• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Define “Atheist”

ynot said:
Well I don’t see how this . .

in any way “dealt with”, or in any way answered this . . .

If you believe it does please explain how.
Click to expand...
I have already explained it so simply that a child could understand it. I don't know how to dumb it down any further.

"Lack of belief" goes either way. If you described yourself that way then you would be open to the existence of a deity just as much as to the non-existence of a deity. That is not how an atheist thinks. You are clearly not open to the existence of any deity whatsoever. That makes your position one of "disbelief".
 
psionl0 said:
I have already explained it so simply that a child could understand it. I don't know how to dumb it down any further.

"Lack of belief" goes either way. If you described yourself that way then you would be open to the existence of a deity just as much as to the non-existence of a deity. That is not how an atheist thinks. You are clearly not open to the existence of any deity whatsoever. That makes your position one of "disbelief".
Click to expand...

Is all your playing with semantics earning you money or points on another website we are not aware of? You seem quite insistent on telling other people what they think, based entirely to your own definitions.

The fact is that gods do not exist, and anyone who thinks they do, or tries to make other people appear as if they think they do, has to be a little loopy.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sorry, no. There is no more rational way to act than as if there are no gods. Unless you can offer a better idea?
 
psionl0 said:
I have already explained it so simply that a child could understand it. I don't know how to dumb it down any further.
Click to expand...
I suggest you put more effort into making your explanations more adult and intelligent rather than childishly simply and dumb . . .

psionl0 said:
"Lack of belief" goes either way. If you described yourself that way then you would be open to the existence of a deity just as much as to the non-existence of a deity. That is not how an atheist thinks. You are clearly not open to the existence of any deity whatsoever. That makes your position one of "disbelief".
Click to expand...
“Lack of belief” is NOT how I describe myself as a type of atheist, it describes how I define atheism (a generic definition that covers all atheist types). “Lack of belief” is an appropriate description of other atheists types however. All atheists lack belief in god(s), reasons why they lack belief isn't what defines them as "atheists", it merely defines their atheist types. I describe my atheist type as being "knows there's no god(s)" (no belief required). I know there are no gods by the same category of knowledge I know there are no dragons.

If you’re as open to the existence of dragons just as much as to the non-existence of a dragons, then you’re being childishly dumb. Is it more appropriate to describe not believing in dragons as “disbelief” or “lack of belief/non-belief”?

This is your post that started this particular debate . . .
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That you and other theists want to define all atheists (atheism) as being “believes there is no god(s)” is merely a pathetic attempt to make atheism appear as much an irrational belief as theism.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
The fact is that gods do not exist, and anyone who thinks they do, or tries to make other people appear as if they think they do, has to be a little loopy.
Click to expand...
You are an atheist. You believe/know that there are no gods. And that is fine.

Yet the mere suggestion that this is what makes an atheist has others frothing at the mouth. :boggled:
 
ynot said:
Care to answer this? . . .


. . .
Click to expand...
This is what make communicating with you so difficult. Anybody else would understand that I am saying that it would take overwhelming evidence to make you change your POV. For some unfathomable reason, you are interpreting this to mean that I am claiming to have such overwhelming evidence.
 
psionl0 said:
This is what make communicating with you so difficult. Anybody else would understand that I am saying that it would take overwhelming evidence to make you change your POV. For some unfathomable reason, you are interpreting this to mean that I am claiming to have such overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...
When did you gain the right speak on behalf of “anybody else”? Wonder how many others would understand what you’re saying when you change what you’re saying in the first instance to what you’re saying differently in the second? Wonder how many interpreted the first as being the same as the second before (or even after) you posted the second?

psionl0 said:
There are always degrees of belief. Some atheists are willing to change their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence and some are not.
Click to expand...
Rather pointless to claim “Some atheists are willing to change their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence” if no such “overwhelming evidence” even exists. To say “Some atheists are willing” indicates (at the very least) that there is some overwhelming evidence for the existence of god(s) that has changed the POV of some atheists.

Saying “Some atheists are willing to change their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence” is NOT the same as saying “it would take overwhelming evidence to make you change your POV” (not even close). Perhaps if you took more care with your words communication might be less difficult for everyone.

Obviously any rational person would change their POV if presented with credible overwhelming evidence that proved their POV wrong. Provide credible overwhelming evidence that dragons exist and I will change my POV on the existence of dragons. I'm not prepared however to merely change my POV and merely believe dragons exist because it might be emotionally comforting for me to do so (you can replace "dragons" with "gods" of course).
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Saying “Some atheists are willing to change their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence” is NOT the same as saying “it would take overwhelming evidence to make you change your POV” (not even close).
Click to expand...
That is seriously twisted.
 
psionl0 said:
You are an atheist. You believe/know that there are no gods. And that is fine.

