Do all Atheist concur on the notion of Explicit Atheism as a rejection of the notion of deities?

Question

If so are there any other notions of atheism that you all agree on?

I am just trying to understand what is consitantly held by Atheists.

This is a follow up to my last question.

Please no more long cut and Pastes. just sources please. I can go and read. Thanks.

Answer 1

Of course, the one constant of atheism is the absense of theistic belief. However, every persons opinion will differ to a point with personal philosophy, but this goes away from anything to do with atheism vs. theism. Remember, atheism is not a way of living, it is purely a stance on one aspect of life. If I ask what one constant is between theist, the answer would simply be the belief in a god or gods. However, each person would have a different belief of what god is, how god is, what god wants, and many other questions. The constant of atheism comes down to the simple negation of theism, but the reasons and personal beliefs of the individual atheists are not simple.

Answer 2

Yes, I concur that the only thing atheism implies is lack of belief in God(s). When someone identifies as an atheists the only safe assumption you can make of them is they don't believe in deities.

As someone indicated above there are weak and strong atheists who might prefer to specify that. I know atheists of widely differing views on politics (I've met atheists who were republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, and socialist), life philosophy, etc... There are different subsets of atheists. Some choose to be humanists, Buddhists (although Buddhism is not necessarily an atheistic religion), Toaists or other non supernatural requiring life philosophy. Some follow no personal creedo beyond a golden rule. Some are the immoral sorts that some theists characterize them as, although most that I have met are not. They just differ from theists on how they derive their morality and in some areas on what to them constitutes moral versus immoral.

Answer 3

Yes, I concur. As an atheist, I do not believe that any deities exist.

There are some schools of thought that separate atheism into "weak atheist" and "strong atheist". A weak atheist is one who says, "I don't believe in gods" which insinuates that there ARE gods, just that he doesn't believe. A strong atheist is one who says, "I do not believe there are any gods" so there are no gods in which to believe.

The fact that this schism exists explains why atheists have a hard time organizing in any fashion. They're so busy arguing about if there are gods in which to not believe or if there are no gods at all.

It's like trying to organize all the factions of liberal beliefs into one cohesive party line. It just can't happen.

So... the religious and the conservatives will always win because they are more willing to concede little points here and there in order to organize. The more intelligent liberals and non-believers are so busy arguing because they're too smart to concede anything. LOL!

Answer 4

now and again exaggerated responses to a religious standpoint can enlarge the failings and help validate non-religious viewpoints. most of the time, in spite of the undeniable fact that, i'm appalled on the way some atheists pass about showing the fallacies of religion (an identical is going for the habit of a few theists who attempt to press their faith on human beings). certainly, if an atheist mocks a faith, she or he has a tendency to do it to the bright, which causes more effective harm than sturdy. Seeing this habit so typically does make me imagine that it really is hurting the persuasive potential that ration and reason could have. The persuasive potential exaggeration could have is destroyed by potential of the quite rude mockery that the variety of habit you (the Questioner) reported frequently makes use of in argument. It makes human beings a lot less likely to understand and truly evaluate atheist's arguments even as they see them presented so horribly. It also does quite help some religious communities in rallying their supporters--human beings antagonistic to a uncomplicated reason always seize up with mutually. yet even then, it has a tendency to be smaller, more effective fringe religious communities that adventure any potential from this, because they're those who also have a tendency to capitalize on hatred of yet another crew. regrettably, the stereotype of atheists as being rude, harsh and mean is perpetuated by potential of this variety of mocking and typically irrational habit. I see all of it the time, and after I aspect out i'm an atheist, I typically ought to practice that i'm no longer a rude, mocking, completely illiberal individual previously human beings settle for that no longer all atheists are so.

Answer 5

It's unlikely that you will ever get 100% of ANY group of humans to concur on anything.

My definition of atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural beings.

Answer 6

You don't need to read anything into the fact that some people do not believe in God. We don't have any notions.. We are free of all that 'big brother' stuff.

Answer 7

Atheists are for the most part free minds, and free minds don't shackle themselves to dogma. But un-free atheist minds, those that are angry at theists, shackle themselves to other dogmas like socialism or Communism. It's one subjective supreme value replacing another. Both sacrificing the individual mind for a collective agenda.

Answer 8

I choose to be neither religious nor atheist. Those are just commonly held generalizations of peoples and their beliefs. I highly doubt there is another person who shares all of my beliefs,opinions, and experiences, and limiting it to is God real or not real is too much of a simplification.

Answer 9

Atheism is simply not believing in gods, No other definition is necessary.

Answer 10

Implicit and explicit are unnecessary descriptors.
Atheists believe that there is no God or Gods. Some are religious, e.g. Buddhists, some are non-religious.