Define “Atheist”

[Hlafordlaes]

Many theists simply cannot comprehend that others don't believe in their god or any god.

Seems to be mainly theists* that most want “atheist” to be defined as “Believes there is no god or gods”. Obviously this definition better suits their purpose as they can counter “You merely believe a god exists” with “You merely believe a god doesn’t exist”. Which they quickly slam dunk with “You can’t prove a god doesn’t exist”. As if this makes the realistic odds of a god existing or not equally possible.

*Or psychowankists that speak with a heavily theistic accent.

Formally on topic: And what did you expect?

***
Jocular aside: I think I may have just been made a true believer in Easter.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

That.

Atheism: Lack of belief in a god.

Theists like to try to assign an element of belief to it (I'm not sure why), such as "belief that there is no god", but atheism does not exclude beliefs. Only belief in a god.

Atheists come in a wide range of flavors, from the dogmatic: "Convinced that no gods exist" to semi-superstitious: Believes in ghosts, numerology, etc, but not in an actual god.

I feel the wide majority simply assume that no gods exist, based on lack of evidence.

Hans

 

[Lothian]

Theists simply cannot comprehend that others don't "believe in" stuff. It messes with their brains.

I know many theists who have no problem whatsoever understanding that people don't believe in their god.

Your stereotyping of theists is ignorant. Things like this make it easier for theists to dismiss atheists as arrogant wankers. Obviously we are right, but we don't need to be twats about it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I know many theists who have no problem whatsoever understanding that people don't believe in their god.

Your stereotyping of theists is ignorant. Things like this make it easier for theists to dismiss atheists as arrogant wankers. Obviously we are right, but we don't need to be twats about it.

Well there is some stereotyping on both sides, but you are right, most theists and atheists are not dogmatic about either.

Hans

 

[ynot]

Seems there’s two contenders . . .

1. Has no/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)
2. Believes/knows/claims no gods exist.

Have I missed any?

To the “Believes/knows/claims no gods exist” supporters I ask why they only include that atheist type and not also all other possible atheist types? Why not also “Don’t believe/know/claim no gods exist but don’t believe they do” or “I’m still deciding if gods exist or not” for instance?

 

[Thermal]

Seems there’s two contenders . . .

1. No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)
2. Believes/knows/claims no gods exist.

Have I missed any?

To the “Believes/knows/claims no gods exist” supporters I ask why they only include that atheist type and not also all other possible atheist types? Why not also “Don’t believe/know/claim no gods exist but don’t believe they do” or “I’m still deciding if gods exists or not” for example?

Because those are not atheists. If you determine that you cannot evaluate, that does not mean you are atheist, as in non-believer. It means you are suspending judgment, lacking appropriate data. Trying to weasel agnostics into the athiest camp is goalpost moving. Non-believer =/= cannot determine.

 

[Elagabalus]

What is a person that's not sure if there's a god?

A person who is not allowed to participate in this thread.

What do I win?




ETA: Are you trying to derail your own thread?

 

[ynot]

Because those are not atheists. If you determine that you cannot evaluate, that does not mean you are atheist, as in non-believer. It means you are suspending judgment, lacking appropriate data. Trying to weasel agnostics into the athiest camp is goalpost moving. Non-believer =/= cannot determine.

Do you reject “No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ as well?

In other words, "Believes/knows/claims no gods exist." is the only one and true definition of "atheist"?

 

[ynot]

A person who is not allowed to participate in this thread.

What do I win
ETA: Are you trying to derail your own thread?

If an agnostic was "a person that's not sure if there's a god?" then you might win something. But it isn't so you loose.

If you want to debate this further please do so in the "Define Agnostic" thread. Thanks.

 

[LarryS]

This thread is for the exclusive purpose of debating the meaning of the word “atheist”.

There's nothing but quagmire lurking, there are so many kinds of atheists:
1) those who have never thought of God or gods, never considered or heard of the issue
2) those who have deliberated and decided there is no God
3) those who have deliberated and decided there is unsufficient evidence to believe in God.
4) those who claim to believe in God, but whose definition / idea of God is totally incoherent
5) those who've heard of God but are too lazy to ponder the issue.

Are all of the above the same (atheist)?

And what about a believer - are they an atheist during the 99.99% of their lives when they are not believing? The assumption seems to be that being an atheist or believer is self-proclaimed - but do these 'titles' have to be earned?

