# Fundamentalist Atheists equivalent to Fundamentalist Theists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001 "2011-04-19T21:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/141 "2011-04-21T07:21:59Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > For this atheist, the statements “I do not believe in any gods” and “I believe there are no gods” involve a distinction without a difference. The English language is not as precise as logic tries to be. It should be easy to understand that my belief that “there are no gods” is different from the Pope’s belief that “Jesus is the son of God”. > > If you don’t get this, then that illustrates the fundamental difference between my atheism and your theism. They really are different perspectives on reality. Trying to tell me that my thinking is somehow meaningfully equivalent to a Christian’s is absurd. (If you have an urge to argue about the definitions of ‘thinking’, ‘meaningfully’, ‘equivalent’, ‘Christian’. or ‘absurd’ then don’t bother, it won’t convince me I’m wrong in this context). > > If you consider yourself a theist, and want to understand this atheist’s perception of your belief, think about the things you believe. Now repeat them but substitute James Bond or Harry Potter for God. That’s what you sound like to me. You can’t prove that Harry Potter isn’t real. Whoopee doo, that’s not a great insight. Any linguist will tell you that the English language is really logical if you look at it. There is a greater meaning in nuances. For the atheist or ‘light’ atheist, you’re still not at +1. There’s no positivism. My example showed that your belief in no gods was _significantly different_ than the Pope’s belief in gods if all possible numbers were between -1 and 1. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you. You have some problems with your statement. 1: Harry Potter is fictional because we know someone made him up. 2. Fiction is opposite to fact. 3. Therefore…? What? What does Harry Potter have to do with God? 😕 Problem number two: 1. You assume that I think your reasoning is false. 2. You assume that I think your reasoning is false \*\*and \*\*it is because you cannot disprove my belief in something that is not testable. 3. You also assume to know my belief 4. Therefore, if your assumption of x(reasoning) is incorrect and/or your assumption of my belief (y) is incorrect, your argument just failed on epic proportions because your formula is wrong. Pretty shaky to base an argument on guess of a formula that lacked inductive reasoning. Kind of like believing in sky fairies! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/142 "2011-04-21T07:26:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, that’s not how scientists quantify homo sapiens. For one thing, there’s much more obvious differences, such as bone structure or the shape of the skull. Also, it’s simply untrue. Neanderthals performed burial rituals, and there’s some (controversial) evidence for religious practices that date back even further than the rise of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis. Thank you. 🙂 So there’s support for my claim. > [@](#): > > Actually, we do. The problem is, religion keeps failing all the test we throw at You just said we have reason to believe ritualistic practices and religion have been around for 100,000 years…? I didn’t say that you can test the metaphysical. I said that _religion was natural to humans_. ---
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/143 "2011-04-21T07:54:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > :rolleyes: Please. The absolute last thing that religion is about is not being a jerk. All you are doing is the standard religious trick of giving religion credit for things it had nothing to do with. I disagree. Most religions have, at or near their core, the concept of showing others the same respect and consideration you would like to be shown yourself. The reason you see a lot of religious jerks is because it’s so much easier to know a standard of behavior than it is to live up to one. Maybe they’re doing the best they can, and I’d say more than a few aren’t really trying. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/144 "2011-04-21T08:03:34Z")
I had hoped that “don’t be a jerk” was universal. ☹ eta: imho, The opinions that some of these people have given are more than just opinions. It’s bullying. No one will ever take you seriously (even if they agree with you on atheism) when you act that way. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/145 "2011-04-21T08:17:23Z")
He says that \*all religion \*is wrong. It is a disease. It is not logical. I agree with Judaism because I think it’s very logical and humanistic and the benefits are greater than the potential negative effects. I also just…love it. For him, I am wrong. Subjective statement, anyone? It’s like a doubly subjective statement. He has to assume two things (what I believe to be factually true + is/n’t true) and then tell me it is not true. Do you understand that _blanket statements based on erroneous assumptions_ + asserting that people aren’t capable of critical thinking based on your assumptions = make _you_ look like you aren’t capable of critical thinking? Are you trying to prove you are right or just put people down? You have no point. SsgtBaloo is not looking like the idiot right now. What he believes may not be _factually true_, but his clear head give credence to the idea that he’s a pretty solid thinker. 😉 When you take something like “intelligence” and turn in into an even MORE arbitrary concept, you look weak. One, you don’t know the capacity of his knowledge. Two, if you are going to insult his reasoning skills, then attack his reasoning instead of flinging poo. (that’s imho to all anti-theists) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/146 "2011-04-21T09:53:22Z")
