Hey Pav,
Just for argument’s sake, I’ll argue against that. But first I gotta go do the reply rounds. Then I’ll finish reading the OP. 
Doesn’t being religious require more than simply believing one thing granting for sake of argument that it can be said atheists believe one thing.
Nope, sure doesn’t. I know that you are going to fire back with codified morals and manners of behaviour from other Religions, but that all leads back to satisfying the God or Gods, which is essentially just that one belief. The difference between the Religion of Athiesm and other Religions, is that you can have your one Religious belief without all sorts of other bullshit having to follow the possession of this belief as a result.
How can you say that Athiests do not believe in something? They believe there is not a God, unless you want to say that they know, but I don’t see how they can know when it is impossible to prove a metaphysical negative.
In my atheist capacity I only lack a belief in God. That’s all anyone can validly infer from me being an atheist. Empirically, you can infer with some good probability of being right that I also believe God doesn’t exist, but the term atheism itself doesn’t definitionally imply that I do have this belief. The belief that God doesn’t exist is, basically, unnecessary for me to be an atheist. It is why imo it’d be a good idea to separate the two states. Maybe use the term antitheist or something like that to refer to someone’s belief that God doesn’t exist. Or you could just say that, instead of using a label to refer to it.
It’s like infering that communists lack capital. If you meet a communist, chances are they don’t have any, but this doesn’t meant you should tack on poverty to the idea of communism.
Ok, so I haven’t quite finished reading the OP, but I’ve got some ideas, so I’ll just go with it, in the spirit of things, so to speak, if you will, in other words, and all that.
We’ll need to focus in on the Liturgy of Atheismianity.
First, pace my position that Atheists actually did create the absense of God, we need to find some way of giving humble thanks to theists for creating God(s), such that we might provide a calming and respectful transition through the advent of H(is/er/its) death. From hereonin, I propose we make reference to Hiserits, or H, for short.
We may also note that when H lies on its side, it becomes I.
You’re absolutely correct and I was hoping that you would bring it up. That’s exactly why there must be separate Denominations of Athiesm so that no particular form of Athiest or Anti-Thiest be excluded. Look at the Apostolics, on the Christian side of things, for example. Those guys are hard-core, they are practically just like the Amish, except they can have electricty. Women can’t cut their hair, wear skirts or pants, have make-up or wear any jewelry aside from a wedding ring, but they want their electricity.
Small differences, in that case, but you’re talking about a big difference. That requires some differentiation. Just make sure not to differentiate too much, otherwise you’ll create a market so niche that you’ll never make any money out of this.
That’s true, also. We’re not really going to talk about Communism in this thread, though. One, because the U.S.S.R. did everything except kill people that had a Religious belief, but also because Religion is supposed to be a tool of Capitalism anyway. You can ask the TV Evangelist if he does it out of a love of God, and if he is on TV, it will seem believable. Ask when he is in his Maserati on his way to the airport to take a private jet (that he owns) out to Vegas to consort with some of the most expensive showgirls and lose hundreds of thousands at blackjack, lighting cigars off of C-Notes. Big Pimpin’, ask him then, and it won’t seem so believable.
Just remember if you want to make money for yourself, erm, I mean, your Athiest Denomination, stay credible, man, stay credible.
I’m raising a son outside of the church, and I pray that your contention is valid.
That said, I would claim that an Atheist’s claim that there is only a benign negation going on here is either deceptive or self-deceiving. Let me share my raisin about Atheism creating the lack of H:
-
There is no hunger without food.
-
There is not Atheism without Theism.
-
Spirit is a many-splendored thing.
-
H is not the only source of nutrition.
-
Competition kills absolutes.
-
Hiserits (aka God) is dead.
-
This could not have occured without the evolution of appreciation for the true broader source of nutrients.
There is no name for that source, as nouns are not appropriate.
- Atheism points to that lack, indeed created it (as a panorama for consciousness) despite the odds.
If God did not even exist conceptually, then nobody would believe in God. A lack of belief in God is Athiesm. Because nobody would believe in any God, everybody would be an Athiest. Not believing in God would simply be the natural (and only) state of affairs.
I agree that without Theism, we would not coin such a term as, “Atheism,” but it does not mean that without the potential for a belief in God it would be impossible not to believe in a God/God (s). In fact, without that potential, it would only follow that we would not believe in a God.
Take food away, all of it, right now, gone. Will I not still starve to death?
Oh ya, for sure. And you’ll know it. You know food.
A lack of belief in Plubadoo is Aplubadooism. Except for that South American tribe which, allegedly, has no conception of Theity, the rest of us are stuck with the fact that God is a formative concept in our belief pool. As I mentioned to xzc, I personally desire to believe that, absent parental communicability, a new generation of humanity might rightfully claim not to be infected by exposure to the historical theo. But I would guess that’s a few generations away, at minimum. I think that fact explains alot of the atheist plight… wanting to know what it would be like to live in such a world, and “knowing” that one never will… and being reminded of the fact whenever a theist opens their mouth. [No offense intended, Theists, just trying to get a handle on myself, if you will]…
I suppose I am an Aplubadooist, then. Let me ask you this, though, before I was ever aware of Plubadoo (about forty seconds ago) I didn’t believe in Plubadoo then, so was I not still an Aplubadooist? I mean, sure, I couldn’t go up to someone and say that I was an Aplubadooist, but does that in any way change the fact that I did not believe in Plubadoo?
