Sign into an existing account

The meaning of "non-belief" depends on what theory of mind you are proposing.

Common dictionaries define atheism generally as "Disbelief in God" and then in the 'disbelief' entry allude to the concept of rejection or belief against a thing. Many dictionaries also have "an absence of belief" / "non-belief" is included in the 'disbelief' entry. But let's touch on that point.

The ability for there to be an "absence of belief" / "non-belief" is contingent upon accepting a specific kind of theory of mind. If you reject that theory of mind, the descriptions are void / invalid.

Vocalized atheism is a belief. If nothing else, it is at least a belief about your own state of mind.

You could also believe that you can voluntarily make your mind absolutely silent or that you didn't dream last night. Those might be beliefs you have about yourself and your own perceived experiences, but those self-beliefs aren't necessarily true. And the more we dig away with scientific inquiry the more we may come to the conclusion that self-beliefs are wrong sometimes.

If someone claimed they didn't dream last night when they slept, I would reject their belief. In the same fashion, if someone claimed they were "absent of belief" in respect to the question of God, I would also reject their belief.

It's a contested territory to say the least. I contend that if someone is self describing as an atheist, that's an indication that they have an active rejection, and an overall belief that God does not exist.

If you want to argue that the default of science is that something is considered not to exist until it is proven to be the case, and that "atheism" follows the same premise. 1) That's a convention and not necessary for science, 2) That approach is the belief that the null hypothesis is true until shown otherwise. Ergo, it's still a belief. You would need to justify the use of that convention, and then demonstrate that our brain actually uses that convention under the hood (it doesn't).

This is all beside the point because we both agree that there is some form of atheism that posits an active endorsement of the belief that "God does not exist". A "religion of atheism" is talking about a group that shares that belief.

There is still a bar to be met with what constitutes a religion.

The context of "religion" requires organization with ideologies, doctrines, etc.

Is there an organized ideology with doctrines and principles (including approaches like doctrinally endorsing the null hypothesis approach) that espouses the belief that "God does not exist"? Yes. Does this organized group also espouse metaphysical beliefs about unseen reality such that it excludes the possibility of a supernatural God's existence? Yes. Is this position held by faith? Yes.

Do the subscribers of that organization accept doctrines by ethos? Yes.

It stands to reason that there is at least a group of people that belief "God does not exist" and have a religious organizational structure.

When you say "religion is the biggest scam" the question comes back to whether you feel that the religious organizations espousing atheism are also a scam in your books?

I realize many of them like to call themselves "irreligious", but the structure is the same as a religion despite the self-described belief that they don't count as a religion. Walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck.

My original comment was a question, and I'm explaining all of this in hopes of explaining the context of my question. Are "religions" a scam because of a common reason such as that they prescribe truths by ethos (authority)? Or are you claiming religions are a scam with a hidden context that you don't consider the "religion of atheism", as expounded above, to be a religion?

Classic Jew!

So what?
Seems like this is the natural consequence of a people created in the image of a Jewish-God.

How does this concern the Free Volk who have no commandments and no sin in the first place?
Nothing in the OT or NT applies to us.
It only applies to Jews.