I have had this discussion on other threads and I wanted to get your opinions on what most fellow Atheists consider an "Atheist".
I have always considered an "Atheist" as someone who does not believe in even the possibility of a God/Gods, an afterlife, reincarnation of any kind, energies "living on" or being "transferred to other forms" after death, ghosts/souls, and/or superstitious beliefs.
I have not considered Buddhists atheists as they still believe in "energies" and the sorts; and believe that people who say that they believe in the "possibility" of an afterlife as agnostics or the sorts - I have been an atheist for example since I was 15-16 and maybe an agnostic for a couple of years before then.
For example, I am sure that Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the likes all fit into the aforementioned definition of an "Atheist". So, what do you think?
It is not an argument from authority for two reasons one the individuals or groups that I mention are not without relevant expertise or knowledge. Two, I don't say that just because they are right my conclusion is true. You took my quote out of context, because my argument does not really solely on those references only for support for my argument.
Also, I believe that your above information is complete nonsense, it is not a fact only your opinion. You didn't reply to all of my argument only the part you felt like responding to, which gives you little credibility.
Also, it just my opinion, but, this thread was for stating peoples ideas about what atheism is, it's not really meant for a huge debate on what atheism is, so just state what you think regardless of whether it contradicts anyone and then move on, this really isn't the place for this kind of thing. Sassan just wanted to know what everybody else thought, so he could make a decision or just read the responses, so I really think this has gotten out of hand.
I suspect you have fallen prey to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and/or are making a fallacious appeal to authority (in this case AA or the US Justice system.)
It would seem that your opinion is also dressed as fact (I can quote mine too.) Also, in future, you may want to provide a reference for your assertion that your definition is the "legal" definition (I presume in the USA) - I have searched around for it and come up empty.
Atheist Alliance International, not an insignificant organization, has adopted this definition: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." (from http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism)
No mention of the supernatural or materialism yet they are still atheists...
There isn't a common definition beyond the rejection of gods. If one person/group includes in their definition a rejection of all things supernatural they are expanding the definition for their own purposes. The base tenet, that atheists reject the notion of the existence of gods, is common across all definitions of atheism. The rejection of supernaturalism or inclusion of materialism is not common across definitions.
From your post -
"So therefore you are not an atheist if you believe in the supernatural whatsoever period, no matter how much you want it to be true it is not."
It would appear you are (still) in error...
It would appear I was never in error.
That's AAI's opinion, not mine. (both opinions)
My argument was not ad populum, for reasons already mentioned.
My assertion about the US government has already been given a reference (you idiot. (ad hominem))
Your assertion about Atheist Alliance International as being not an insignificant organization is an opinion.
These definitions for atheism are all opinions since atheism apparently has no widely agreed upon definition, so that's about it.
He cited that here:
Apparently referencing a Supreme Court case where this definition is presented and accepted constitutes a consensus by the judicial system on it being the legal definition. -_-
No, I am not and I am right. If a picture speaks a thousand words then the interpretation will vary more. I must express myself as I see fit. Continual pandering of weak people causes censorship. That's boring, predictable and unnacceptable.
Did you consider what I wrote ? I think you just reacted. That's poor.