What is Atheism?

[Nonpareil]

This means you know shit, and your understanding is shit and you don't have an ounce of credentials for anything.  You have no real thought of our own that can quantify into argument, because you don't have any knowledge of it .

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I do not care.

The best you can do is take shit from another Atheist and rehash it.

I haven't done anything other than point out that your understanding of atheism is demonstrably wrong. You think that it is a unified school of thought, when, in actuality, it is simply a lack of belief in gods, with absolutely no other riders or criteria attached to that. You also pointlessly idolize "Eastern" thinking, without realizing how your trying to cram all of Asian culture under one label like that really indicates a complete lack of understanding of the many and varied religions and philosophies there, and posit a dichotomy between western and eastern atheism that does not exist, because of the aforementioned not-being-a-school-of-thought thing.

Then you threw a shitfit, which is still ongoing, and have attempted to call into question others' credentials when this is not relevant to the discussion (because a Ph.D. is not necessary to point out that you don't know what the word "atheism" means), have not provided any credentials yourself (again, not that it would be relevant), and haven't actually given anybody any reason to want to provide you with them (because pearls before swine, and all that).

You really don't seem to have any idea how to hold a coherent conversation.

I have not seen an Atheist bullshit like you and then malign the definition by adding the last part about "souls, ghosts, psychic powers, magic, or anything else"
 This is the problem with Atheists in the West.  They can't get a formal definition.

No, irontiger. We have a formal definition. I have just given it to you. It is "a lack of belief in gods".

Literally nothing else is relevant, and there is no requirement for atheists to eschew beliefs in ghosts, souls, karma, aliens, psychic powers, or anything else. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a philosophy. Atheism comes with no restrictions or requirements. Atheism is literally just lack of belief in gods. This is true whether you are in the west or the east.

That you see this as a problem is no one's issue but your own.

Atheism in the East is different in that aspect.  A group or individual determines that not to accept the current or particular or popular philosophy.  A new philosophy is formed may it be theistic or atheistic, write down the points, make sound arguments and deliver the message to others.

You are not describing atheism, irontiger. You are describing a philosophical school that happens to be atheistic.

And, in case you missed the memo, we have those here, too.

[masterofpuppets]

You can define atheism however you want. You may even call it a worldview, which is something I would reject. The point is, that doesn't actually change what atheists think.

What you can't do is define atheism, and then claim that "he said he's an atheist, atheism is xyz and therefore he believes in xyz". This is the problem with theists. Instead of ASKING atheists what they believe in, they TELL atheists what they believe in, in order to dumb down the atheist position, and try to force a burden of proof onto them. This is an invalid move, because atheism concerns what is NOT believed, not what is.

If most people who claim to be atheists do so because they lack a belief in gods, then would it not make sense to define atheism as such? Besides, the word "atheist" in English technically means "not a theist". Theism is defined as the belief in gods (or more specifically, a god that intervenes with the universe, as opposed to deism).

It astonishes me that there can be so much disagreement on such a simple word with a well-accepted definition.

[Nonpareil]

Again "your " definition of Atheism is only good in the West.

It is not my definition. It is the definition.

I really do have to ask again: is English your first language? 

Not compatible in the East, for example there is school of thought were atheists not only believe in souls but the summation of all the souls is God and God is not separate entity.

If they believe in God, they are not atheists, tiger. They may not be traditional theists, but they are not atheists. That is not what the word means.

and I have yet to see an Atheist in the West say he/she believes in a soul, I think you are bullshitting

I don't care.

[Jesster]

What you are calling "atheism in the East" is starting to sound like pantheism. We already have a word for that.

[Jesster]

If they are calling anything a god, then they are theists of one stripe or another.

[Nonpareil]

You lie about making claims that you know Eastern philosophies but you never studied them.

I do not care whether or not you believe me.

Then assert what atheism is even though not everyone who claims to be an atheist in this world would agree with you.

I do not care whether or not they would agree, either. The word has a definition in the dictionary, irontiger. It is not subject to whether or not you like it.

God can be defined in more than one way and does have to conform to your petty and insignificant brain.

That's wonderful.

If you believe in a god, however you you define it, you are not an atheist.

Again this is considered atheistic only because it makes the distinction that God is a not supreme being.  This would be not be accepted in the West as atheism.

Because that is not what "atheism" means. If it were, the ancient Greeks would have been atheists, because they had a whole pantheon of gods that were not supreme beings.

You accuse others of not understanding the terms in play, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that this is exactly the opposite of what is happening here. You have come into this forum with an idea in your head of what atheism is that is based on an entirely separate concept from an entirely different language. This concept - which, in English, would be expressed as "non-traditional theism", not "atheism" - does not have a one-to-one translation, but you are attempting to brute-force it anyway, and force the definition of "atheism" in this language to change to suit you.

I am afraid that is not how it works, and throwing a bitch-fit at other members for pointing out that this is not what the word means in English is not going to get you anywhere.

[Jesster]

 What is your definition of God?  I mean why is using the word God an issue with you

It doesn't matter if I have a definition of God. If anyone else has a definition of God that they believe in, that makes them a theist. Using the word God also isn't an issue to me. I just don't believe in one, so I am an atheist.

[Nonpareil]

What you are saying is that you are a racist pig

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Edit.

I misunderstood the intended meaning of the pigeon picture.  My apologies for being thick

[Jesster]

This is interesting.  I always value those instances where I have the awareness to see that I'm the pigeon; however, I also appreciate it when people take the time to point it out to me.

With that said, IMO, in regards to the exchanges between theists and atheists in this thread, could it be the case that some exchanges have begun with one side thinking that they are the skilled chess players while viewing the other side as the pigeons?  Does such a mindset produce meaningful dialog? Does it promote inquiry and a willingness to test one's preconceptions and starting points?

All that was really referencing was the hissy fit going on. Arguments are fine, but some people just lose their cool and act like they are winning at something. It's impossible to have a conversation at that point.