Quote from stu:
My suggestion is, a missing or ignoring of a particular aspect in all this.
One can choose to reject, accept or...accept nor reject.
In other words, on matters which are perhaps glossed over with contradiction, absurdity, woeful insubstantialities and which are based only on meaninglessness - as say for instance watching paint dry, basketball and religion - it is reasonable not to have any belief or any non belief in such subjects.
They become by their own standards of pointlessness....irrelevant for the purposes of holding a 'for or against', 'belief in or not belief' position. (Except perhaps for paint watching.. green especially)
So it isn't just a case of atheist, agnostic or theist. It is also a case of the subject, religion in this case, containing no reason enough to make the time for considering any of those positions as substantive.
As religion has no significantly plausible conjectures, making itself inconsequential by a sheer ludicrousness embodiment of outrageous propositions embedded within a wide range of nonsensical ideas, dismissing the notion of it, as one would dismiss the notion of fire breathing dragons as no more than a fictional product of an imagination, is not to then hold a belief in non belief as was suggested.
Rejection of the inconsequential, is neither a belief or non belief in the inconsequential.
Atheism, I see it, is by definition without theism and by that finds no cause in the first place to believe or not to believe in a preposterous abstraction. As I understand it, the atheist would find no cause to bother with either.
