@AdmiralPrune What about atheistic religions like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism?

@hippyjoe1955 I agree atheism is a religion in the sense that a religion is defined, not only by Webster but also Oxford, as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." Most people don't think that way though because they have an ideological proclivity either towards a simplified atheistic or theistic paradigm.

@PathwayMachine In the not too distant past atheism was more evangelical than most Christian. It has tamed down a bit since it can't offer any meaningful explanations about the big questions in life but it is still very very common.

@MoveAlong This makes sense to me. God is only a word that means venerated. In the English before Christianity the word was used by the pagans. A lot of people, atheists and theists, think that God is a name for the being in the Bible, Jehovah, who claims to have made life, the universe and everything. Many don't believe in the Bible and therefore one of it's many gods (Jehovah, Jesus, Moses, Satan, Dagon, Baal, etc.) Being a theist doesn't mean you venerate all of those gods. You can venerate just one. The writers of the Bible were henotheistic. Since a god can be anything or anyone venerated the likelihood of there being any true atheist is slim. Money is the most common God, but sex would, historically, give that a run for its money. Pun intended.

@PathwayMachine God is not a name.. It's a descriptor.. Jehovah is God.. Like the Sun is a Star..

God is like Star a descriptor not a name..

@Adstar Correct. That was my point. God is a word meaning to pour, libate.

Edit To Add: God is a title, like lord. God in English means literally libate, pour, in Hebrew it means mighty/strong. Lord means having authority, usually, but not always granted. Landlord. Jehovah is a spirit being. Supernatural. The Bible calls him God and Lord. Jesus was a mortal man, and he is called god and lord. Moses was called God by Jehovah, as were the judges of Israel. Jesus wasn't supernatural. I often use the term King, which was also used to describe Jesus and Jehovah. Charles is a king, but not my King. He is King of the Brits. So, though he isn't my king he is still a King.

@PathwayMachine just reflected photons, baby, not so much metaphysical, though. Nice try.

@Bumbles A god doesn't have to be metaphysical. Or supernatural. Or controlling anything. Or a creator. A god only has to be worshipped. A god can be any of those things, but it doesn't have to be anything other than worshipped.

@PathwayMachine Like worshipping a great pizza. Okay, good point.

@PathwayMachine
Atheism is a point of view . You have a concept of what god is and does, you decide if it’s credible.

@DocSavage You didn't answer the question. Is theism a point of view. These are theisms. Monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, atheism etc.

@PathwayMachine
You have a a choice . Science and nature, or magic and faith. Which is more reliable? Science has been proven the more consistent.
It is POINT OF VIEW Which you use to determine what is the correct answer.
I know, several people who insist on creationism, And insist evolution is false, despite what actual evidence says.their point of view demands faith over facts.

@PathwayMachine 1. It varies depending on the various forms of atheism. It goes from simply honoring the basic principle of onus probandi, i.e. remaining in the initial position of not believing something exists until those who claim it exists bring strong evidence in support of their claim (which is pretty much where personally I'm at), to saying it's physically impossible for a deity to exist

2. Deity? Any supernatural entity that has some degree of authority on the universe or parts thereof, and that is the object of worship

3. The belief that one or more supernatural entity/ies govern the universe (or parts of the universe) with a will of their own, vs. the belief that the universe isn't governed at all, and that everything happens by chance and natural processes

@Elessar Commenting on 1. What is the evidence for and against the existence of gods? I'm a theist and I believe in the existence of many gods, but worship only one. I also know that many gods don't exist. Historically gods are created by people who know they don't exist. Amaterasu, for example, is a Shinto goddess. The Shinto deities were created in the Nihongi and Kojiki to instruct nationalism and morality to Japanese youth. No one ever thought of them as literally existing.

2. A deity is what you describe in your example, but that isn't the only example. A deity, or god, is anything or anyone worshipped. The Bible, for example, has many gods. Some of them exist, some don't. Some supernatural, some not. Moses, the judges of Israel, Jesus, the Sumerian Tammuz, Pharaoh, for example, are gods that literally exist.

