Looks interesting. Not sure I can afford the hefty price tag though.

Atheists can have all sorts of beliefs I agree. Atheism simply no belief in a God or gods.

"Atheists have no belief in Gods"
"Atheism is a belief in no Gods"
are completely different statements. One is passive, one active. The second statement is accurate.

Atheism is an absence of belief in a God or gods. The defining characteristic is an absence, not a positive assertion.

Nope.

The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them

Atheism is absence, you're wrong Synapse. "theism" = belief. "a" = without.

^ Nielsen 2011: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

^ Edwards 2005: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.

I have to say I would use the first definition. I don't understand what your support is for saying the second is correct and the first is not?

Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942 edition). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. (a) the belief that there is no God

Ah. There it is.

Apologies for turning this into a copy-paste war, but we aren't getting anywhere until we use the same definitions.

I think the whole point of our dispute is the definition eh? Even with your source I still don't agree that 'Atheism is a belief in no Gods'. I would continue to assert that 'Atheism is an absence of belief in Gods'. I admittedly do not have any scholarly support or sources for this beyond my understanding, as 2WL pointed out, of the word and what it means.

Well the only logical arguments I can see for that definition is:
atheists existed before theists
Which is not true.
The word atheism comes from the word theism, which came first.
Therefore the definition of atheism is in opposition to theism, and did not exist before it.
Atheism is a direct contradiction of theism.

I don't even know where we are in this argument anymore.

People were beginning to talk about religion being the source of deaths, where atheism was not.

I contest that many deaths have been caused in the name of atheism, an example being the killing of religious folk in Soviet Russia by a directly and self-proclaimed atheist movement and government.

I don't see how I can be refuted.

Surely before there was belief there was absence of belief? Just because all of a sudden there were people who believed it doesn't mean those who didn't were automatically opposed to them. If I have an absence of belief then generating some elsewhere doesn't change my stance. My stance is passive. I have no belief, I still have no belief despite your assertions otherwise.

It has become a little metaphysical true! Going back to the point I actually stated earlier that I conceded it was possible some deaths had been caused in the name of atheist movements. I qualified it by stating that these were a drop in the ocean compared to the deaths caused by religion which was why the criticism was overwhelmingly more applicable to it.

The earliest humans had Gods. Next you will be telling me that animals don't believe in God, and you will base that presumption on absolutely nothing except your own belief.

The way I see it is that if an atheist is "not believing," then it implies the existence of something, which is also false, at least according to an atheist. That definition is an oxymoron. I'm going purely on entomology on this one.

I'm not entirely sure the question of whether the very first anatomically human individuals had Gods can be definitively answered can it? Maybe that's for another thread. I'm not saying I'm knowledgeable on the subject and I apologise for any reliance on presumptions.

I am concluding (and I mean it this time!) with this article. It was a fun debate, but like all religious debates, kind of inconclusive. This article I believe is quite simple, to the point, and explains my view accurately;

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076

A good article with many points, some of which I agree with, some not. The best sort!

That was my thought process too 2WL. It seems to be about burden placing and default positions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664468

Fascinating interview with Abu Nusaybah who claims one of the murderers refused to join MI5 six months ago when they tried to recruit him.
After this interview Abu has been arrested and detained by UK security forces.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-suspect-kenya-torture

In a statement about the arrest, Scotland Yard said: "At around 2130 hours on Friday 24 May, a 31-year-old man was arrested in London by officers from the MPS Counter-Terrorism Command on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000. The man has been taken to a south London police station, where he remains in custody. Search warrants are being executed at two residential addresses in east London."

"Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism?"

that is a stupid question. (and if that is what the article is about i will not bother reading it) - Nobody kills for Religion, they kill for specific religions which they believe in. Nobody kills for Atheism, they kill for specific -isms (like Communism) or to destroy specific -isms (be they religious or non-religious)

To artificially divide the world of beliefs into the non-sense theisms, and the sensible atheism, so the two can have a pissing contest over who killed more is pointless.

To talk about why people are willing to kill each other is useful and could be productive...

Wow, it seems i'm refusing to read the guy who supports me... <face_palm>