The definition of atheism

For me no belief necessary - I am convinced there are no gods.Belief to me suggests a possibility of doubt, change or vacillation. Beliefs are faith based. Not one scintilla of doubt. That is not faith based but a rational interpretation of the available evidence. Therefore I am convinced that there are no gods.Semantics with reference to the definition of atheism are irrelevant, there are as many 'definitions' of atheism as people who say they are atheist. Just as believers in cults each have their own interpretation of that cult and it's meaning to them. We do not have to invent a new word for each person.

I couldn't possibly comment as to the 'fundy' you refer to. As for me, yes I am convinced that there are no gods. I prefer to consider myself as a 'rigourous atheist' or a 'radical atheist'.I was born without beliefs and only accumulated and discarded them through life. Belief that if I cried my mother would come to me and give me attention or food. Belief that my mother and father were infallible (leading to believing my dad was in the England World Cup winning squad of 1966. Quite embarrasing at school when I repeated that.) Belief that Bolton Wanderers would stay in the top division (c.1978, again quite embarassing). Beliefs in Santa, tooth fairies, easter bunnies and hobbits all followed. Each belief was either reinforced or disabused with experience and/or knowledge. My parents favoured no religion (soft-atheist jewish father and agnostic mother) and left it up to me. That is, let me have my own beliefs. Over time the beliefs that I have accumulated and not discarded have hardened into convictions. I do not believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning (this morning now), I am convinced. No doctrine, tenet required. No dogma, no supernatural and certainly no god required. It will happen. Based on experience and on scientific evidence. Does this make me a fundamentalist SUN-RISE-IN-THE-EAST-ist?Tomorrow a report appears in the paper that Nasa or The European Space agency has evidence that the sun is about to explode. Over the next few days the evidence is looked at (by many interested people including me) and found to be compelling. The evidence is tested and challenged, and results repeated. I will then change my conviction. That does not make my original conviction shaky or dogmatic. The original conviction was correct based on the evidence and experience. I will not stand by my original conviction as the conviction was born out of experience and knowledge, not a tenet or pre-determined belief.The reason for the long delay in posting a reply is this, I started reading the discussion as sign-posted by RAZD. What to say about that! Logic-chopping, word-play and semantics. I have lurked on this site for 3/4 months and only just started posting and I already have doubts about bothering to post on pseudo-philosophical threads. Bickering about definitions is surely getting in the way of any practical discussion.I have rewritten, deleted, revised and almost given up on this the more I read the aforementioned thread. Statements given as fact, refuted without evidence and the continual repeating of fallacies do not an arguement make. I am disregarding the fundamentalism claim as misdirection and, if your reference to 'fundy' is anything to go by, insulting.For my sake and the poor hamster next to me, who is now probably mad with nicotine poisoning I will state my position and end this post.In court the guilty verdict is given if convinced 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. You may believe them guilty (and you may be right), but that does not matter. You must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. That defines my conviction not belief. That does not mean an appeal is not possible if new evidence comes to light.PS thank you for the kind comment re the POTM, came as quite a shock. (not your comment but the POTM)

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

Cheers MickI spent a long time posting the reply because it occurred to me that philosophical discussion is not really suited to a forum such as this. Refutation of arguments, evidence and discussion are fine with regards to discussing and rebutting facts, whilst ideas, and personal ones at that, lose much in the translation. I would add that I really do not have a problem with people calling me anything, be it wishy-washy liberal or fundamentalist atheist, but please, please admit to me the common-sense to appreciate that the evidence available is sovereign.ps the comment by Catholic Scientist does have subtle differences between the two definitions (for me). I would say they refer to the soft and hard atheist positions. Again as I said before, belief could indicate a vacillation (ie in the present circumstances I could change my mind), whereas the without belief would refer to a conviction (ie in the current circumstances I will not change my mind). It is all semantics at the end of the day, and gets in the way of an actual discussion.pps the 'Bobbins Dictionary' is out next week

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

The first part of your statement makes littles sense to me. I started from a point of no belief whatsoever. Surely evidence is required to create a/any belief. I was not born a theist and no evidence (including religious texts of dubious written origins, and pseudo-scientific placating of dogma) has convinced me to change. If I, as a child, had been bombarded with the koran,bible,torah (insert religious text here), I may have to then have proof of non-existance of (insert god here). I did not. I am a clean page, convince me.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!