> [@JoeMonocle](#): > > Atheists believe that G_d does not exist. Most atheists believe that it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims in support of the belief that G_d exists, and that this purported impossibility supports their atheism. > > In fact, belief that G\*d does not exist requires precisely the same type of faith as does theism, namely, a belief for which it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims. > > Most atheists will point to the fossil record, or will raise _theological_ objections to theism, such as for example the problem of evil (if G\*d exists and is all loving, then why does “he” allow suffering?). > > However compelling such evidence or arguments may be, for atheists, nonetheless they supply only empirical evidence or theological arguments. > > G_d by definition, at least the G_d of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for starters, exists outside of this universe and so is, in principle, unobservable. Now, given the latest findings in quantum physics, and allowing for quibbles and concocted cases, I’m sure that what I’ve said is _disbutable,_ however the nature of such disputes will serve to underscore the ease of comprehensibility and the general good sense of what I’m saying. Please bear in mind that this is a brief chat board posting, not a treatise. > > At the end of the day atheists try to distinguish their non-empirical faith by appeals to probability, parsimony, and other scientific standards, however all such appeals serve to conceal the circularity and emptiness of empirically based arguments that G\*d definitely doesn’t exist. > > So far, the best accounts of the origin of the universe trail off into “something happened”. As great as the appetite of atheists may be to close the file, it remains open. Some varieties of theological doctrine can be and have been discredited. That, however, is doctrinal repudiation, not proof that G\*d does not exist. > > Atheists in general would like to advance _their_ religion (I call it a religion, taking perhaps polemical license), claiming the same intellectual legitimacy that underpins Agnosticism. Empirically grounded scepticism however cannot drive a compelling case for a knowledge claim that G\*d does not exist. And the rest is just more theology. > > There’s a reason why “theism” appears in “atheism” – atheism is a theistic belief. Can you explain to us why replacing “G\*d” with “Zeus” would change your argument? Or would it? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/147 "2011-04-21T10:22:30Z")
they are two different gods and Zeus is not outside the human realm. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/148 "2011-04-21T10:27:26Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > they are two different gods and Zeus is not outside the human realm. He isn’t? Then we should have some evidence of Zeus’s existence that we don’t have for God, no? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/149 "2011-04-21T11:44:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Can we start by defining atheism? I’ve seen plenty of folks on this board who will say things like “Theists think God exists, but we know better, and know they’re wrong”, but then turn around and say in another thread that atheism is just a lack of belief. No, a lack of belief means uncertainty about whether God exists, which is agnosticism. Once you say “I know that God does not exist”, you’re asserting a religious belief. 1. Do you have examples of posters who have made both claims? 2. If I say “I know the Easter Bunny does not exist”, am I asserting a religious belief? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/150 "2011-04-21T11:51:34Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > He says that \*all religion \*is wrong. It is a disease. It is not logical. > > I agree with Judaism because I think it’s very logical and humanistic and the benefits are greater than the potential negative effects. I also just…love it. > > For him, I am wrong. > > Subjective statement, anyone? It’s like a doubly subjective statement. He has to assume two things (what I believe to be factually true + is/n’t true) and then tell me it is not true. No. There is zero evidence for Judaism and the other Abrahamic religions, just like any other religion. And it makes claims that contradict historical fact and physical law, and contains internal contradictions. Logically it cannot be true, all the evidence says it cannot be true, there’s no evidence for it. And the default logical position on the claim that something exists, is that it doesn’t. Just as the default position is that there is no invisible goblin sitting on my head, the default position is that there is no God. It’s not a “subjective statement”. For that matter, neither is your claim that Judaism is true; that’s denial of reality, not a “subjective statement”. