Sorry "agnostics", but you're either a theist or an atheist

[Haggis_McMutton]

Some premises are simply unknown. Not everyone must either accept P or not P. Its truth or falsity is hard to determine, so it is possible to label it as "unknown." Since that's the case, one can be agnostic without being lumped into the "either-or" categories.

it's not a question of knowledge, it's of belief.
i don't know if there's a god, I however don't believe there is one so I don't pray to him.
Do you pray?
Do you take any act that would stem from a belief in god?
If you don't you're either repressing your belief in god for some reason, or you don't have a belief in god(and are thus an atheist).

And what prevents someone from reasonably withholding judgement on either? That in itself is an acceptable belief, and such a belief is the third alternative which can't be lumped into either "atheist" or "theist."

I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Are you saying that:
1. Having no belief is a third option? because it isn't, atheism is "lack of belief in god". No belief would probably fall under implicit atheist, together with the kids and the people who've never heard of god.
2. That your basic system of logic isn't binary, but trinary, like natty is claiming? I'm not sure how tenable that position is, but as a first challenge you'd have to explain why that same logic doesn't lead you to put your fallen tooth under your pillow(my response to natty)

Another problem with your way of thinking is that it's purely "either-or." It doesn't reasonably allow for other answers like "God is; god isn't," which is just as reasonable as stating "P" or "Not P" or "unknown/not sure."

What so at the same time you believe god exists and you don't believe god exist?

It's a bit early in the debate to resort to quantum mechanics.

It's a line of reasoning that's associated with Buddhist philosophy and especially Zen Buddhism. I'm just pointing out that the "it's either this or that" conundrum does have reasonable alternatives.

It's not just "god exists and god doesn't exist"/ (Both and P and not P). It can also be "Neither P or not P" or "P} or "Not P."

... how?

P & -P is a contradiction, I don't follow what you're saying.

When someone asks me if I believe in the Christian God, I say, "no, that's just silly."

But how about the Hindu version where the "Supreme Being" is the collection of every thing? I say, "well, that's interesting."

I'm not even passing judgement on either belief, and that's an acceptable answer. It may prove bothersome to Western philosophy because it doesn't fit their view on how things must be believed or understood.

well, we're playing with semantics here. If you wanna call "everything" god instead of calling it the universe, well that's fine, but it doesn't really say anything about your stance on theism/atheism.
I know some of the belief systems in the east are considered atheistic even though they're a religion.

As a working definition let's say that:

A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.

If you don't have belief in a deity, you're an atheist, regardless of wether you believe in reincarnation, or UFO's or that the earth is a living being.

"Is the Hindu version of god true, or is it false?" Well, I have no idea. To most Hindus, sure. To Christians, no. In that sense, the Hindu belief is true and it isn't true.

So, there's no absolute truth to any of your questions because the belief of God varies in definition among whoever is asked. With no such absolute "criterion of correctness," how can you even begin to assert that based on someone's answers, that they must be either a theist or an atheist?

you messing with me?
what has any of that to do with what you believe? If you believe in a god, you're a theist, if you don't you're an atheist, pretty simple. Who said anything about absolute truth? we're talking about individual beliefs here.

Certainly, I agree that belief doesn't equal knowledge, but any belief is based on some amount of knowledge.

So, why do you strike out the belief of "not sure," which is based one's knowledge of that which supports "P" and the knowledge which supports "Not P""?

the answer "not sure" addresses the question of knowledge. You can be not sure and be a theist and you can be not sure and be an atheist.
I'm talking about the question of belief.
Are you saying you're not sure about your belief? do you not know if you do or do not have a belief in a deity?

[BigBallinStalin]

When someone asks me if I believe in the Christian God, I say, "no, that's just silly."

But how about the Hindu version where the "Supreme Being" is the collection of every thing? I say, "well, that's interesting."

I'm not even passing judgement on either belief, and that's an acceptable answer. It may prove bothersome to Western philosophy because it doesn't fit their view on how things must be believed or understood.

well, we're playing with semantics here. If you wanna call "everything" god instead of calling it the universe, well that's fine, but it doesn't really say anything about your stance on theism/atheism.
I know some of the belief systems in the east are considered atheistic even though they're a religion.