By the way, you could very easily raise an individual (in semi-isolation) and prevent any exposure to anything Theistic whatsoever. So, again, the real question here is would such an individual develop any sort of belief in any kind of God?
Ok, one more before bed…
Yes. You did not, in such a scenario, dis-believe in Plubadoo. Athiests disbelieve.
Easily??? Come on Pav!! … g’nite! 
Fine. Disbelieving still means, not believing, though, and I still not believed. In order to disbelieve, one must not believe, so the net result is the same. The only difference is that disbelieving will actually lead someone to possibly make a case against something, but the point with the previous example is without that thing no case needs to be made for not believing it.
Easy enough. Us mountain men could do it if we had to. I’m sort of glad we don’t have to, but I could.
So I guess the main issue sofar is whether Atheists must self-identify to be atheist… at least they’d have to to be considered upstanding members of the Church (or should that be Achurch?).
Achurch, nice work!
Let’s talk about that self-identification. Before I understood any language when I was just a baby, did I have to self-identify to be human, or was I just human? I think that the main argument here that we have to hash out with one another is (provided that we were not taught anything) belief in a God the natural state of affairs, or is not believing in a God the natural state of affairs?
I’m still trying to work out what Athiesm is.
I suppose Athiesm is something to do with the state of being or belonging to Athi, and Athiest therefore means, literally, most Athi. The proposed Church and religion of Athiesm is presumably therefore the establishment of Ath, from which I speculate its members must suffer lisps and talk out of their Atheth.
Verily, Coatleshsh, you raishe a valid obshervashion. Who ish thish Athi, indeed? I musht shit and think about that for a bit, for I do not recall meeting thish Athi. Or ish Athi not a pershon?
I’m, of course, taking the position that, even assuming the latter is technically the case (where “not believing” = there is no matter for “belief” as such), babies aren’t atheists. That to be an atheist is a developmental achievement, not a preformative state. Being human is a preformative state, awaiting the capacity for self-identity as such.
In connection to your position in your thread on Language, it is the thought that the above “Athiesm” joke wouldn’t make any sense in a world where Theism wasn’t already pretty much de rigueur already.
So, back to my original objection, there was no lack of God prior to Theism. “God” came into being, conceptually, as per the antropoligical development. Atheism eventually ensued, whereby humans had therewith “created” the lack of God. Only in hindsight was there such a lack previous to the human invention. Australopithecus was no more an atheist than is a postmodern infant.
Thus, as part of our Achurch Ritual, we must divise a counter-baptism to wash away the iniquity of previous Human belief, no?
And, of course, we must hunt down Coatless and condemn him for antiblasphemy!!
Hello Pavlov:
— …so we can say that Athiests believe there is not a God.
O- Fair enough, but as such as as suceptible to a rational critique as most theists. The only advantage that I can see is that there is no liturgy to keep up with, but that is also it’s downfall. There is something to be said about the popularity of theism and it is not just because of the belief in God. Like psychotheraphy, it’s effects may have little to do with “unlocking” stashed away memories that affect conscious life, blah, blah, blah, and more to do with the biological need to be heard and understood without conditions.
—…have faith that there is not a God…
O- Two things:
1- Why do they believe this?
2- What would be the basis for a Church? Let me explain. If I believe that there is a glass cup before me then I may take further leaps of faith to achieve an end. It all starts with the belief that there “is”. But if I believe that before me there is nothing, then what subsequent steps could be inspired? There is nothing and so there is nothing for me. So I lose interest. A Church would seem to require something in which one believes, that is affected by the existence of a Church. If you believe there is no God then what would be the use of a Church?
—…Consider this, many people that were of other Religions may wake up one day and question their own faith in whatever God or Gods they have.
O- If they question thir faith then they cannot be atheist, for atheism requires faith, as you stated previously. It is not faith that is question and often not even God, but the correctness of our faith. What is question is not our faith but the concepts in which we believe. And I do not believe that doubt just comes with the morning. You do not go to bed a theist and wake up an atheist.
— Athiests did not cause them to do this.
O- No. Life did.
— However, for someone to convert to Christianity, one must read, hear, see or touch Christ in some way to know of Christ even conceptually, this empirical data is not required to not believe in a God.
O- It is. You do not believe in…what? You must know, read or in some way know of at least the concept of “God”, otherwise atheism is non-sensical in all levels and thus a meanigless pursuit that should not receive any serious protection from the powers that be.
— The question has often been asked, if they are a Religion or Church, why do they not gather? The simple answer is, yes, Religious Persecution.
O- For a time the Church of Satan was en vogue…I have read about burning crosses in black people’s lawn, but not in the gardens of white atheists for some odd reason. Again…it is not about God.
— …but have you ever had the opportunity to sit down with someone and talk to them, as a friend, about the complete absence of a God?
O- Let’s imagine this conversation happening with a skeptic:
"God? Son what in the world is that? Why are you wasting my time to talk to me about some unknown that is absolutely absent?
Excellent work!
I laughed my ass off!