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/151 "2011-04-21T12:30:07Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I think Ed created that rule. What does religion have to do with it? > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Because religion is the original source of moral philosophy. I submit that the origination of the “don’t be a jerk rule” (in general) was probably the first time Og was a jerk to Ug and Ug brained Og with a club. Praise Jesus! ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/152 "2011-04-21T12:35:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. Do you have examples of posters who have made both claims? > 2. If I say “I know the Easter Bunny does not exist”, am I asserting a religious belief? You’re asserting a belief on something religious. (: ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/153 "2011-04-21T12:35:56Z")
If God is outside the human realm, why should I trust any human’s opinion about God? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/154 "2011-04-21T12:36:15Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Theo **logical** objections are supposed to be logical. “Theology” refers to the study or discussion of God. The “ology” part refers to the Greek word for “discussion” (_logikos_). It has nothing to do with the English word, “logic.” > [@](#): > > You don’t believe that you are ‘without a god’? Atheism doesn’t mean “without a god,” it means “without theistic belief.” I have no belief in gods. > [@](#): > > Um. No. Look at all of recorded history. What does history have to do with the dicates of scientific method? > [@](#): > > [quoteDiogenes the Cynic] > It’s also not a belief that “God definitely doesn’t exist.” It’s just a lack of belief that gods do exist.[/quoite]That’s a broad generalization, but OK. You are an atheist because you object to theism It’s not a generalization, it’s the definition of the word, and I don’t “object” to theistic beliefs, I just don’t have any. > [@](#): > > Okay, in a fawaway land on the other side of the moon, there is a tribe of people called the umbiotoo who eat cheese. > > Am I an anti-umbiotoo-ist because I don’t believe you? No. You’re an “a-umbiotooist.” > [@](#): > > No. You’re one person. Not billions. _Ad populum_ fallacy. > [@](#): > > There’s no history behind umbiotoo-ism. umbiotoo was never a concept to begin with. If that were the case, then there are an infinite amount of words that describe you that never existed and can’t exist until you place meaning on it. And if you can’t name something, it has no meaning. If you do name something, it therefore has a meaning. None of this has any relevance to anything. A lack of a belief is a lack of a belief. > [@](#): > > Is a child who is a year old an agnostic? No. The child isn’t anything. No, the one year old is atheistic. Agnosticism is a specific belief (the belief that we lack sufficient evidence to know whether gods exist. Agnosticism is not, as is commonly believed, some kind of neutral middle ground between theism and strong atheism), atheism is not a belief, but the lack of belief. Babies plants and animals are all atheistic. > [@](#): > > > [@\-Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > I don’t think you know what the word “theology” means. > > > > I don’t think you know what the word “theistic” means > > Do you? Yes. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but you’re arguing about things that philosophers came up with. No I’m not. The poster I was talking to was using thsoe terms incorrectlky. Knowing the correct definition of those words (and you don’t sem to have a grasp of all those definitions yourself) is a necessary part of coherent debate. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/155 "2011-04-21T12:40:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No. There is zero evidence for Judaism and the other Abrahamic religions, just like any other religion. The religion doesn’t exist? 😕 > [@](#): > > And it makes claims that contradict historical fact and physical law, and contains internal contradictions. That’s rather presumptuous. > [@](#): > > Logically it cannot be true, I’m still here? > [@](#): > > all the evidence says it cannot be true False? > [@](#): > > there’s no evidence for it . False? > [@](#): > > And the default logical position on the claim that something exists, is that it doesn’t. Just as the default position is that there is no invisible goblin sitting on my head, the default position is that there is no God. And my default logical position is that rants like this can be classified as “deaf bloviating”. > [@](#): > > It’s not a “subjective statement”. No. Just false. > [@](#): > > For that matter, neither is your claim that Judaism is true; I don’t even know what that means. > [@](#): > > that’s denial of reality, not a “subjective statement”. Did someone steal my username and password when I wasn’t looking? