using too narrow of a definition.Shit, I gotta go.

I don't understand how that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

But you were the one who was completely wrong about what I was thinking. So it's your problem not mine.And apparently you can't even explain how you got there. So that's two problems.