Actually, I was mistaken, but only in so far as atheism is also accepted within Hinduism. Buddhism does not require a belief in a god, and is therefore atheistic. Atheism derives from the Greek atheos, meaning 'godless', used as an insult originally.

Remember that atheism does not mean a total lack of blief in anything spiritual or supernatural, simply that there is no deity.

Really now? While that might be the 'literal' meaning, I think you'll find many (most?) atheists associate not believing in god/s with not believing in anything superstitious/supernatural, such as ghosts, spirits, etc.

Sort of depends on what you mean by "rejects". You could carp that neither rejects any gods at all, since they do not admit even the possible existence of those gods.

"Henotheism" is the form of belief that rejects other gods but does not deny the possibility of their existence. Pre-Captivity Judaism, in which deities other than YHWH are more rejected as weak and unworthy of worship than denied as altogether without existence, is noticeably henotheistic.

To me, an atheist, strictly speaking, does not so much reject any number of notional gods as deny that the concept of a god has any meaning or utility whatever.

This.

So Wiccans, Jainists, Buddhists, these are all theists now? Someone who believes in nothing supernatural is most likely an atheist, but not all atheists necessarily believe in nothing supernatural.

They're religious. I just don't see much point in defining between whether you believe in personal gods or in some non-conscious "universal/spiritual force" like karma or magic or metaphysics or whatever. They all basically come down to the same thing, belief in something beyond the observed material universe which has no basis in modern science, etc.

Only if they have common sense.

I'd say, no, that usage robs "theist" of its meaning, which is an important one. A "theist" believes there is a personal god that continues to actively govern the universe [split infinitive intentional]. Merely setting "theist" in contradiction to "atheist" loses that meaning, which is important in understanding the controversy between "theism" and "deism".

Most atheists could like the color green. That's doesn't make green something that defines an atheist. Of course they would reject the common notions of spirits and magic proposed by its supporters, because "supernatural" is a term coined specifically to create the impression of something beyond our understanding and our universe.

That does not exist for atheists by definition. To an atheist, that would be something that humans can understand but have not yet discovered the science behind. It would still be natural, not supernatural. And if there was no way something could be explained then there would be no reason to assume that it actually happened or could happen.

And on that note, Chris Angel would have been considered a god in ancient societies. As would a highly durable, bipedal squid-man. Our standards today have risen from that to "must be unfathomable, intangible, invisible, and have every superpower" to counter our increased reasoning abilities. But squid-man, with his super tentacle strength and pleasant manners living in our unexplored ocean, that would be more sensible. ^^

I am not an atheist, rather a nihilist.

There is no real meaning to life or existence. Pleasure is the only 'intrinsic' good there is IMHO.As such, I am not bound by any moral compunctions.My only purpose is to pro create and expand my gene pool if any.,,,I find happiness in doing so.

I know exactly what it means, it means not believing in god, singular. One is enough.

To quote Richard Dawkins: " 'You are an atheist towards Ra, or Zeus, or Odin. I just go one God further."

I don't know how people can believe in a god who stands by and watches all the shit humanity has unleashed over the centuries, the rape, the genocide, the plunder and human slavery....and then he steps in to keep you from masturbating or swearing. The mental gymnastics required is off the charts.

Ehhh, well that is the point. Spirits or ghosts (or something approximating them) *could* exist, but obviously only if modern science developed the means and information necessary to prove and explain their existence in scientific terms. But if science *did* prove their existence, those entities would not longer be "ghosts" or "spirits" (ie, supernatural entities) they would be natural phenomenon. That goes for everything which science has not yet developed an adequate explanation, including "gods".

The difference is that an atheist would not use religious/superstitious ideas to explain something beyond the understanding of science, while someone of religious belief generally would.

So atheism is just "it doesn't exist until you prove it does".

I hope you see the irony of saying that on a forum for a company that sells old computer games.