Yes but the atheist definition isn't sound because it can't be proven. Unlike theists that believe in supernatural. A theist doesn't need to prove theism because they don't need to. For an atheist; they use "not enough empirical evidence"; which supports agnostic, not atheism.
Yes but how does this relate? The theist is searching for empirical evidence for others; not to change their own mind. An atheist doesn't believe god exists; but cannot find empirical evidence to support their belief. A theist uses their faith and openly admit most is based on faith. They believe in supernatural; which faith is all the proof they need.
Right. If you take "atheist" to mean only the most extreme form of disbelief ("there is absolutely no possibility of god existing"), it's irrational and untenable. And there are relatively few of these atheists. That's EXACTLY why it's a silly limitation to place on the word! It would be equivalent to me saying "only the Amish are true Christians".
Nope. There are plenty of theists who base their own belief on logic and rational thought. Read up on Descartes.
Not exactly. The word "Christian" isn't based on what denomination or how extreme you are. It's based on a relationship with Christ. So it can't apply because all believe that Jesus died for our sins and we need him to have an eternity in heaven. The semantics of interpretation of everything is separates the different denominations. In the atheist case. All doesnt truly believe God doesn't exist. A lot of them just want proof. That is entirely different, imo
Rand's Objectivism requires more than belief there is empirical evidence. As near as I can tell, the only chance there is a deity lies in the metaphysical. I'm not much of a believer in that possibility either, but the tiniest sliver of a chance differentiates my view from atheism. Unlike most of the atheists I know or read about or see on TV, I have near zero gripe with organized religion. I think it may be a mass hysteria for some. For others its a sort of support group. I see lots of good and bad in it. I wouldn't do away with it if I had the power to.
Actually no. The atheist adhere to science and absolutes. If they say "God does not exist" then they would need proof that God doesn't exist. Otherwise they are using faith just like a theist. The theist doesn't claim they have physical empirical evidence for God. They believe in god because they believe in supernatural. The difference between the two is a theist doesn't need empirical evidence to prove it to himself and support his faith. The atheist uses science and "no proof" as their reasoning. That doesn't define true atheism.
The word "atheist" isn't based on how extreme you are. It's based entirely on whether or not you believe in a god or deity. See how that works?
This is what happens when we lose the actual meanings of complex words. You are essentially speaking a foreign language. I suppose you've provided a perfect example of why semantics DOES matter.
Atheism doesn't require anything but the rejection of theism. There's nothing to do with science, evidence, proof, fact, or anything else involved. In the physical world, there is so much evidence of anything but god as the answer to any question that involves one or more of our senses. The odds there is a god along these lines is zero. Not near zero, but zero. There's all the Reason needed to reject religion. Not one iota of faith to it.
You actually described faith. Edit: woah you have all this evidence that god doesn't exist? Please enlighten us!
I didn't say there's evidence that god doesn't exist. I said there's no evidence he does. Just like there's no evidence of unicorns. The problem you have is Faith is all you have. Not one shred of evidence to suggest there is a god.
If I say "god does not exist"; yet I have no proof god doesn't exist; then wouldn't that be faith? It's really quite simple. I am fine with an atheist that says "my faith is atheism" and my reasoning is agnostic. That is all I need to hear.
Good you just described being agnostic. I respect that reasoning. Glad you admitted that atheism is your faith and your reason is an agnostic approach. You win a cookie!
That would not be faith. It's no more faith than saying that if you flip a coin many times, you'll end up with nearly the same number of heads and tails results. I would reject your suggestion that you'd have an equal number of flips where the coin landed on its edge. It's not a matter of faith, but of Reason and odds.