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/156 "2011-04-21T12:54:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Theology” refers to the study or discussion of God. The “ology” part refers to the Greek word for “discussion” (_logikos_). It has nothing to do with the English word, “logic.” Did you get a C- in theology class or something? You seriously don’t get it? > [@](#): > > Atheism doesn’t mean “without a god,” it means “without theistic belief.” I have no belief in gods. Literally, without god. > [@](#): > > What does history have to do with the dicates of scientific method? Do you follow me? I said religion was in human nature. [QUOTE] > [@](#): > > It’s not a generalization, it’s the definition of the word, and I don’t “object” to theistic beliefs, I just don’t have any. you object to the idea of gods. And you spew all over the boards about how much you think religion is stupid! > [@](#): > > No. You’re an “a-umbiotooist.” …you missed the boat on that one. > [@](#): > > _Ad populum_ fallacy. uh huh. You have to try harder. > [@](#): > > None of this has any relevance to anything. A lack of a belief is a lack of a belief. It does have relevance. I was showing you how philosophy influences language concepts, and how language cannot exist without knowledge, concept & memory. For example, “Google” is now a word. \* I Googled it. Armchair Googlist.\* No one could have thought of this 100 years ago. But in 100 years, it may not even matter. Every language has words to describe a god/s. Every language has words for colors (though they vary), foods, time, family members… but umboooooism or whatever I spelled isn’t a rooted concept. Tomorrow I won’t even know what I called it. > [@](#): > > No, the one year old is atheistic. NO; the one year old has no opinion and does not know what atheism is. I don’t have an opinion on \ does that make me a \_\_\_\_-ist? No. Do you think people are broth with a set of predetermined philosophies? > [@](#): > > Agnosticism is a specific belief (the belief that we lack sufficient evidence to know whether gods exist. Agnosticism is not, as is commonly believed, some kind of neutral middle ground between theism and strong atheism), atheism is not a belief, but the lack of belief. Babies plants and animals are all atheistic. But you draw the line at my table being atheistic, right? :rolleyes: A lack of belief is better classified as “doubt”. But if you have no knowledge, you have no belief system about it. > [@](#): > > Knowing the correct definition of those words (and you don’t sem to have a grasp of all those definitions yourself) is a necessary part of coherent debate. Are you getting out your _Revised Webster’s Dio Dictionary_? You are nooo fun to engage with. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/157 "2011-04-21T13:01:22Z")
“In lieu of evidence for God, we will now engage in word games.” ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/158 "2011-04-21T13:02:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If God is outside the human realm, why should I trust any human’s opinion about God? DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! Finally. Some logic. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/159 "2011-04-21T13:03:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > “In lieu of evidence for God, we will now engage in word games.” I just took back your award. :o Who was trying to prove God? There are no word games about it. I was pointing out some pretty well grounded facts about the nature of human language. And ideas on how we process the things we can’t know. 🙂 If you are going to call me stupid and full of logical fallacies, at least make good arguments. Don’t just spew. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/160 "2011-04-21T13:15:32Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Did you get a C- in theology class or something? You seriously don’t get it? I got straight A’s in all my theology classes. What do you think I’m not getting. > [@](#): > > Literally, without god. No, it’s literally “without theism.” > [@](#): > > Do you follow me? I said religion was in human nature. So is rape. So what? > [@](#): > > you object to the idea of gods. And you spew all over the boards about how much you think religion is stupid! I do not object to the idea of gods, I just don’t hold any beliefs in them. Your second accusation is also false. I don’t do that or think that. I send my kids to a Catholic school. > [@](#): > > …you missed the boat on that one. No, you just don’t have a good handle on the definitions of these terms. > [@](#): > > uh huh. You have to try harder. I haven’t had to try very hard so far. If you want me to try harder, do better than _ad populum_ appeals. > [@](#): > > but umboooooism or whatever I spelled isn’t a rooted concept. It doesn’t have to be in order for people to lack a belief in it. > [@](#): > > NO; the one year old has no opinion and does not know what atheism is. That makes him an atheist. Atheism is not a belief, it’s an _absence_ of belief. > [@](#): > > Do you think people are broth with a set of predetermined philosophies? No, but atheism is not a philosophy, it’s an absence of a particular belief. It’s a void. It’s not content, it’s an absence of content. > [@](#): > > But you draw the line at my table being atheistic, right? No I don’t./ Your table is, in fact, atheistic, > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: A lack of belief is better classified as “doubt”. Incorrect. A lack of belief is a lack of belief. > [@](#): > > But if you have no knowledge, you have no belief system about it Atheism is not a belief system. > [@](#): > > Are you getting out your _Revised Webster’s Dio Dictionary_ I’m using standard definitions. You should check your own dictionaries. You have some misunderstandings about what some of these words mean. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001.md?page=9)