As a working definition let's say that:

A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.

If you don't have belief in a deity, you're an atheist, regardless of wether you believe in reincarnation, or UFO's or that the earth is a living being.

Well, working with that definition, you could label me as an atheist.

"Is the Hindu version of god true, or is it false?" Well, I have no idea. To most Hindus, sure. To Christians, no. In that sense, the Hindu belief is true and it isn't true.

So, there's no absolute truth to any of your questions because the belief of God varies in definition among whoever is asked. With no such absolute "criterion of correctness," how can you even begin to assert that based on someone's answers, that they must be either a theist or an atheist?

you messing with me?
what has any of that to do with what you believe? If you believe in a god, you're a theist, if you don't you're an atheist, pretty simple. Who said anything about absolute truth? we're talking about individual beliefs here.

You don't have to get all " " with me...

[BigBallinStalin]

What so at the same time you believe god exists and you don't believe god exist?

It's a bit early in the debate to resort to quantum mechanics.

It's a line of reasoning that's associated with Buddhist philosophy and especially Zen Buddhism. I'm just pointing out that the "it's either this or that" conundrum does have reasonable alternatives.

It's not just "god exists and god doesn't exist"/ (Both and P and not P). It can also be "Neither P or not P" or "P} or "Not P."

... how?

P & -P is a contradiction, I don't follow what you're saying.

Contradictions are the name of the game in Zen Buddhism. That's one of their main goals. It's to show you that your intellect alone can't deliver you to a deeper understanding of certain answers (like the existence of god). It tries to reorganize the mind towards a different direction without you ever really going anywhere with it...

if ya know what I mean <wiggles eyebrows>

Certainly, I agree that belief doesn't equal knowledge, but any belief is based on some amount of knowledge.

So, why do you strike out the belief of "not sure," which is based one's knowledge of that which supports "P" and the knowledge which supports "Not P""?

the answer "not sure" addresses the question of knowledge. You can be not sure and be a theist and you can be not sure and be an atheist.
I'm talking about the question of belief.
Are you saying you're not sure about your belief? do you not know if you do or do not have a belief in a deity?

And why can't one hold the belief of "not sure/undecided" or "P and not P" or "sometimes P, and sometimes not P."

Your way of thinking is purely "either-or," which flat out denies other plausible answers--regardless of how unacceptable they may seem at first.

[Fircoal]

It's in the name really theist, a-theist. Get it?
Like P or not-P there's no other choice. You can say I'm not sure about my P status, but that's another question, you have to be either P or not-P regardless of the strength of your conviction in P.

I know there's negative connotations to the word, and that a group of what you consider loud assholes are the most visible part of atheism, and that you don't necessarily want to be associated with them. But you guys are supposed to be "the most rational", right? So are you going to misrepresent your beliefs because stating them truthfully would associate you with assholes? Are you that sensitive to public opinion?

Atheism is a huge umbrella term. saying that a person is an atheist says actually very little about them.
You can be a strong atheist("i know there's no god"), or an agnostic atheist("I don't believe there's a god, his existence seems unlikely").
You can be an explicit atheist(conscious rejection of religious beliefs), or an implicit one(the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it).
You can be a theoretical atheist(you have theoretical arguments to support your lack of belief) or a pragmatic one(the existence of gods is not explicitly rejected, but is considered unnecessary or useless - aka apatheism)

Or if you really wanna be a smart-ass you can be a theological noncognitivist and claim that the question "does god exist" is meaningless untill someone can come up with a sensible definition of god(i.e. god needs to be falsifiable).

And I'm sure there's other variations and what have you.
But yeah, like I said a-theist, if you're not a theist, you must be an atheist ...

remember belief /= knowledge. I know that I might win the lottery, but I don't believe I will so I don't buy a ticket.
I know that I might get hit by a car when I leave my house, but I don't believe I will, so I leave anyway.

keeping that in mind, here's a handy questionnaire:
1. Do you believe the universe was consciously created by a living being?(hint: if you have no belief one way or the other, then you do not believe that the universe was created)
2. Do you pray/meditation/what have you/ so you can communicate with a creator?
3. Do you believe that the creator is a source of objective morality/ do you have objective moral laws you try to follow?
4. Do you try to only do "good" things so that the universe's creator will be pleased?

