Does Atheism = No beliefs?

I did not in any way say or imply this. It is a simple fact that every biologist would infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it. Please, before you respond to me in future, have a better think about my argument, and ensure that you really are responding to me and not to stuff you've made up in your head. Which is why I never in any way said nor implied that that was the case. Note, for example, how my post did not contain the words "church", "priest", "faith" or any of their synonyms.Please try to respond to my posts and not the imaginary people in your head. You appear to be pretending that I got my opinions on theology from Dawkins.Why? This fantasy might bring you some measure of emotional comfort, but it also makes you look like someone who indulges in self-serving fantasies.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It means that it is possible for biologists to infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it.It means that because that is what it says.It does not mean anything about microscopes, because it does not in any way refer to microscopes.Is that simple enough for you to understand? Only I am really not sure that it is possible to make it any simpler.

And I never said otherwise. Your comment is irrelevant to my post. I keep using it for this thing we call "thinking". Apparently you just use yours to pad out your skull. The silliness will not be reduced by my going away.

I too am becoming persuaded that you know nothing. But I don't believe that you've let go of your ego. Many and countless eh? I guess that's why you can't name any. You have not as yet described your deity to us. However, I'm sure if you do it will be as worthy of mockery as all your other delusions. This is, of course, not true. My disgust at religious lunatics who fly planes into buildings is not a revolt against Allah; my disgust at religious lunatics who practice suttee is not a revolt against Shiva; and my disgust at religious lunatics who spew out filthy nonsense on internet forums is not a revolt against whatever dreary little deity you've made in your image.You must remember, he only exists in your imagination, not mine. Interesting. So, according to you, when you joined this forum screaming and frothing with hateful and hysterical delusions about atheists, you suspected that you might be one?If I didn't know that you were lying, I'd think that you were insane. Of course, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.---P.S: It's spelled "atheists". The next time you can't control the urge to spit out rancid poisonous lies at people who've done you no harm, you could look slightly less ludicrous if you were to bear this in mind.

I think that depends on the nature of the non-belief. I have argued elsewhere that if one's only reservation about it is the difficulty of proving a negative, then that is disbelief, and one is then an atheist and not an agnostic. But there are other forms of non-belief. If I toss a coin, catch it, and then put it in my pocket without looking at it, then I have no belief that it came down tails, but that doesn't mean I think it didn't, and I am perfectly agnostic with respect to that proposition.

But "I'm not sure whether there is a god or not" does make sense, just like "I'm not sure whether it was tails or heads".

And if someone says "I don't know whether there's a god or not", we know that what they actually mean is that they don't know whether there's a god or not.

If they admit that they don't know whether there's a god or not, then presumably they don't believe there is one and they don't believe there isn't.Just as someone who admits he doesn't know how the coin came down doesn't believe that it was heads and doesn't believe that it was tails.

That's as near to knowing something as it's possible to get. Unless you want "know" to mean "have knowledge so absolute that it could never be controverted by any conceivable data", then seeing no evidence of a thing that's meant to be everywhere is pretty good grounds for saying you know it doesn't exist. That does make you an atheist. But what about someone who thought there was evidence for and evidence against? --- someone who felt the argument from design was balanced by the argument from evil? What then?

... Buddhism?

To start with, I'd call it not a belief system. That on its own doesn't make a system of thought any more than a disbelief in leprechauns does.

I have infinite reserves of accuracy. ... ? Callit what then? Huh?

I don't go around telling people that leprechauns don't exist. Nonetheless, I would never have explicitly come to the conclusion that they don't unless someone else had first invented the concept of leprechauns.