Define “Atheist”

[SusanB-M1]

I believe gods do not exist. I have posted the reasoning before. I don't simply lack a belief in gods, I believe the evidence is overwhelming there are none.

Time for the human species to evolve beyond primitive beliefs in gods.

I entirely agree, but since there's always someone who will then come along and trot out the negative proof fallacy in one form or another, I acknowledge that there must be the microscopically small gap allowed for a god to appear one day.

 

[zooterkin]

Atheist: Someone with a godless religion.

No, again. Someone with a godless religion would be an atheist, but that is only a sub-set of the people covered by the definition of the word.

 

[David Mo]

Definitions are conventional. They are ways of ordering a messy set of things. One can invent one's own definition. But this can lead to confusion and communication missunderstandings. In general, it is preferable to stick to the usual or common use of a word and, if you change a definition, explain what the advantage of doing so would be.

So not every definition is valid. Some definitions are better than others depending on the circumstances.

I use the definitions provided by Justin P. McBrayer in “Skeptical Theism” in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*(IEP). I think they are clearer than otherclassifications that usually lead to verbal discussions. Also: it comes from an authoritative source.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist.On the other hand, atheism is the view that God does not exist. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/).

Why don’t you agree?

 

[David Mo]

Yes. there's this hair's difference and maybe a difference in attitude.
As I see it simple Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in God or gods. It's not a belief. It makes no positive assertion.
However Atheism can also be a statement of theology, that is "God does not exist." And as such is a statement of belief, "I believe God does not exist."

One may not say it directly in those words, but by making it a view to be advocated, it can easily become such a theological belief.

The person who believes god does not exist may go out of hir way to disallow any position that might serve god belief. For example, since "consciousness" is seen by some as some kind of divine property, ze might simply advocate the position that "consciousness" doesn't really exist (The P-Zombie).

The person who believes God does not exist will have little tolerance for agnostics, and call that a coward's position.

But I'm sure that a good number reading this will reply that they don't believe that God doesn't exist. They know God doesn't exist.

I can't say that for myself. Having no basis to know God exists, I simply neither have that belief or that knowledge that God doesn't.

Instead of commenting on your beliefs about what atheists are[/B ]like, it would be better if you just gave a definition of the use of "atheist" that can be accepted by all those we are discussing. Can you limit yourself to that?

I understand that you use the word "atheist" in two ways:
One who simply does not believe that God exists without affirming that God does not exist.
Another who claims that there is no god.
You value the two types of atheism very differently. To avoid confusion, wouldn't it be better to use two different words?

 

[Lothian]

It is someone who believes in the material that is supposed to fill the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere? I always get Atheist and Aetheist mixed up.

 

[ynot]

I use the definitions provided by Justin P. McBrayer in “Skeptical Theism” in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*(IEP). I think they are clearer than otherclassifications that usually lead to verbal discussions. Also: it comes from an authoritative source.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist.On the other hand, a type of atheism is the view that God does not exist. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/).

Why don’t you agree?

Nitpick - I don't like God with a capital G being use as it ignores all other god beliefs (yes I know you were quoting).

Is a person that neither affirms that god(s) exists nor affirms that god(s) does not exist, but believes in god(s), a theist?

Is a person that neither affirms that god(s)exists nor affirms that god(s) does not exist, but doesn't believe in god(s), an atheist?

If your answer is "yes" to both questions above, and the hilited bit I added is accepted, then I agree. Otherwise I don't.

 

[ynot]

“Atheist” defines what a person is not, not what a person is. An atheist is not a theist and therefore is not a believer in a god or gods.

A reason why a particular person is an atheists only defines what type of atheist that particular person is. It doesn’t provide a generic definition that covers all atheists, and is therefore an inadequate definition of “atheist” per se. If one atheist type is to be used to define "atheist" then all atheist types should also be used as definitions as well. This would negate any meaningful generic definition of “atheist”.

This why I claim “Not a theist and therefore not a believer in a god or gods” is the most valid and meaningful definition of “atheist”.

 

[ynot]

I entirely agree, but since there's always someone who will then come along and trot out the negative proof fallacy in one form or another, I acknowledge that there must be the microscopically small gap allowed for a god to appear one day.

Do you also allow a microscopically small gap for the possibility that all the large dinosaurs species that once existed are not now extinct?

 

[dann]

The word dictator needs to read China Miéville’s novel The City & The City:

In The City & The City the ability of language to cement an ideology of seeing and unseeing is on show in a single city of two psychological halves, the inhabitants of one literally not seeing what is in front of their eyes. In Embassytown, a species incapable of understanding metaphor, for whom each word can mean one thing only since meaning does not depend on a system of differences, discovers what it means to use words non-literally.Spring Reading Selection (Irish Left Review, Apr. 20, 2016

I don't know how they'd cope if they ever found out that a word can have several literal meanings! The horror!!!

