Are Christians and Muslims idolaters?

[Greatest I am]

It means that the individual who self-labels as an atheist does not find claims that there exists any sort of divine or supernatural power, entity, or authority, in the singular or plural to be convincing.  No more, no less.

It's not an ideology: there are liberal atheists, conservative atheists, socialist atheists, capitalist atheists, monarchist atheists, anarchist atheists, social libertarian atheists, economic libertarian atheists, and apolitical atheists.

It's not a belief system, unless you happen to think that not collecting coins is as much a hobby as collecting coins, and that celibacy is a sex position like missionary, 69, and reverse cowgirl (or boy, as the case may be).

It's the simple statement that the burden of proof for claims of any deity has not been met.  Not that they cannot be met under any circumstances, but that so far they have not been met, and that the individual is until then under no obligation to even tentatively accept the claim.

I mean, it's pretty straightforward.

Not when you want to ignore that their belief systems are their ideologies.

You offered no other term and just deny because you are lost in semantics.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

That they lack belief in a god.

That lack of belief can be called their ideology. Right?

Regards
DL

[Mike Cl]

That lack of belief can be called their ideology. Right?

Regards
DL

I really don't think so.  As has been pointed out, a-theistic simply means not theistic.  That's all.  No other ideas or even ideals need attend.  And if they do, they are of a personal origin and not of a group origin. As has often been stated on this site, getting this group of atheists to agree on any one thing is like trying to herd cats---difficult, if not impossible.

This is what the Oxford Dictionary says of 'ideology':

ideology
NOUN
1.A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

1.1 The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual.

2. archaic mass noun The science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

2.1 Visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

Being an atheist does not put one into any of those categories.  As an atheist I do not have any beliefs in the theistic realm.  Because of a profound lack of data or facts to support any type of theism, I don't think there is any way for me to 'believe' anything.  Which is why I chose the term atheist---non theist (or non believer).  I do not suggest there is a 'proper' way to be a theist; the only logical stance is to be non-theist.  Beyond that, I have only my own personal ideas, values, morals, ethics, code of conduct or any other system of how to act in society or personally. 

[trdsf]

Not when you want to ignore that their belief systems are their ideologies.

You offered no other term and just deny because you are lost in semantics.

Okay, I didn't think you could reset the bar, but this is officially the stupidest thing you've written yet.

One.  Belief systems and ideologies may be related, and may inform and reinforce each other, but they are not the same thing.

Two: Point out any factual flaws in what I wrote, rather than your usual dismissive doubletalk.  Please note: I said 'factual flaw'.  Your personal redefinitions of terms that everyone else knows how to use normally don't give you bases for factual flaws.

"Lost in semantics".  Pot, please do meet kettle.  I am not lost in semantics, I appreciate semantics because words mean things.  Because communication matters, especially if you want to discuss points of philosophy.  Because you don't get to make up your own dictionary and then get your nose out of joint when other people look at you funny and wonder what the hell you think you're talking about.

Basically, all you're engaged in is a grand effort to keep everything muddied so that you can tell yourself that you're winning the debate, rather than actually engaging in a debate.  As soon as you run into a point you can't answer, you resort to some variation on "oh, you just don't understand", which puts you in the same class as fundamentalists who try to tell us that if we only had faith we'd understand why faith is just as good as reason and evidence.

[trdsf]

That lack of belief can be called their ideology. Right?

Let's see, how can I put this for maximum clarity?  Oh, yes.

WRONG.

My ideology is Social Democracy.  My belief system broadly congruent with Humanism, although I prefer not to self-identify as such.  These are not the necessary results of being an atheist.

Atheism is one position regarding one claim about the universe.  What part of that are you finding difficult to grasp?

[GSOgymrat]

That is what happens when, most if not all the time, people idolize their belief systems.

All become recalcitrant.

Regards
DL

All people have belief systems-- one can't function in the world without believing basic rules of reality, e.g. I need to eat or I will die. Under what circumstances do you consider a belief system idolatry and why is idolatry bad?

[Mike Cl]

All people have belief systems-- one can't function in the world without believing basic rules of reality, e.g. I need to eat or I will die. Under what circumstances do you consider a belief system idolatry and why is idolatry bad?

