Define “Atheist”

[Egg]

If we apply your reasoning to "amoralist" (in dictionary) then that would definite it as "Believes morals don't exist", which isn't what being an "amoralist" means (not in any dictionaries I've read or common usage I've heard anyway).

But a moralist isn't a person who believes morals exist. How is that applying my reasoning?

Here are the dictionary definitions you point to:

1 : one who professes the doctrine of amoralism
2 : one who lives amorally

They're both definitions where the "a-" prefix is already on the word before we go to the "-ist" suffix. It's not defined as "not a moralist".

 

[Egg]

I'm saying "my" definition is the most "appropriate", not "correct".

You did say that the definition Fud was using was incorrect - so perhaps not technically, but it was implied. But appropriateness is probably better for discussion than correctness.

In my experience of common usage, most atheists say "my" definition is the most "appropriate". Those that prefer that "atheist" should be defined as a belief are usually those that have an ulterior motive for wanting it to be a belief. That ulterior motive is usually something like they can counter "You merely believe god(s) exist" with "Well you merely believe they don't". Many god believers really seem to have a big problem accepting anyone can have no beliefs regarding gods. More specifically, no belief that god(s) either do or don't exist. It's an "Either you're with us, or you're against us" thing.

I've also seen a lot of self-identified atheists on boards such as this favour the broader definition too (and a fair few who don't). The problem I would see is that this definition includes swathes of people who don't use that definition and don't self-identify as "atheist". So we end up in the weird position that many (maybe most) of the people supporting the broad definition actually hold the narrow definition position themselves. In that light, perhaps it doesn't seem quite so appropriate.

I get the ulterior motive issue and theists just not getting non-belief. The ulterior motive on the other side (as has been stated by 2 or 3 people in these definition threads) is that it side-steps the burden of proof, even if that person's own position is that gods most probably don't exist. It seems to me that actually the position that should be defended is the idea that the default position in the face of non-compelling evidence (or a lack of compelling evidence) is to assume non-existence.

 

[David Mo]

From the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:

atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.​

Why prefer the broad definition -- which is more ambiguous -- to the classic standard definition?

I would like a precise and as simple answer as possible. Thank you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry but .... Nope ...! (IMO)

- Atheist definition correct! (although it should be “in any god or gods”)

- Defining gods they don’t believe in has nothing to do with atheism or atheists.

- Some atheists believe in things (other than gods) that are intrinsically undefinable as part of reality.
Atheism/atheist doesn't need to be defined beyond your first definition. To do so is to define types of atheist. The only thing common to all atheists is that they lack belief in a god or gods.

Mmm, yes. Point taken. Seems I defined something like Materialist instead.

Well ....

Hans

 

[barehl]

The term "atheist" doesn't make sense to me. What should we call someone who doesn't believe the Earth is flat? What should we call someone who doesn't believe in aliens or bigfoot? "Atheist" suggests that theist is the default but this is an irrational belief so obviously it couldn't be the default.

 

[ynot]

From the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:

atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.​

Why prefer the broad definition -- which is more ambiguous -- to the classic standard definition?

I would like a precise and as simple answer as possible. Thank you.

Why do philosophers get to dictate what the "classic standard definition" is?

Regardless, from this why doesn't "atheist" mean "not god" (atheists are not gods)?

Perhaps we should invent a new word like "otheist" where "o" stands for "no" (no god). The "o" could also represent a zero "0theist" (not a theist).

 

[ynot]

The term "atheist" doesn't make sense to me. What should we call someone who doesn't believe the Earth is flat? What should we call someone who doesn't believe in aliens or bigfoot? "Atheist" suggests that theist is the default but this is an irrational belief so obviously it couldn't be the default.

I agree, no label is required and atheism gives theism an implied credibility it doesn't deserve. So should atheists (ooops) those that don't believe in gods refuse to be labelled as "atheists"?

 

[ynot]

I’ve been arguing for a definition of “atheist” that covers all those that don’t have a belief in god(s). Those that aren’t theists regardless of why they aren’t. If “atheist” is defined as “believes there is no god(s)”, what word defines those that merely don’t have a belief in god(s)? I don’t think “agnostic” is valid because it has to do with knowledge, not belief.

From my personal perspective I don't care if "atheist" is defined as "believes or knows there's no god(s)", because I confidently claim I know there's no god(s).

 

[ynot]

That 'I’ve been arguing for a definition of atheist that covers all those that don’t have a belief in god(s)", I'm effectively defining atheism.

 

[David Mo]

Why do philosophers get to dictate what the "classic standard definition" is?

Regardless, from this why doesn't "atheist" mean "not god" (atheists are not gods)?

Perhaps we should invent a new word like "otheist" where "o" stands for "no" (no god). The "o" could also represent a zero "0theist" (not a theist).

May be because this is a philosophical problem?

Because your proposal of "0theist" is confuse and I don't see any usefulness in it. What do you want?

 

[ynot]

May be because this is a philosophical problem?

Why do philosophers get to dictate that "this is a philosophical problem"?

Well I guess at least that would explain all the infinite hair-splitting and contorted semantics.

Because your proposal of "0theist" is confuse and I don't see any usefulness in it.

You don't think the use of "atheist" is "confuse"? You don't think my proposal of "0theist" has any usefulness as humour?

What do you want?

If you can wait until just before Xmas I'll send you a copy of the want-list I'll be sending to Santa.

 

[David Mo]

Why do philosophers get to dictate that "this is a philosophical problem"?

Is it not? What else?

You don't think the use of "atheist" is "confuse"? You don't think my proposal of "0theist" has any usefulness as humour?

Not every use of "atheist" is confuse.

I don't quite understand your sense of humor. "0theist" was a joke? Wait I think a while about it.