If you answered no to these... you'd better sit down for this ... you're an atheist.

But don't worry, you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic pragmatic atheist so you can still avoid association with dawkins and the other "loud assholes".

I like this post. I personally consider myself an agnostic atheist though if asked I'd go into the atheist camp. ;3

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

In binary terms, that's a "no".

Our world is not binary... at least yet

[BigBallinStalin]

2. That your basic system of logic isn't binary, but trinary, like natty is claiming? I'm not sure how tenable that position is, but as a first challenge you'd have to explain why that same logic doesn't lead you to put your fallen tooth under your pillow(my response to natty)

Challenge accepted. <folds arms>

Hmm, interesting point natty, however that seems to be a flawed system to me.

Sorry, but I function on trinary logic.

By binary logic, you say... IF belief in tooth fairy = FALSE: tooth fairy atheism = TRUE
Therefore, tooth fairy atheism = NOT belief in tooth fairy. NOT FALSE == TRUE

That's fine.
But by using trinary logic, I can say...

existence of tooth fairy = UNKNOWN
tooth fairy atheism = NOT existence of tooth fairy = NOT UNKNOWN = UNKNOWN
tooth fairy theism = existence of tooth fairy = UNKNOWN

tooth fairy agnosticism = (tooth fairy atheism EQUALS tooth fairy theism) = UNKNOWN EQUALS UNKNOWN = TRUE

-> tooth fairy agnosticism = TRUE

QED.

Now a cost benefit ratio.

putting your tooth under the pillow:
Cost: Insignificant(asking your dentist to give you the tooth after he removes it + physical effort expended to put tooth under pillow).
Benefit:
If tooth fairy exist -> $$$
if tooth fairy doesn't exist -> nothing

This clearly shows that if you have belief status "UNKNOWN" on the existence of the tooth-fairy you should put all your teeth under the pillow?

Do you/ would you?

Essentially, if one is an agnostic, why doesn't he pray anyway?

If an agnostic doesn't pray, it is because the agnostic doubts that he would receive anything from the exchange. This doubting is really the belief that god does not exist (because if an agnostic didn't have this doubt, they would simply pray all the time).

If an agnostic chose to pray, then that agnostic is a deist because the agnostic has engaged in an exchange with a deity, whose existence they can't honestly doubt during this exchange.

If an agnostic chooses not to pray, then they are doubting the existence of god (since the agnostic expects the second party, god, to not deliver). Therefore, agnostics are really atheists who are unwilling or are still incapable of accepting the fact that they are atheists.

I see what you're saying, Haggis, and I'm going to go with [95% AGREE] on your argument in this thread.

_______________________________________________________________

One could say that an "agnostic" merely flips from being "theist" or "atheist" on a more frequent basis compared to a "long-term" theist or "long-term" atheist.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, working with that definition, you could label me as an atheist.

Awesome, so I can put you down as a conversion?
Man, the guys at the next atheist sermon are gonna be sooo jealous.
Go ahead and contact Juan about your initiation rites.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm gonna post a serious reply later, :p.
My computer is acting up ...

If you don't agree with that definition of deity please propose an alternate one.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm gonna post a serious reply later, :p.
My computer is acting up ...

If you don't agree with that definition of deity please propose an alternate one.

My first post on this page 95% agrees with your argument from your first post.

Agnostics are really atheists.

Or in other words, agnostics are really just part-time theists or part-time atheists. They simply flip from doubting and not doubting.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm gonna post a serious reply later, :p.
My computer is acting up ...

If you don't agree with that definition of deity please propose an alternate one.

My first post on this page 95% agrees with your argument from your first post.

Agnostics are really atheists.

Or in other words, agnostics are really just part-time theists or part-time atheists. They simply flip from doubting and not doubting.

What ... No one changes their mind on the internet ...
What ... have ... you ... DONE!?!?

[BigBallinStalin]

What you're saying is that "people who are generally recognized as atheists" are only a small subset of all atheist, those that are actually called strong atheists.

saying you're an agnostic doesn't say anything about your belief or lack a belief in god.
You can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic(like me).

