what is atheism

[Jaxl]

A few years ago I came to the conclusion I was an atheist, but was recently convinced I was actually agnostic.

My question for everyone is: what is atheism? Atheism is by definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity(s), or, the doctrine that there is no deity.

By this second definition, it states that atheists know there is no higher power. However, no one can actually ever know if there is or isn't. Since no one can ever know if there is or isn't a higher power, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say one is agnostic?

On that note, I would like to launch into a much deeper issue of morality which I have come to face. First of all, I'd like to clarify that without religion, people can make moral choices. With this in mind, I’d like to launch into the idea of logic. Whether you are atheist or religious, you are presented with two basic options: God exists, or God does not exist.
Now in order to have a proper base for a logical argument, assumptions must be made. For the first case, our initial assumption is that God exists. With this assumption, the benefits of doing so would be any of the world’s religions; where with proper understanding can generally benefit the individual by creating in infrastructure for future decision making. With the second assumption, we find ourselves in the lap of atheism or agnosticism. At this point, we find…nothing. Atheism and agnosticism offer no help in proper decision making in the future. This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?

[Gilgamesh]

I've know people who share my stance on religion/god to a tee but don't define as atheists, where as I do. There are multiple accepted definitions of atheism. Some say atheism posits that there is no god; others, including myself, say it's the lack of belief in a god. I was made aware by one of the aforementioned people that if strictly speaking semantics, atheism would mean there is no god, since it's a-theism, right? Meh.

[Jaxl]

strictly speaking semantics, atheism would mean there is no god, since it's a-theism, right? Meh.

Pretty much. I've been kicking around the idea of what it means to be an atheist and the conclusion I came to was no one could truly be atheist unless he/she were completely close-minded, given the literal meaning of the word when its roots were dissected.

[Annik]

There's more than one kind of atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist. I recognize that I cannot disprove the possibility, but I live and act like an atheist.

[Ryantology]

given that either case is equally probable?

What nudged me from straight-up agnosticism to atheism was understanding that either case is not equally probable. There's no evidence of a God. That doesn't mean atheists are strictly correct, but it does mean that the evidence strongly argues against any theist claims. No claim of theism has ever withstood scrutiny, and simply making a claim does not confer credibility. Theistic claims can never be disproved, and no matter what we end up learning, the theist will simply move the goalposts.

There's also the fact that most atheists have a grain of agnosticism, while theists are usually forbidden from doubting the claims of their dogma.

This is why strict, treat-all-sides-evenly agnosticism is invalid, because theism is an intellectually vacant -ism while atheism probably correctly describes the universe as we know it. The chance that any theist claim will prove correct is asymptotically close to zero. If you state that a tree a thousand miles away has either blue or green leaves, I can confidently say that the leaves are likely to be green, even if I don't see it.

[genkaus]

A few years ago I came to the conclusion I was an atheist, but was recently convinced I was actually agnostic.

My question for everyone is: what is atheism? Atheism is by definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity(s), or, the doctrine that there is no deity.

By this second definition, it states that atheists know there is no higher power. However, no one can actually ever know if there is or isn't. Since no one can ever know if there is or isn't a higher power, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say one is agnostic?

2 points. First of all, you are ignoring the first definition and focusing on the second. Anyone who qualifies for either of those definitions would be an atheist. Also, knowledge is justified belief, i.e. a subset of your belief system. On subjects where there is no adequate justification, belief may fall on either side. For example, you may believe that OJ Simpson murdered his wife or you may believe that he did not, but in absence of conclusive proof, you cannot know. Which is why atheism can be further classified into agnostic atheists (I don't believe there is a god, but I'm not sure) and gnostic atheists.

Secondly, I disagree with your implicit statement here that "no one can actually know if there is a god or not". Depending on what one means by the word - that knowledge should not be beyond the possibility.

On that note, I would like to launch into a much deeper issue of morality which I have come to face. First of all, I'd like to clarify that without religion, people can make moral choices. With this in mind, I’d like to launch into the idea of logic. Whether you are atheist or religious, you are presented with two basic options: God exists, or God does not exist.
Now in order to have a proper base for a logical argument, assumptions must be made. For the first case, our initial assumption is that God exists. With this assumption, the benefits of doing so would be any of the world’s religions; where with proper understanding can generally benefit the individual by creating in infrastructure for future decision making. With the second assumption, we find ourselves in the lap of atheism or agnosticism. At this point, we find…nothing. Atheism and agnosticism offer no help in proper decision making in the future. This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?

Don't put both statements in the same category of basic assumptions. While a theist often bases his entire worldview on the belief that god exists, for an atheist, the belief that god does not exist is merely a secondary conclusion. Frankly speaking, I consider both statements as conclusions because the question of whether or not god exists is never the first or basic thing an individual learns. However, a theist goes on to treat it as a fundamental assumption, while the only reason it becomes significant to an atheist is because of the horde of theists trying to convince him otherwise.

Further, your assumption that either case is equally probable is is incorrect. And most of the atheists would disagree that your beliefs should be based on a cost-benefit analysis.

[pocaracas]

A few years ago I came to the conclusion I was an atheist, but was recently convinced I was actually agnostic.

My question for everyone is: what is atheism? Atheism is by definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity(s), or, the doctrine that there is no deity.

By this second definition, it states that atheists know there is no higher power. However, no one can actually ever know if there is or isn't. Since no one can ever know if there is or isn't a higher power, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say one is agnostic?

A funny thing about dictionary definitions is that the word defines fits all of the definitions, but that doesn't mean that they are all equivalent.
In this case, the two definitions pertain to two different approaches of the concept of atheist, two different sets of people with different views on the existence of gods... and atheists are all the people from any of these two sets.
Dawkins goes even further than that dictionary with his 7 levels of theism:

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
   
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
   
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
   
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
   
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
   
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
   
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
   

Most atheists around here fall closer to 6 than 7. And I think that's where you would stand.
Level 6 is the typical agnostic atheist.

