Could someone please define atheism?

Atheism is the non belief in gods. That is all.

>>So would it be safe to say that the non belief in deities stems from not being able to prove their existence, or is it really more just an idea that the concept of a deity is illogical in itself?<<

Very often. BUT that too is separate. The reason for someones atheism is not under the scope of e term "atheist". So not everyone will have the same reason.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's all.

If you aren't elaborating on your perspective as to why it's "more" than not believing there is a god, then you aren't holding up your perspective.

"So would it be safe to say that the non belief in deities stems from not being able to prove their existence, or is it really more just an idea that the concept of a deity is illogical in itself?"

Surprisingly, the nonbelief in deities stems from belief in deities. This is a linguistic issue, not a propositional one that asserts a truth claim. If you want a reference about the ability to prove said existence, look up agnosticism and gnosticism.

Atheism is only the lack of belief in gods. That a person is an atheist does not necessarily entail anything about what else they might believe.

EDIT: It could be either of those things. Non-belief can stem from rational reasons or from completely insane reasons. It depends on the individual.

There are a couple definitions of Atheism depending on which dictionary you use. Most dictionaries say it is an active denial of God. A few say it is simply the non-belief in a higher power.

Sam Harris wrote a book where he said Atheist is a word that should not be used. In his opinion, it is like saying you are a non-plumber or a non-baseball player.

New Atheism is based on theological and historical ignorance. New Atheists do not want you to know the history of wars against the church. They do not want you to know there has been a centuries old debate over the meaning of the word "Atheism". They are the least theologically trained group of people to ever walk the earth.

Sam Harris got in big trouble with the "non-existant" Atheist community for his comments. They now call him a "neo-Atheist". Now, if you can tell me what a neo-Atheist is, you should win some kind of prize or something.

Added: You will see many thumbs down from the no-life God haters that have replaced their life with trolling internet forums pushing bigotry.

Atheism is failure. It makes you and your nation fail. Here is a list of the 20 most broke nations on earth. Nations so broke they must borrow to pay interest on money they borrowed years ago. Each one has a BOOMING Atheist population. They are going into debt to nations with shrinking Atheist populations.

A generation ago 70% of this nation read their Bible each day. Today that number is under 10%. Now you get to watch your nation crumble as China and South Korea become the new lenders and pioneers.

Cool, right?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/The_World_s_Bigges...

I don't believe in any gods because there has never been any proof... also the sales pitch is used and worn out. Think about it...

If someone were to offer you eternal life (illogical, because everything dies), forgiveness (can't really get much better than forgetfulness or drug induced coma), eternal love (I think this has serious definition issues), a new perfect body (oh, just give me a break, will you?).... and all you have to do is believe (cheaper than weight loss gum).... oh, but there's ONE CATCH: You can't have any of it until you DIE.

I already know everything dies... never to rise again unless it is a bulb in the flower garden... Seriously, I'd rather have a bridge in Brooklyn than be THAT FOOLISH.

Good for you. Broadening perspectives is what everyone should do. You are talking of your answer to my previous question, are you not?

Atheism is merely the claim that one doesn't believe in any gods. Atheism is thus a lack of belief in gods. Some atheists go further and believe there are no gods, but I would say most atheists simply don't believe in gods. Does the the difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods seem minor to you?

If so, think for instance of aliens. I don't positively believe that aliens exist, but I don't positively believe there are no aliens either. I admit it's possible there are aliens, just that since there's no evidence for them it's not rational to believe in them. This is exactly how most atheists view gods.

In this view, not believing in aliens doesn't stem from not being able to prove their existence, but from the lack of evidence for their existence. If there's no evidence for aliens, why should you believe they exist? You shouldn't of course. But should you believe they don't exist? No, that doesn't automatically follow, that you don't believe a claim does not mandate you to believe the opposite.

The same with gods: I don't believe gods exist since there's no evidence for them. But I don't think that there are no gods either because I couldn't possibly know that. Therefore atheism doesn't have to stem neither from not being able to prove the existence of gods nor from a belief that the concept is illogical in of itself, but all that's required for it is the common sense notion that beliefs without evidence are irrational, and that you should avoid irrational beliefs.

Edit: I will be the first person to admit that it's possible some things exist that we will never have evidence for. However, that doesn't imply that believing in things without evidence is rational. Not considering potentially true claims as true because they don't have evidence for them is the necessary tradeoff we make to avoid believing in false claims. It is also consistent with wanting to build an accurate picture of reality because without evidence how could we ever distinguish which evidence-free claims actually are true and which aren't? And we both know that false evidence-free claims will always outnumber any possible true evidence-free claims because claims are easy to make and only a limited number of them can be true. Therefore I would submit to you that the common-sense notion of not believing in things that don't have evidence still holds.

Atheism is a single attribute some people share: lack of belief in claimed gods. That's all it is, nothing else.

WHY a person lacks belief in gods doesn't matter -- if they lack belief in gods, they're an atheist. Many atheists lack belief in gods because of the lack of evidence for gods, but that's not a requirement. For whatever reason they lack belief in gods, they're atheists.

So many god-believers try to (ignorantly) paint it as a set of beliefs, or a replacement for "religious" dogma or doctrine, or a "belief" in science, or all sorts of other nonsense. It's none of those things. Other than that one attribute in common, atheists are all individuals with their own thoughts, ideas, plans, goals, and even "beliefs" -- none of which have anything to do with atheism.

Peace.

The meaning is very simple:

A = not

Theist = god

I.E. a person who does not believe in a god (or any gods)

There is nothing more to the definition of atheist.

The fact that atheists tend to have some characteristics in common is purely coincidental:

Intelligent

inquiring

educated

free thinker

do not take to BS easily

Lack of belief in any deities.

Atheists can be communists, capitalists, moral objectivists, cultural relativists, humanists, social darwinists, believers in reincarnation, belief in psychics, scientific determinists, nihilists and many, many other things.

They can have varied views, despite sharing the same disbelief in deities. And that's part of the reason why atheists are so difficult to organise together in terms of voting, unlike the blocs many other groups form.

------------------------

No, the reason for disbelief can be many different things too. Personal grievances with religions, disliking the notion of servitude/subservience to deities, logical argument, lack of evidence, and so on.

Atheism is only a lack of belief in deities (gods).

Most atheists also reject all 'supernatural' claims but it's not a requirement.