Yes, I did make a mistake. I meant that one might say that atheism is not a religion, but it most certainly is a worldview. Mea culpa.
I just have time for this. Sorry. More later. The word is “atheist.”
Not all Christians would consider those who worship CONTRA to be worshipping other than “the one true God.” We just don’t fit in those little boxes quite so easily. That’s one of the benefits of not having to worry about logic. 
It makes no sense at all to actively disbelieve in an undefined god, that I agree with. That is why lack of belief is a good definition of atheism, for it is certainly reasonable for me to lack belief in unspecified gods. Even atheists who do actively disbelieve in all gods also lack belief in all gods, so the definition still works.
Contrapuntal’s definition reminds me of someone who claimed atheism was foolish because the Romans thought Augustus Caesar was a god, and he existed, so some god did exist.
Theists are the containing set of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, cargo cultists, and Og knows who else. Now, if you could show me this theist church, consisting of people who believe in a god’s existence, but nothing else, then we might be able to analyze the OP in this nitpicking level of detail.
So any theists who don’t fall into any of the above and who don’t worship at a church aren’t really theists?
Whoever said that all theists have to belong to a church? It’s entirely possible for someone to believe in God without having any firm convictions on other theological matters – especially if that person is still at the beginning of his exploratory journey.
Let’s just replace that with what JThunder said.
Possible? Who knows. But I’m betting this set of people isn’t the set criticizing atheists.
In any case, do you deny that traditional religionists are also theists?
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen F Roberts
CMC fnord!
It’s even quite possible for someone to have been on their spiritual journey for years and then come to realize that the doctrine and dogma of different religions and denominations are for the most part, unnecessary frills that people place to much importance on. 
Many theists don’t belong to any church, I am one of them, and I know a lot more. It is not necessary to belong to any organization in order to believe in God.
That’s not what you said earlier, though. Your exact words were:
“Theists are the containing set of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, cargo cultists, and Og knows who else. Now, if you could show me this theist church, consisting of people who believe in a god’s existence, but nothing else…”
Besides, what makes you think that they wouldn’t take issue with what atheists teach? They believe in a god, and you don’t. Why wouldn’t they voice their objection?
I’m guessing you meant to say that it was a worldview, correct? In any event, I disagree. It is no more a worldview then a lack of a belief in bigfoot is a worldview.
It’s not a guiding principle or a philosophy either. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god/s.
Whether people who are atheists disagree or not is irrelevant, since it’s not a worldview, philosophy, or guiding principle. It’s not a way in which to interpret the world, it’s not a way in which to live, nor is it an epistemic tool.
How? Out of the many atheists on this board I’m not sure I share a particular “worldview” with any of them. Guess it comes from being a free-thinker as well…if we’re going to be throwing pointless definitions out there.
Of course it’s a worldview. A lack of belief in Bigfoot might have little effect on how one conducts one’s life, but a lack of belief in God (whether active disbelief or a mere lack of any conviction) most certainly does color one’s views on behavior, ethics, morality, family structure, philosophy and so forth. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
Again, how? I don’t have to stretch my imagination any to know that although I am an atheist, my son, for instance, who’s come to the same conclusion as I, has much more in common with a Western worldview and his peers, than he does with say, the son of a Buddhist in Tibet.
Pretty much my case as well…as long as we leave gods out of the equation, you wouldn’t know a thging about my “worldviews” unless I told you about them. And please don’t even start with the whole “morals and atheists” stchick, or I’ll have to ask you if the only thing that prevents from killing another human being is your god/s. Said form of divine ethics is not working out too well for say…Bush or Osama, is it?
No, it’s not a worldview and no it doesn’t lead to views on behavior, ethics, morality, etc, etc. I don’t know what you mean by ‘color’ here, as I would imagine a lack of belief in Bigfoot could potentially color these things as well.
The fact is that if what you say is true then an atheist is a different worldview then a buddhist, naturalist, physicalist, property dualist, etc, etc.
If what you say is true then a physicalist would have two worldviews, the atheist worldview (whatever that is) and the physicalists worldview (which is pretty succiently metaphysically defined).
Which set of morals does atheism lead to? Utalitarianism? Objectivism?
If it’s foolish to pretend otherwise, then call me a fool - but at least first have the decency to explain why it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
PS-Forgot to add. “Family structure.” WTF does atheism say about that? Because, unlike Mormons say, no one’s told me how many wifes I can have.
However I do think one is too many. Wonder where I got that from? My atheist bible?
That should be “wives” of course. Because, as everyone knows, atheists can’t spell for shit.