 

[Tommok]

This seems to me to cover both accepted definitions:
A person that believes no god(s) exist does not believe god(s) exist;
A person that does not believe in god(s) does not believe god(s) exist.

Isn't one a subset of the other? So if one definition is valid, the other would automatically be included in it?

I do consider the "a"-prefix to mean "not". So an Atheist is not a Theist, i.e. someone who does not believe in a God or Gods, as being a "Theist" means exactly that.

I think the so-called double definition of "Atheist" stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of "belief" as well as from a misunderstanding of the nature of accepting or not accepting claims. If I reject the claim (e.g. in absence of evidence) that it will be raining later today, I do not automatically claim that there will be sunshine. Or even a lack of rain, for what it's worth.

 

[David Mo]

Nitpick - I don't like God with a capital G being use as it ignores all other god beliefs (yes I know you were quoting).

No problem for me.

Is a person that neither affirms that god(s) exists nor affirms that god(s) does not exist, but believes in god(s), a theist?

One person that believes that a god exists affirms that this god exists. Otherwise he'd be making a mess with the words. You can't believe in something you believe doesn't exist. Or I don't understand what you're saying.

Is a person that neither affirms that god(s)exists nor affirms that god(s) does not exist, but doesn't believe in god(s), an atheist?

I would call him an agnostic. According to IEP. Agnosticism is well defined as the strictly sceptical position: it refrains from any affirmative or negative judgment. The agnostic will face both the one who claims that a god exists and the one who denies that a god exists.

If your answer is "yes" to both questions above, and the hilited bit I added is accepted, then I agree. Otherwise I don't.

Why? Perhaps you prefer to make some distinction between some types of atheism? Which ones?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

“Atheist” defines what a person is not, not what a person is. An atheist is not a theist and therefore is not a believer in a god or gods.

A reason why a particular person is an atheists only defines what type of atheist that particular person is. It doesn’t provide a generic definition that covers all atheists, and is therefore an inadequate definition of “atheist” per se. If one atheist type is to be used to define "atheist" then all atheist types should also be used as definitions as well. This would negate any meaningful generic definition of “atheist”.

This why I claim “Not a theist and therefore not a believer in a god or gods” is the most valid and meaningful definition of “atheist”.

This. The whole point of the word atheist is that it makes a distinction from theist.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Atheist = Person who has seen no reason to believe in deities or religious myth. Not convinced if exposed to any such narrative, or never exposed and so free of such dogma.

[Skeptic = Thoroughly tests and debunks received opinions and supposed facts to ensure only reliable knowledge remains. Bye-bye deities, myth, magic, and bad science. (Sorry, OP, could not resist.)]

 

[David Mo]

Atheist = Person who has seen no reason to believe in deities or religious myth. Not convinced if exposed to any such narrative, or never exposed and so free of such dogma.

[Skeptic = Thoroughly tests and debunks received opinions and supposed facts to ensure only reliable knowledge remains. Bye-bye deities, myth, magic, and bad science. (Sorry, OP, could not resist.)]

Is your atheist also opposed to the one who claims that a god exists or believes that this claim is justified?
Or does your atheist simply say that both those who believe that God exists and those who believe that God does not exist are wrong?

 

[David Mo]

This. The whole point of the word atheist is that it makes a distinction from theist.

NO. The question is to distinguish between one who claims that no position can be justified about the gods and one who believes that it can be justified to say that the gods do not exist.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Oh, atheists people worship all sorts of things.

Fixed the intended slander, as this is a generic observation if it is to stand at all (and barely), and one in which "worship" has the meaning "to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion" (Webster entry 2), not strictly "to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power (Webster entry 1)." If you stick to the latter, your statement is false on its own demerits. If you go with the former, the claim is either intended as slander, or shows lack of knowledge. Your dilemma, your choice.

I don't know anyone who goes to sleep at night comforted by the thought that whatever else, at least they lived up to the dictionary definitions of things. But hey, if that's your religion, who am I to judge?

Oops. See above.

 

[Darat]

Why try and complicate it. An atheist is someone who does not belive in a god. Doesn't matter then if you think a "god" might exist, or some other possibility belief.

If you don't believe in a god you are an atheist.

 

[kellyb]

Why try an complicate it.

Theists just seem to not like that basic answer.

 

[MikeG]

An atheist is a person who believes there is no God

You carry on believing that if it suits you. No-one who is actually an atheist will accept that, but whatever. You have your little fantasies, and who are we to intrude.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Why not equally a semiatheist? Bit like being half-dead.

Or why not simply . . .

A person that does not believe god(s) exist isn't a person that believes a god does exist. Therefore not a theist, therefore an atheist (not theist).

ETA - If you own a car you're a car owner. If you don't own a car you're not a car owner. If you're deciding whether or not to own a car (or don't think it's possible to own a car) you're not a car owner.

I've lost the thread of your disagreement.

You seemed to argue my definition, then quote it as appropriate.

Semitheist was a quip, argue it as you will.