Does Atheism = No beliefs?

The only thing required for being an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Everything else is wholly independent of that. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I'm pretty sure no intellect is trapped because of atheism. Some of the greatest thinkers were atheists.

Fairies, leprechauns, trolls, sprites, vampires, succubi and so on. None of these are gods.

Nope. Let me introduce you to Ralism, a group of people who believe aliens are responsible for the development of life on earth. They're also atheists.

But that's not how the term is used. An atheists is a person who lacks a belief in god. That's it. Some are "more" atheist then others, and say there are no gods, or that gods are impossible. But that's it really, nothing in there about supernatural powers or beings, or even ID (Raelism coiuld be considered some form of ID). James Randi. Since it's not the case, I guess they are. Are you agnostic about The Dread Cthulhu? Thor? The great big Arkleseizure? Are you really? Myabe because it is wrong?Edited by Huntard, : typo

Depends on what the claim is. If the claim is "I can move objects with my mind!", I suspect he'll put the person in a room with objects the person says he can move, and then see if they can indeed move the object without touching it/blowing against it, or something or other. Then I'd suspect a study for the brainwave patterns would be conducted. But nobody has ever gotten past the first test, as far as I know. ID is not about a supreme being, or so we are told. I'd have to see the design proces in action, that would convince me. I am told however by IDists that that is impossible. It all depends on the claim that is being made. If someone claims "This is designed!", I ask them for evidence of the design process. I'll go there once it gets promoted.Kind regards,
Huntard

Let me try something here and see how it goes.What evidence would you require to believe in Snarklepom?No, this is not a trap, please try and answer the question, I promise it's not to make fun of you, it's to make a rather basic point I hope will get across.

The word most certainly does, and that's about as far as Snarklepom goes. Almost what I had in mind, but very close indeed. It's not the purpose that is of concern here (which was to make a point). Of concern here is that Snarklepom has not been defined at all. So if you ask me, what evidence would you need for god, my first response would be: "What is god?".There are some rather nice videos on the subject I think would help clarify this all a bit, here they are:
Linky
Linky True, but what is an intelligent designer, other then the fact that it is intelligent and designs things.Does this make the dilemma concerning your questions clear?

Ok, so what is the intelligent designer? If he's unevidenced in any way, why should I even believe he exists. We're not the ones trying to replace evolution (a biological science) with ID here. If that's not the field that ID is about, leave it alone. They make this claim because it is true. I haven't seen any evidence either. I already told you what I'd require as evidence for the claim "This is designed", that's seeing the design process, not simply asserting thi is the case. If you're asking me what I want as evidence for an intelligent designer, then first ask you: "What is an intelligent designer. Of you're answer to that is "we can't know", then we're done, there is no evidence for a designer, and therefore, I see no reason to believe it exists. I gave you my view on things, care to comment on them? But that is not what we are saying at all, is it? I gave you what I need as evidence for the calim "this is designed", and I'll wager a guess that evidence would convince Dawkins and the others as well. I wasn't arguing for the existence of Snarklepom, I was trying to show you why saying "there is an intelligent designer" is a flawed claim. You haven't defined what an intelligent designer is other than intelligent and designing things. I could say the function of Snarklepom is to illustrate this point. Now he has a purpose, now what? It's funtion is to make the point that undefined things cannot be proven. But those aren't primary attributes of god. Tell me, what is god?

Of course I have. The fact that you don't answer these questions does not mean I should somehow know the answers to them. I haven't had anyone define me what god is. I have looked high and low, but I have not received an answer on that question from anyone. I'll have you know I went to a catholic school, where we were taught the ctholic religion. Even back then, this question as never answered (granted, I never aske it, but looking back on the period, I can't esteem an answer from then either). That's what the current system does. I am objective, at lesat I think I am, I want evidence before I start believing in something, so far,I have seen no evidence for an intelligent designer, nor for god. Should we teach them the earth is flat as well\/ THat fairies exists, that uniorns do? Where does it end? Should any belief be taught, to let all the children "decide for themselves"? That's what the current system already does. And you know I haven't because? Also, don't shift the burden of proof here, I don't claim god exists or that he doesn't exist, I want to see evidence for him, but before I know what evidence I'd need to see, I'd need to know what god is. Since nobody seems to know, there can never be pointed to any evidence and said: "There you go, evidence for god!". I don't agree with everything Dawkins says about it. He should keep his trap shut more often, is what I think about him.

He can assert that all he wants. Fact is he can't show that there is anything more then the observable. And as long as something is not observable, we can't know anything about it, so we can't say anything about it with certainty either. Making teaching it completely useless.Or, if he has found a method to actually know something about the unobservable, I'd like to hear it.

That's where I began as well. I looked for evidence for god, and didn't find any. I therefore don't believe he exists. Just like I don't believe Snarklepom exists. I paint no picture of god whatsoever. I ask you for evidence of god. As long as that isn't provided, I don't believe he exists. It's really that simple. I revolt against religion for the atrocities it commits. I can't revolt against something I don't believe exists. Probably none. The bible is bigger then just those two things though. Plenty of atrocities to take from that (note, this is a revolt against the bible, not against god). Somehow I doubt that. That's what I'm doing. Got any evidence? Absolutely. Now, where is this evidence again?