 

[Thermal]

Do you reject “No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ as well?

In other words, "Believes/knows/claims no gods exist." is the only one and true definition of "atheist"?

I think it is equivocal hairsplitting. For instance, 'believes no gods exist' is a faith evaluation, and 'knows no god exists' is a knowledge based assertion. Lumping them together is substantially blurring the meanings, while you are trying to determine an uber precise meaning.

 

[ynot]

There's nothing but quagmire lurking, there are so many kinds of atheists:
1) those who have never thought of God or gods, never considered or heard of the issue
2) those who have deliberated and decided there is no God
3) those who have deliberated and decided there is unsufficient evidence to believe in God.
4) those who claim to believe in God, but whose definition / idea of God is totally incoherent
5) those who've heard of God but are too lazy to ponder the issue.

Are all of the above the same (atheist)?

And what about a believer - are they an atheist during the 99.99% of their lives when they are not believing? The assumption seems to be that being an atheist or believer is self-proclaimed - but do these 'titles' have to be earned?

Obviously they’re not all the same atheist. But if “you’re” looking for a generic definition of “atheist”, would you choose one or all types of possibly atheist types as that definition? Or would you choose the one thing that’s common to them all? Something perhaps like - “They don’t have a belief in gods and they therefore aren’t theists”

Are you suggesting we should be defining "atheisM" rather then "atheisT? If so then I may agree. Don't expect it would be any less of a quagmire however.

 

[ynot]

I think it is equivocal hairsplitting. For instance, 'believes no gods exist' is a faith evaluation, and 'knows no god exists' is a knowledge based assertion. Lumping them together is substantially blurring the meanings, while you are trying to determine an uber precise meaning.

“No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ is NOT the same thing as "Believes no gods exist" (not even close!). Can you honestly not spot the difference?

Perhaps you merely missed or avoided the question? Here it is again . . .

Do you reject “No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ as well?

In other words, "Believes/knows/claims no gods exist." is the only one and true definition of "atheist"?

 

[Elagabalus]

If an agnostic was "a person that's not sure if there's a god?" then you might win something. But it isn't so you loose.

If you want to debate this further please do so in the "Define Agnostic" thread. Thanks.

How many times (and threads) does the OP have to make until you people finally and completely agree with Ynot?!!

 

[Fudbucker]

Do you reject “No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ as well?

In other words, "Believes/knows/claims no gods exist." is the only one and true definition of "atheist"?

The definition should have something to do with cognition. Calling babies "atheists", while technically accurate, is a bit odd.

 

[Thermal]

“No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ is NOT the same thing as "Believes no gods exist" (not even close!). Can you honestly not spot the difference?

Right. One is having a belief, and one is not having a belief. These are two different things, actually two different questions. So pick, if you please: do you want to discuss beliefs, or thoughts? But you are lumping knows/believes/claims in the same grouping in the post I commented on. That is not seeking clarity; it is deliberately muddying the waters.

eta: why are you asking if I cannot spot the difference? I was calling you out for not spotting it and treating them the same.

 

[ynot]

How many times (and threads) does the OP have to make until you people finally and completely agree with Ynot?!!

Don't know why you think I'm on a one-man crusade when many others (even most perhaps) share the same stance I do. Perhaps argumentum ad hominem is the best you can do?

 

[ynot]

Right. One is having a belief, and one is not having a belief. These are two different things, actually two different questions. So pick, if you please: do you want to discuss beliefs, or thoughts? But you are lumping knows/believes/claims in the same grouping in the post I commented on. That is not seeking clarity; it is deliberately muddying the waters.

eta: why are you asking if I cannot spot the difference? I was calling you out for not spotting it and treating them the same.

Okay you win.

Now please answer the question you responded to without an answer. I've changed it to just "claims" so you can choose whether that's "knows claims" or "believes claims" to suit yourself. If you don't want to do that then just answer the question in the first sentence.

Do you reject “No/lacks belief in a god or gods (aka – Not a theist)“ as well?

In other words, "Claims no gods exist." is the only one and true definition of "atheist"?

 

[ynot]

The definition should have something to do with cognition. Calling babies "atheists", while technically accurate, is a bit odd.

Everything relating to theism is a bit odd (to say the least).

 

[Marcus]

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.

There you go. I was tempted to correct TBD and say it's about of a lack of belief, but I also believe the evidence is overwhelming. Semantics i suppose.