Atheism is not disbelief in god(that's a subset), it's lack of belief in god
You either have belief in god, or you lack it, there's no middle ground no matter how hard you want to be "moderate" and "neutral".

I don't want to be moderate or neutral. I think that "strong atheists" and religious people (that is, Christians, Muslims, etc.) are all irrational and deluded. I don't consider myself to be in the middle of some spectrum of people who have unnecessary opinions about invisible men in the sky.

To frame it another way, let's radically simplify the spectrum of political beliefs into libertarians on the right, socialists on the left, and centrists somewhere in between. Surely there are some people out there who do not believe they are libertarians and do not believe in the value of socialism. Some of these people will be centrists, but some are simply politically apathetic - they don't have an opinion on the best style of governance, so they refuse to call themselves libertarian or socialist. Your stance is equivalent to saying that the politically apathetic are therefore politically centrist. This is necessarily faulty logic. Lack of a belief does not mean you have a belief.

This doesn't work because one can be Libertarian and be leftist. With politics, one can be a multitude of various and sometimes contradictory ideological stances--which is why we later come up with fancy words like "National Socialist" or "neo-conservative" or "social democrat."

There's no such possibility with agnosticism in its basic "beliefs" on the existence of god because the issue of god's existence doesn't vary as much as one's opinion on government and economic policies varies. Agnosticism id about "P" or "not P." Economics and political science is about "A, B, C, D, etc + A1, A2, A3, etc."


No one is truly apathetic when they're actually pressed with questions because even the most seemingly apathetic still have opinions related to some kind of political/economic ideology. Those who are apathetic have yet to acknowledge that they already fall under some category of "libertarian," "centrist," "socialist," etc.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

it's about beliefs not knowledge. If you're not sure what you believe, a handy way to figure it out is to look at your actions(see my questionnaire)

Still not a binary question.

I have no idea why you are attempting to rewrite the english language, but we have multiple words for various concepts for a good reason.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

it's about beliefs not knowledge. If you're not sure what you believe, a handy way to figure it out is to look at your actions(see my questionnaire)

Still not a binary question.

1.You have belief.
2.You don't have belief.
3. ???

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

it's about beliefs not knowledge. If you're not sure what you believe, a handy way to figure it out is to look at your actions(see my questionnaire)

Still not a binary question.

I have no idea why you are attempting to rewrite the english language, but we have multiple words for various concepts for a good reason.

There's no rewriting here, ma'am.

With action comes truth, so let us know your actions by your answering the questions--especially the one about whether or not you pray.

[john9blue]

a few questions for you all: do you believe that it's possible to be an agnostic theist? do you believe it's possible to be purely agnostic? if so, what does a pure agnostic believe?

It's in the name really theist, a-theist. Get it?
Like P or not-P there's no other choice. You can say I'm not sure about my P status, but that's another question, you have to be either P or not-P regardless of the strength of your conviction in P.

true enough

I know there's negative connotations to the word, and that a group of what you consider loud assholes are the most visible part of atheism, and that you don't necessarily want to be associated with them. But you guys are supposed to be "the most rational", right? So are you going to misrepresent your beliefs because stating them truthfully would associate you with assholes? Are you that sensitive to public opinion?

also true, an appeal to public opinion wouldn't be rational

Atheism is a huge umbrella term. saying that a person is an atheist says actually very little about them.
You can be a strong atheist("i know there's no god"), or an agnostic atheist("I don't believe there's a god, his existence seems unlikely").
You can be an explicit atheist(conscious rejection of religious beliefs), or an implicit one(the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it).
You can be a theoretical atheist(you have theoretical arguments to support your lack of belief) or a pragmatic one(the existence of gods is not explicitly rejected, but is considered unnecessary or useless - aka apatheism)

these are all beliefs except for implicit atheism. i don't believe there is such a thing as implicit atheism, since it implies that atheism is the neutral position, which it is not. atheism is a cognitive position; the act of declaring yourself an atheist is conscious.