3. Supernatural simply means, literally, above nature. In other words something that is beyond what we might observe in nature. Once giant squid and whales were supernatural. They were thought to be mythological like mermaids or unicorns. Not all gods are supernatural, nor need exist. Not all supernatural beings govern universes or parts of it.

It sounds to me like you have presupposed a "scientific" perspective on theism that isn't very scientific. I think a lot of people do that to be on the safe side of what they assume, wrongly, to be reason and logic. Most people are idiots so what most people think is always wrong, so to be on that "safe" side is only an illusion. Not a very well thought out one but that's okay because most people don't think much about anything, they only form ideological fixation. Consequently most people, even if they think that logic, reason, science, etc. are on their side, will get everything about their ideological fixation completely wrong. Science, logic, reason is used very much like a false god.

@PathwayMachine
1. The onus probandi principle (which is the same principle we honor for pretty much everything, from science, to law) states that the burden of proof is on those who assert something exists/happens/happened, not on those who defend the observable status quo (inexistence until proven). So the most basic instance of atheism (agnosticism?) is pretty much that none of those who assert a religion is real has convinced me with incontrovertible proof of their hypothesis, so I simply don't believe in any religious system, but don't have an explanation of how the universe originated either.

2. No, not necessarily, the authority is a core element of the definition. Christians, Muslims and Jews categorically exclude the existence of multiple gods, and the figures you reference (e.g. the trinity, angels, prophets, etc.) in spite of being supernatural entities to some degree, don't have the authority on the universe that would grant them a deity status. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't speak of monotheistic religions.

3. Above nature means that one stands above the physical plane, unconstrained by physical laws that define what's possible in nature, not what currently exists in nature at a given time. A dinosaur isn't supernatural, for instance. An atheist believes (until sufficient evidence is given, which thus far never happened) that no such entity could exist in the universe.

No it's not really a "scientific" approach as science has nothing to do with religions, deities, or anything that is "above nature" per the definition above; it's at most a philosophical one. The fact that most people inappropriately use (misinterpreted) science, (flawed) logic but even religion to convince themselves of what they already believe in is a thing but I don't really get what it has to do with this topic.

Science, mathematics, logic, etc. cannot be bend to produce the result you want them to produce, you'd have to put external limitations to it (e.g. make it illegal to research on a certain topic; though in that case we're in the scope of law and not science anymore) in order to prevent a certain outcome, as everything it says needs to be reproducivle and independently verifiable. Religion can be arbitrarily bent to make it say whatever you want it to say. See for instance how Christianity originally was pretty much an anarchical thing, and now it's embraced and bent by wealth-hoarding authoritarians, of all people. Comparing the two is inappropriate, they're entirely different things.

@GeistInTheMachine Not sure of the reference or its significance.

@Adstar Everything is foolishness. We have only foolishness to choose from.

@Matt85 That’s okay, you’re allowed to have fun. More people should.

It’s just accident it happened on a post that gives people the wrong impression.

@AdmiralPrune its a blank transaction with me and anyone i meet, yes inlcuding same sex oriented people. be nice to me and i will be nice back. :)

@AdmiralPrune Why is gaytheism the wrong impression to have given? As a formerly practicing homosexual I can attest to the fact that homosexuals are more often inclined to the spiritual than heterosexuals.

@PathwayMachine Ignorance and superstition have definitely influenced human history, unfortunately. As to the rest of what you say, it's pretty meaningless.

@ChipmunkErnie It's ironic that you mention ignorance and superstition in the past tense.

@PathwayMachine I was speaking historically, but, yes, ignorance and superstition are still VERY much with us an an active influence around the world.

@BlueSkyKing Because atheism, without the idealism, simply means without gods. You can believe in gods and be without them. Similar to my not believing in politicians but being apolitical. I don't believe in politicians, though I know they literally exist and therefor I have no political affiliation. You have faith? Swell, but the demons have faith and yet shudder.

@MasterLee Respectfully - nonsense.

@jshm2 That is propaganda, I think, jshm; your opinion is as unscientific as flat earth or anti-vaccine.