Things for which there is no evidence...

[Ben Davis]

Atheism, in my understanding, is the lack of belief in god(s), due to the fact that there is no evidence for them.

You've got extra baggage on your definition of 'atheism' which is why you come to your conclusions. 'A-theism' is 'an absence of theism'. It makes no statement on the reason why there might be an absence, it only describes that there is no theism. To paraphrase your definition to make this clear and hopefully give you a greater insight:

Atheism, in my understanding, is the lack of belief in god(s), due to the fact that I believe in a non-theistic religion.

Atheism, in my understanding, is the lack of belief in god(s), due to the fact that I was raised in a culture/environment which had never heard of theism.

Atheism, in my understanding, is the lack of belief in god(s), due to the fact that my Uncle told me so and he's never wrong.

See? I deliberately picked alternatives which require no critical thinking or reasoning to try and make my point clear. The only consistent factor across these definitions is the 'lack of belief in god(s)'. Any other statements are completely unnecessary and can lead you to assumptions that can warp your perceptions.

[Sejanus]

Whilst it may indeed be true that you'd be hard pushed to find an atheist who believes in dragons, this is entirely irrelevant to being an atheist. Indeed, if no atheists believed in a dragon of any sort, this would not be because they are atheists. It would be because they have applied the same reasoning to why they disbelieve in claims of deities to that of dragons.

Ok. I know that atheism is only a response to the god claim, and that atheists
do not need to disbelieve in anything else. I'm not trying to say it is. I just want to know why that same reasoning wouldn't be applied to other things for which there is no evidence. (If the lack of evidence was the reason for disbelief) <---- I didn't make that part clear in the OP, my apologies.

When someone says something particulary stupid I try to believe they meant it ironically. It keeps me sane.

O great enlightened one! do share your immense wisdom with us mere mortals. Because, you know, calling someone stupid doesn't contribute to the discussion... even a little bit.

You've got extra baggage on your definition of 'atheism' which is why you come to your conclusions. 'A-theism' is 'an absence of theism'. It makes no statement on the reason why there might be an absence, it only describes that there is no theism.

Thanks for clarifying. I made the thread in a bit of a rush and I erroneously assumed that the reason I disbelieved in god(s) was true for most atheists.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Whilst it may indeed be true that you'd be hard pushed to find an atheist who believes in dragons, this is entirely irrelevant to being an atheist. Indeed, if no atheists believed in a dragon of any sort, this would not be because they are atheists. It would be because they have applied the same reasoning to why they disbelieve in claims of deities to that of dragons.

Ok. I know that atheism is only a response to the god claim, and that atheists
do not need to disbelieve in anything else. I'm not trying to say it is. I just want to know why that same reasoning wouldn't be applied to other things for which there is no evidence. (If the lack of evidence was the reason for disbelief) <---- I didn't make that part clear in the OP, my apologies.

No problem.

I'd read Ben's response to you above for a better clarification. Everything else beyond the lack of belief is superfluous to said lack of belief.

Not everyone is an atheist because they have used deductive reasoning in which to identify as one. Everyone is born an 'atheist', but that requires no reasoning at all. Does that make more sense?

[Napoléon]

Thanks for clarifying. I made the thread in a bit of a rush and I erroneously assumed that the reason I disbelieved in god(s) was true for most atheists.

It probably is true for most atheists in fairness. Although you left no parameter for other reasoning with your assumption

[houseofcantor]

Thanks for clarifying. I made the thread in a bit of a rush and I erroneously assumed that the reason I disbelieved in god(s) was true for most atheists.

'Cause you're a poopyhead.

Rational skepticism may be the claim you're looking for.

[FreeTony]

When someone says something particulary stupid I try to believe they meant it ironically. It keeps me sane.

O great enlightened one! do share your immense wisdom with us mere mortals. Because, you know, calling someone stupid doesn't contribute to the discussion... even a little bit.

Err, hang on, I wasn't calling you stupid. It was aimed at the occasional person I meet, normally at work, who say things like "Global warming isn't real because it's snowing today" or "Doctors don't know anything" etc etc. I'm sure we all experience this. I just laugh and pretend they meant it as a joke.

[downbeatplumb]

Around the forum from time to time, I've seen posts about how atheism is only the rejection of the god(s) claim. In such posts, people have said that it is possible to be an atheist and still be spiritual.
Atheism, in my understanding, is the lack of belief in god(s), due to the fact that there is no evidence for them.
My question is this: are there any atheists on the forum who believe in anything for which there is no evidence? because if you do, I hope you can see how this is intellectually dishonest.

Atheism is a stance on one thing only.
It has nothing to say about any other stupid beliefs that anyone may have.
I personally am a bit superstitious I know its stupid but I cant help it.
My superstition takes the form of making wagers with reality, If I get this scrunched up paper in the bin the post wont be too big. Complete tosh I know but it helps to pass the day.
It also helps me to see religion for what it is, which is a more formulised and ritualistic form of the same superstition that I recognise in myself.

Let me be clear I know its bollocks but somehow cant stop.

[Simon Moon]

Around the forum from time to time, I've seen posts about how atheism is only the rejection of the god(s) claim. In such posts, people have said that it is possible to be an atheist and still be spiritual.

Atheism is only the disbelief in gods, or rejection of the claim that gods exist.

Anything else that someone believes or disbelieves in is outside the purview of atheism.

Atheism, in my understanding, is the lack of belief in god(s), due to the fact that there is no evidence for them.

There is nothing in the definition of atheism that specifies how or why someone disbelieves in gods. Only that one disbelieves.

My question is this: are there any atheists on the forum who believe in anything for which there is no evidence? because if you do, I hope you can see how this is intellectually dishonest.

It is only intellectually dishonest if the person claims to be a skeptic. It is not intellectually dishonest if their only stated position is that they disbelieve in gods.

My atheism is the product of my skepticism. I arrived at it using the correct application of critical thinking and logic when applied to the god claim.

[JuliaL]

I believe that there are, or at least could be, many more dimensions than the 3 or 4 which we can detect.
They just happen to be in directions we can't see. My apologies to the physicists who are working so hard looking.
For the following, you can't really use the definition of Universe as being everything that is...reality becomes recursive.
One more dimension could give an infinite number of (see above) Universes, two gives an infinite number of Multiverses, three gives me a headache.
The string conjecturists need 9 or 11 or whatever more dimensions. I'm willing to give them to them.
The religionists will always have one more in which God can hide. I'm not so willing to go along there because they always seem to want to use this claim to push me around.

[truthBtold]

I believe that there are, or at least could be, many more dimensions than the 3 or 4 which we can detect.
They just happen to be in directions we can't see. My apologies to the physicists who are working so hard looking.
For the following, you can't really use the definition of Universe as being everything that is...reality becomes recursive.
One more dimension could give an infinite number of (see above) Universes, two gives an infinite number of Multiverses, three gives me a headache.
The string conjecturists need 9 or 11 or whatever more dimensions. I'm willing to give them to them.
The religionists will always have one more in which God can hide. I'm not so willing to go along there because they always seem to want to use this claim to push me around.

Atheism is a label.. not a world view