Or if you really wanna be a smart-ass you can be a theological noncognitivist and claim that the question "does god exist" is meaningless untill someone can come up with a sensible definition of god(i.e. god needs to be falsifiable).

this is a belief, but not about whether god exists or not, it's more of a semantic belief lol

And I'm sure there's other variations and what have you.
But yeah, like I said a-theist, if you're not a theist, you must be an atheist ...

remember belief /= knowledge. I know that I might win the lottery, but I don't believe I will so I don't buy a ticket.
I know that I might get hit by a car when I leave my house, but I don't believe I will, so I leave anyway.

see my question above... do you believe that it's possible to be purely agnostic? what if an atheist comes across evidence for god that he is 50% convinced to believe and 50% convinced to dismiss. is he a theist or an atheist?

keeping that in mind, here's a handy questionnaire:
1. Do you believe the universe was consciously created by a living being?(hint: if you have no belief one way or the other, then you do not believe that the universe was created)
2. Do you pray/meditation/what have you/ so you can communicate with a creator?
3. Do you believe that the creator is a source of objective morality/ do you have objective moral laws you try to follow?
4. Do you try to only do "good" things so that the universe's creator will be pleased?

If you answered no to these... you'd better sit down for this ... you're an atheist.

But don't worry, you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic pragmatic atheist so you can still avoid association with dawkins and the other "loud assholes".

the assumption on number 1 is wrong, and i answered "maybe" to most of them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Either you pray to a deity at times, or you don't, john.


<flicks on the interrogation light>


Answer the question, John. Do you pray to a deity, or do you not pray to a deity?

[john9blue]

sometimesss

[Army of GOD]

sometimesss

(I'm the bad cop, BBS is the good cop)

[jonesthecurl]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

In binary terms, that's a "no".

Our world is not binary... at least yet

Oh yes it isn't.

[Haggis_McMutton]

a few questions for you all: do you believe that it's possible to be an agnostic theist?

Sure.

do you believe it's possible to be purely agnostic? if so, what does a pure agnostic believe?

Don't think so. You must either have or lack a belief in god.

Atheism is a huge umbrella term. saying that a person is an atheist says actually very little about them.
You can be a strong atheist("i know there's no god"), or an agnostic atheist("I don't believe there's a god, his existence seems unlikely").
You can be an explicit atheist(conscious rejection of religious beliefs), or an implicit one(the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it).
You can be a theoretical atheist(you have theoretical arguments to support your lack of belief) or a pragmatic one(the existence of gods is not explicitly rejected, but is considered unnecessary or useless - aka apatheism)

these are all beliefs except for implicit atheism. i don't believe there is such a thing as implicit atheism, since it implies that atheism is the neutral position, which it is not. atheism is a cognitive position; the act of declaring yourself an atheist is conscious.

Not at all. You're referring to explicit atheism, THAT is a cognitive position.
However at it's most general atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. If you've never heard of god, you're an implicit atheist(unless you wanna argue that infants are born with a belief in god).

Or if you really wanna be a smart-ass you can be a theological noncognitivist and claim that the question "does god exist" is meaningless untill someone can come up with a sensible definition of god(i.e. god needs to be falsifiable).

this is a belief, but not about whether god exists or not, it's more of a semantic belief lol

Actually it's quite a sensible approach i think. It is kind of ridiculous to keep discussing this god thing when it's not even sensibly defined. If I remember correctly, Ditocoaf subscribed to this belief, heh I miss that guy.
However it falls under atheism IMO, and when someone asks you about your stance on religion, I prefer saying "atheist" than "theological noncognitivist"

And I'm sure there's other variations and what have you.
But yeah, like I said a-theist, if you're not a theist, you must be an atheist ...

remember belief /= knowledge. I know that I might win the lottery, but I don't believe I will so I don't buy a ticket.
I know that I might get hit by a car when I leave my house, but I don't believe I will, so I leave anyway.

see my question above... do you believe that it's possible to be purely agnostic? what if an atheist comes across evidence for god that he is 50% convinced to believe and 50% convinced to dismiss. is he a theist or an atheist?

Like I said, this isn't actually possible in reality. EXACTLY 50% sure? ...

keeping that in mind, here's a handy questionnaire:
1. Do you believe the universe was consciously created by a living being?(hint: if you have no belief one way or the other, then you do not believe that the universe was created)
2. Do you pray/meditation/what have you/ so you can communicate with a creator?
3. Do you believe that the creator is a source of objective morality/ do you have objective moral laws you try to follow?
4. Do you try to only do "good" things so that the universe's creator will be pleased?