I think as you do--but I chose different words.  I like to say I don't 'believe' in anything.  I have learned that if a living thing does not eat it will die.  So, I don't 'believe' that to be true, but 'think' it is true.  Yes, that is just substituting one word for another.  Doesn't matter to most, probably, but it does to me.  I don't 'believe' the sun will rise; I think it will because it has done so for millions of years.  I'm careful with substituting 'think' for 'believe' because theists really want me to believe things.  They really want atheism to just another 'belief' system so that they can chip away (they hope) at the idea that atheism is only another ideology or belief; therefore we are differing only on opinions and not facts.  And to be even more accurate to how I think, I'd say 'currently think', since if facts or data suggest I am thinking wrong, I will change my mind. 

In our current society words and meanings are often mixed up.  Many love to say things like 'well, that's just a theory', when they really mean to say 'that is just a guess or a hypothesis'.  If something is a theory then it has been proven to be accurate.  Belief and faith fall into that same area.  Theists mean one thing and others mean something else.  For me a 'belief' is unfounded or it cannot be demonstrated to another person.  Faith, for me, is simply trust.  For a theist, faith is the ultimate test of their belief in a deity.  Ideology fits there as well.   

[GSOgymrat]

I used "belief system" because Greatest I Am used the term. I'm sincerely trying to understand his point.

[Mike Cl]

I used "belief system" because Greatest I Am used the term. I'm sincerely trying to understand his point.

Good luck with that. :))

[Baruch]

I used "belief system" because Greatest I Am used the term. I'm sincerely trying to understand his point.

English isn't his native language, native culture.  But Anglophones are gods ... tough luck for anyone else.

[GSOgymrat]

English isn't his native language, native culture.  But Anglophones are gods ... tough luck for anyone else.

Thanks, I didn't realize English isn't his native language. Perhaps that is one reason I am having difficulty.

[Baruch]

Thanks, I didn't realize English isn't his native language. Perhaps that is one reason I am having difficulty.

French thought in English words ... car crash!  Though his English is much more fluent than my French.  In different languages, the nuance, the way words slide intuitively into each other, are different.  So yes, formally agreed to definitions in advance ... but we can't agree ;-)

[Greatest I am]

I really don't think so.  As has been pointed out, a-theistic simply means not theistic.  That's all.  No other ideas or even ideals need attend.  And if they do, they are of a personal origin and not of a group origin. As has often been stated on this site, getting this group of atheists to agree on any one thing is like trying to herd cats---difficult, if not impossible.

This is what the Oxford Dictionary says of 'ideology':

ideology
NOUN
1.A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

1.1 The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual.

2. archaic mass noun The science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

2.1 Visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

Being an atheist does not put one into any of those categories.  As an atheist I do not have any beliefs in the theistic realm.  Because of a profound lack of data or facts to support any type of theism, I don't think there is any way for me to 'believe' anything.  Which is why I chose the term atheist---non theist (or non believer).  I do not suggest there is a 'proper' way to be a theist; the only logical stance is to be non-theist.  Beyond that, I have only my own personal ideas, values, morals, ethics, code of conduct or any other system of how to act in society or personally. 

Call it what you will, but the term ideology applies.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Okay, I didn't think you could reset the bar, but this is officially the stupidest thing you've written yet.

One.  Belief systems and ideologies may be related, and may inform and reinforce each other, but they are not the same thing.

Two: Point out any factual flaws in what I wrote, rather than your usual dismissive doubletalk.  Please note: I said 'factual flaw'.  Your personal redefinitions of terms that everyone else knows how to use normally don't give you bases for factual flaws.

"Lost in semantics".  Pot, please do meet kettle.  I am not lost in semantics, I appreciate semantics because words mean things.  Because communication matters, especially if you want to discuss points of philosophy.  Because you don't get to make up your own dictionary and then get your nose out of joint when other people look at you funny and wonder what the hell you think you're talking about.

Basically, all you're engaged in is a grand effort to keep everything muddied so that you can tell yourself that you're winning the debate, rather than actually engaging in a debate.  As soon as you run into a point you can't answer, you resort to some variation on "oh, you just don't understand", which puts you in the same class as fundamentalists who try to tell us that if we only had faith we'd understand why faith is just as good as reason and evidence.

I would prefer losing a debate and learning something new as compared to wining  a debate and learning nothing new.

If you wish to win this one and learn nothing, by all means, take the win.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

All people have belief systems-- one can't function in the world without believing basic rules of reality, e.g. I need to eat or I will die. Under what circumstances do you consider a belief system idolatry and why is idolatry bad?

Idolatry has always been considered bad because it let's the idol do your thinking for you as you put his thoughts above your thoughts.

Have you not noticed that when you ask an idolater a question, they start thumping the thoughts of another instead of their own?

I certainly have.

You end with garbage from theists, like, ---- I believe it because Jesus believed it. Not because I can make sense of it.

Regards
DL