 

[Chanakya]

I’ve been arguing for a definition of “atheist” that covers all those that don’t have a belief in god(s). Those that aren’t theists regardless of why they aren’t. If “atheist” is defined as “believes there is no god(s)”, what word defines those that merely don’t have a belief in god(s)?

There already is a word for that. And that word is ‘atheist’!

That particular word means exactly what its philological word-roots suggest, and what you yourself want it to mean.

Yes, there are further nuances that are available, such as ‘soft atheist’, ‘hard atheist’, etc, etc : but if for whatever reason you do not want to concern yourself with those added nuances, nevertheless the core word ‘atheist’ is still available to you.

True, there are some who tend to implicitly attach a ‘hard’ emphasis to that word, but should you find someone take that view in some discussion, then it is easy enough to clarify your meaning, no? By simply qualifying “I’m using the philologically-derived meaning of the word Atheist’, or by simply explaining what you mean by that word.

I don’t see what the difficulty is, at all. The problem that you’re trying to address, it seems non-existent to me. The word that you’re searching for high and low, that word already exists! In those few (or not so few) cases where you find others use the word with a somewhat different connotation, it is easy enough to clarify one's meaning (rather than railing on against the laissez faire anarchy of the English lanugage, or dreaming about a world where words never carry multiple meanings, and where they always answer to the meanings we ourselves prefer).

I don’t think “agnostic” is valid because it has to do with knowledge, not belief.

I have seen you say this repeatedly, as you say here, that “(Agnosticism) … has to do with knowledge, not belief”. This is patently and demonstrably not true. You have yourself started another thread to discuss the meaning of the word Agnostic, and there it has been shown, repeatedly, why you are wrong. Have you not been able to understand any of the reasons offered there, in that thread, to explain why you are plain wrong as regards that word, Agnosticism? (I have no intention of repeating all of that here, but hint : At least in English, philological word-roots do not dictate the ultimate meaning of some word ; usage does. And in this specific instance, the provenance of this term is fairly recent, and its intended meaning exceptionally clearly documented and explained by the person who coined this word.)

 

[Chanakya]

The term "atheist" doesn't make sense to me. What should we call someone who doesn't believe the Earth is flat? What should we call someone who doesn't believe in aliens or bigfoot? "Atheist" suggests that theist is the default but this is an irrational belief so obviously it couldn't be the default.

Unfortunately, theism is still a mainstream position in the world at large. And what is more, in many individual pockets -- that is, within some individual neighborhoods, or some individual cities, or some individual states, or some individual countries -- theism is still, to this day, not just mainstream but overwhelmingly mainstream. Given this unfortunate state of affairs, it often becomes necessary to take a position in relation to this mainstream idea. And since it -- often, but of course not always -- becomes, in practice, necessary to take a position in relation to theism, therefore it become necessary (or at least, it is convenient) to have individual word(s) that denote our position(s) in respect of theism.

If by some wild chance we found, twenty years down the line following some fantastic apocalyptic melt-down of civilization, that overwhelmingly large numbers of people have started believing that the Earth is flat (or that aliens walk among us, or that invisible bigfoots -- bigfeet? -- prowl around unobserved, punishing the immoral and rewarding the virtuous), then yes, then I suggest our language may well come up, organically, with words that reflect the position of someone who does not believe in a flat Earth, or someone who does not believe in invisible aliens or invisible bigfoots (bigfeet?) in our midst.


We don’t necessarily have to use that word, Atheism, if it makes us uncomfortable (or if we don’t move in circles where that word serves any real function). In that case, any ideas about God (or about bigfoot, or about invisible aliens) can be shot down simply by saying they’re “unscientific”, or “lacking in evidence”, instead of dealing separately with the God-issue.

But because in some cases a theism-centered word is not necessary, that does not mean that a theism-centered word is never necessary. Because some people find the word ‘atheism’ unnecessary in some/most situations, that does not mean that all people find that word unnecessary in all situations. That word is very much necessary, I would say, albeit not everyone has to use it if they, personally, do not need to or if they do not want to.

 

[psionl0]

Follow what? Seriously how does anyone follow "atheism"?

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods or at least that the contemporary gods are a false belief.

I know that in this forum, atheism is re-defined as a "lack of belief". It makes acting as if there are no gods seem more rational.

 

[Steve]

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods or at least that the contemporary gods are a false belief.

I know that in this forum, atheism is re-defined as a "lack of belief". It makes acting as if there are no gods seem more rational.

Acting as if there are no gods is completely rational. Acting as if there are gods in the absence of any evidence, not so much.

In fact, I wonder how people would go about acting as if there are gods. How do they know that their activities are sanctioned by gods?

 

[badnewsBH]

Acting as if there are no gods is completely rational. Acting as if there are gods in the absence of any evidence, not so much.

In fact, I wonder how people would go about acting as if there are gods. How do they know that their activities are sanctioned by gods?

Everyone just seems to know (or have been told). For some folks, it's surprising how directly their personal views of a deity and the supposed commands of a deity coincide...

 

[The Atheist]

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods ...

Incorrect.

While I accept that some dictionaries may state that, it is wrong. Etymologically and historically, atheism means a lack of belief.

Only the religious these days demand that atheism is a belief in there being no god/s.

Atheism cannot be a belief in anything.

 

[The Big Dog]

there are few beliefs so fervently held as some modern atheist's belief that the definition of atheist must not include even a hint that atheists believe there is no God

 

[Nay_Sayer]

there are few beliefs so fervently held as some modern atheist's belief that the definition of atheist must not include even a hint that atheists believe there is no God

Does it ever concern you, that you're always wrong? That's rhetorical. I know it doesn't.