If you answered no to these... you'd better sit down for this ... you're an atheist.

But don't worry, you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic pragmatic atheist so you can still avoid association with dawkins and the other "loud assholes".

the assumption on number 1 is wrong, and i answered "maybe" to most of them.

it's only wrong if you again equal atheism with explicit atheism. You guys are generalizing. no belief = lack of belief in god.
Also, you maybe pray? and you maybe believe you have objective morals and you maybe try to appease the creator?

If that's true, I guess BBS' interpretation is the most valid, you just switch between atheist and theist a lot more often than the rest of us.

[Symmetry]

There is no reason why you must have or not have a belief in God, or a god. What's your stance on string theory? Do you believe in it? Do you think it's false?

[Haggis_McMutton]

There is no reason why you must have or not have a belief in God, or a god. What's your stance on string theory? Do you believe in it? Do you think it's false?

1. What options exist except for having and lacking a belief in god?

2. i don't believe string theory is true actually, but that might be another thread.

[Symmetry]

There is no reason why you must have or not have a belief in God, or a god. What's your stance on string theory? Do you believe in it? Do you think it's false?

1. What options exist except for having and lacking a belief in god?

2. i don't believe string theory is true actually, but that might be another thread.

My personal position is of being unsure either way. I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it. The reason why I often bring up the unicorn analogy is that it's another thing I just don't think about. Believing in god, or not believing in god just doesn't really explain how I go about my life.

String theory was perhaps, in your case a bad example then. But pick any controversial explanation of how things are and you'll find there's a middle ground of people going about there lives without investing hugely in either direction.

[Haggis_McMutton]

There is no reason why you must have or not have a belief in God, or a god. What's your stance on string theory? Do you believe in it? Do you think it's false?

1. What options exist except for having and lacking a belief in god?

2. i don't believe string theory is true actually, but that might be another thread.

My personal position is of being unsure either way. I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it. The reason why I often bring up the unicorn analogy is that it's another thing I just don't think about. Believing in god, or not believing in god just doesn't really explain how I go about my life.

String theory was perhaps, in your case a bad example then. But pick any controversial explanation of how things are and you'll find there's a middle ground of people going about there lives without investing hugely in either direction.

Well, again, this is a generalization of a subgroup of atheists. It's only an "absolute disbelief" for strong atheists, and i consider those people to be wrong.

Atheism is lack of belief in deities. That's it.
It doesn't matter how vocal you are about it, how strong your disbelief is, or if you even have disbelief(you might not have ever encountered the concept of god, for instance. You'd still be an atheist since you obviously would be lacking belief in god).

[Symmetry]

There is no reason why you must have or not have a belief in God, or a god. What's your stance on string theory? Do you believe in it? Do you think it's false?

1. What options exist except for having and lacking a belief in god?

2. i don't believe string theory is true actually, but that might be another thread.

My personal position is of being unsure either way. I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it. The reason why I often bring up the unicorn analogy is that it's another thing I just don't think about. Believing in god, or not believing in god just doesn't really explain how I go about my life.

String theory was perhaps, in your case a bad example then. But pick any controversial explanation of how things are and you'll find there's a middle ground of people going about there lives without investing hugely in either direction.

Well, again, this is a generalization of a subgroup of atheists. It's only an "absolute disbelief" for strong atheists, and i consider those people to be wrong.

Atheism is lack of belief in deities. That's it.
It doesn't matter how vocal you are about it, how strong your disbelief is, or if you even have disbelief(you might not have ever encountered the concept of god, for instance. You'd still be an atheist since you obviously would be lacking belief in god).

I don't really know how to take that first sentence. I don't really consider myself as a part of a subgroup of atheism, and I'm not sure how I'm generalising when I talk only about my own beliefs. Surely you're the one generalising here- you're dismissing a whole range of people for whom belief or disbelief in a god just isn't that important.

The unicorn analogy is pretty much designed for me. It's not about dismissing belief in god, but rather explaining how I feel about belief in god (emphasis on "I").