Atheism means you believe in no god whatsoever, not that you don’t believe in a particular set of gods.
That’s what they’re saying. An atheist believes in 0 of the total options for gods and religions that you get if you add them all up. A believer believes in 1 or a few of them. So really, the religious are also non-believers when it comes to most gods and religions.
Not sure about that. It takes a pretty big leap to go from believing in 0 gods to 1. I think the line dividing atheists from theists is a pretty huge rift because they hold opposing views on very fundamental matters like the concept of God itself, how the world came to be, our purpose in life, what happens after we die… I don’t think it’s something you can quite reduce down to a matter of numbers.
Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to clarify the intent of the comment.
But also I think that’s the point of that line of debate. It is an attempt to show a religious stance from an atheist perspective in which belief is a while load of possible strange things accepted as true. It’s not really much use other than when you’re faced with someone who things your lack of theism is the opposite of their particular brand of religion and frames the discussion around which bits you have issue with, as if they might prove to you that you’re wrong. Or to show that their belief that their religion is correct and all the others, including atheism, are the wrong ones, isn’t really the other side of what an atheist thinks.
More a thought experiment than meant to characterise the entirety of atheism.
Do they? I know plenty of people who follow the Christian faith but still believe in science.