On that note, I would like to launch into a much deeper issue of morality which I have come to face. First of all, I'd like to clarify that without religion, people can make moral choices. With this in mind, I’d like to launch into the idea of logic. Whether you are atheist or religious, you are presented with two basic options: God exists, or God does not exist.
Now in order to have a proper base for a logical argument, assumptions must be made. For the first case, our initial assumption is that God exists. With this assumption, the benefits of doing so would be any of the world’s religions; where with proper understanding can generally benefit the individual by creating in infrastructure for future decision making. With the second assumption, we find ourselves in the lap of atheism or agnosticism. At this point, we find…nothing. Atheism and agnosticism offer no help in proper decision making in the future. This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?

Option 1: believe in god...... option 1.1: chose one god.... option 1.2: accept all the mythology of that god and live by it.... yeah, all the work is done for you, you just need to accept it.
Option 2: do not believe in god. Use your local laws are behavior guidelines.

Now, probabilities...
Some people have managed to account for all the gods that humanity has followed. They came up with something like 2800 different gods. You can add to these any gods you may come up with, but you'll know there's no believers for those, so just forget about it
How do you know which of those 2800 is the real one? if any!
What are the odds that a given deity you end up following, turns out to be false, man-made, imagined...? 1/2800.
What are the odds that the absence of gods ends up being real?... 1/2?
Equally probable?

[CapnAwesome]

This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?

Okay, there are a few basic problems with the conclusions that you have come to. Number one is that agnosticism means that ether case is equally probably. That is not the case with agnostics, they simply say that we cannot know the answer to whether or not there is a god. That it is an unknowable question. It isn't a belief that says it's a 50/50 chance.

As I have heard that most Atheists are Agnostics, I have found the reverse to also be true. When I have pressured most agnostics I know, saying if you had a gun to your head and had to make a guess, the majority will say that they find God unlikely. So being an Agnostic doesn't mean at all you believe there is a 50/50 chance. I consider myself an Agnostic/Atheist, but I find the chance of God to be extremely low. Maybe an omnipotent being will appear tomorrow, having been hiding himself for no apparent reason. I don't find this likely.

The other problem is that you say the benefits of believing in God outweighs not believing in him, based on a moral argument. The main problem with this is that morality tends to deteriorate in large groups, rather than improve. Look at all the terrible moral decisions made in mass by the religious. An individual isn't going to decide to go out and burn witches, or start a war. These aren't moral decisions that an individual is even capable of making. History seems to indicate that individual morality has been far superior to group morality, and especially religious group morality.

[FallentoReason]

Theist - belief in a deity/deities.
A-theist - lack of belief in a deity/deities.

Gnostic - certain they know something to be true/real.
A-gnostic - uncertain they know something to be true.

Simple.

[Creed of Heresy]

I live by a simple maxim: Put up or shut up.

They make the claims. I ask them to put up or shut up. They never put up, so I ask that they shut up.

This is how it is with religion. As someone who is very good with reading motives and intents in people via their actions, and as good as I am at reading behavioral patterns, I have oft noticed just how many appeals to emotion the many claims in the various "holy" books really have. That's all they are, you know. Appeals, nothing more.

The few historical referrals to the Christ-figure do little to prove much of anything to me, ditto for claims in a 1700-year-old text-book alluding to god that which is now easily explainable by science in ways that are far more logical. I see no reason to attribute god to anything anymore; it is superfluous, unneeded, unnecessary, and most of all, unwanted. "God moves in mysterious ways" sounds like a fucking excuse to me if I ever heard one, and if you tried an excuse on that level with anything else in life, nobody would ever buy it. Seriously, just try it.

Your wife: "Why did you sleep with my sister!?" You: "I move in mysterious ways." Result: Divorce.
Police officer: "Why did you shoot that man?" You: "I move in mysterious ways." Result: 25-to-life.
You: "Why did I jump from this building??" Your brain: "I move in mysterious ways." Result: Dead in 3...2...1...splat.

Replace "I" with "god" and the end result is still the same. It's a piss-poor, extremely stupid excuse and nobody buys it until it comes to something that can't be attributed to something dumbed-down for the masses. Scientific deconstructions of such events are pish-tushed and haughtily decried as the scientists raining on the parade or being naysayers or killjoys or some such garbage about the supposed miracle when in fact they're simply giving a valid reason to why what happened, happened, so that it might be studied and harnessed to aid other individuals later down the road rather than letting it get chalked up to some superstitious mumbo-jumbo babble-ical shit that, ignored, does nothing to aid anyone further.

So, no, the idea that being a total atheist makes someone completely close-minded is false. It means they're very open-minded, in fact; far less prone to attributing something to something that hasn't been shown to actually be there, and far less prone to delusion. You, however, are saying that you are credulous, which means that it is highly likely that some day in the future when something not easily explainable happens to you, you're probably going to convert back to whatever religion you were beforehand as a "born again" individual. The members of your religion will hold you up as a paragon of their faith, proof that anyone can "come back to the light," when in fact you actually turned off the light of reason and went scurrying back under the blankets and covers of faith; the false comforts that it entails.

If/when that happens, just promise you won't start writing books or doing interviews or anything like that about how it's such a triumph of faith to bring an atheist "back to the light", it's really obnoxious; like a high school kid bragging to his friends about doing this TOTALLY SWEET JUMP ON HIS SKATEBOARD MAN AND HOW HE'S SO REBELLIOUS CUZ OF IT. Ok? Promise?