Really?! That's definitely by viewpoint. I don't talk religion but in my encounters with other atheists, I haven't gotten the feeling that any believe there to be some narrative.

you mean, people who don't believe there's a god (theism is a belief in a god, not just any belief or even any religion)

that's what an atheist is (which is the same thing as a "true atheist", as long as we're making up phrases)

a good example of an atheistic belief is "you should be excellent to each other, because it sucks when people aren't like that to you" - no god required

Generally atheists claim to be skeptical of all religion and mysticism regardless of whether it claims a "creator god". If you want to be pedantic and say someone who believes in ghosts, but not God is still be an atheist, well ok.

My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs as non-material and unscientific as any religion. Hence they are not inherently more rational.

> be excellent to each other

I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all. Are you treating them well because it's right, or because it's a benefit to you? If it's just comfort, then it only makes sense when it's convenient for you, or likely to be reciprocated.

Should you do what makes other people feel good? Or what is actually good for them? After all, it "sucks" when people try to make you do things. How would you know when to violate your rule of being "excellent"?

is that true, though? As one myself, I'm not sure it is. Certainly doesn't seem true. But if you want to be pedantic and sophic, you can continue trying to redefine it

in fact, I've found that self-described "theists" and "atheists" are both smart enough to know that theism involves a god, not just any religion or spiritualism or mysticism or belief

> My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs

your point seemed to be to conflate concepts like humanism (essentially, "be excellent to each other", hardly an "unexamined belief"), which don't require magic, to theism, which does - this point didn't work for the reasons described above: both may involve principles of one form or another, but only the latter is magical and supernatural, and thus less rational to believe true

if we're both on the same page there, we can move onto other topics, like:

> I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all.

That's definitely not what humanism means.

No I don't think this conversation will lead anywhere. Goodbye.

it seems you have no point that isn't based on pedantry, arguing semantics, trying to redefine theism, or falsely and failingly conflating a non-magical concept with a magical belief

I would have liked for you to respond to the subject of my posts instead, but since you couldn't: bye, friend!