Yet the mere suggestion that this is what makes an atheist has others frothing at the mouth. :boggled:
Click to expand...
What do you call a person that isn't sure, or hasn't yet decided to believe, that god(s) exists?

Oh that's right, you would also call them "atheists" . . .
psionl0 said:
"Agnostic" sounds kind of wishy-washy so in this forum, it has been re-defined to be exclusively about the belief in the provability of the existence of a god. This means that only the term "atheist" remains to describe the point half-way in between belief and disbelief.
Click to expand...
Kinda ruins the "Believes there's no god(s)" definition of "atheist".

ETA - There's no half-way-point between belief and lack of belief.
 
Last edited:
I come at this problem by first asking - what do you call someone who doesn't have any belief in a god or gods?

Agnostic doesn't seem to fit here because the non believers are not saying "I don't know", and they are also not saying "I know/believe that gods do not exist" either (well they may say that too, but they don't have to). Here from the above "I have no belief in any God or Gods" the label Atheist seems most appropriate. If not then what are they (label wise since we are talking about labels here)

Also, a response to the question "do you have a believe in a God or Gods" as "I don't know" which is supposedly what an Agnostic would say, just means they haven't made up there mind yet. But for me, that still makes them an Atheist - tentatively, they can't not know if they have a belief and have a belief at the same time. So until they decide they do believe in a God, they are an atheist (as per above). So because Agnostic doesn't appear to make any sense - an Agnostic must be about something else.

However, the question "do you have a believe in a God or Gods" is different from the question "Do you know if a God exists, or Do you know that a God doesn't exist". The Agnostic answers "I don't know" and the or Gnostic answers "yes, definitely he exists" seems to fit nicely.
 
BadBoy said:
I come at this problem by first asking - what do you call someone who doesn't have any belief in a god or gods?

Agnostic doesn't seem to fit here because the non believers are not saying "I don't know", and they are also not saying "I know/believe that gods do not exist" either (well they may say that too, but they don't have to). Here from the above "I have no belief in any God or Gods" the label Atheist seems most appropriate. If not then what are they (label wise since we are talking about labels here)

Also, a response to the question "do you have a believe in a God or Gods" as "I don't know" which is supposedly what an Agnostic would say, just means they haven't made up there mind yet. But for me, that still makes them an Atheist - tentatively, they can't not know if they have a belief and have a belief at the same time. So until they decide they do believe in a God, they are an atheist (as per above). So because Agnostic doesn't appear to make any sense - an Agnostic must be about something else.

However, the question "do you have a believe in a God or Gods" is different from the question "Do you know if a God exists, or Do you know that a God doesn't exist". The Agnostic answers "I don't know" and the or Gnostic answers "yes, definitely he exists" seems to fit nicely.
Click to expand...
Close enough. It's really not complicated. “Atheist” is defined by not being a theist. Why a person isn’t a theist merely defines what type of atheist they are.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Close enough. It's really not complicated. “Atheist” is defined by not being a theist. Why a person isn’t a theist merely defines what type of atheist they are.
Click to expand...
Generally I'm of the impression that discussions regarding the belief or existence of a God should follow on from stated positions rather than labels (whatever label the theist and atheist may want to adopt) and proceeding on to discussing the concepts, ignoring labels to prevent getting hung up on them.

However, more than once I have got into a lunchtime debate that got hung up on the definition of Atheist. What I found to be irritating was that somehow if I conceded that if I didn't know if a God existed, only that I wasn't convinced there were any, made me an Agnostic rather than an Atheist that they somehow won the argument.

It was like the Theist was suggesting that because I was an Agnostic that somehow that wasn't so bad, and that I was just a bit lost and needed to find the right path was all. "Oh, those Agnostics over there we can ignore, they are not even part of the debate as they just haven't figured it out yet - one way or another, they just don't know or understand what I know - they are harmless and disinterested and really not in any way significant".

But in fact, based on their labeling of my position as Agnostic, this "Agnostic" is saying "you guys (theists) appear to be confused, mixed up with circular reasoning, irrational and delusional. Call me an Agnostic or an Atheist - your theist position is still full of crap and need much more work before I go anywhere near it".
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
It was like the Theist was suggesting that because I was an Agnostic that somehow that wasn't so bad, and that I was just a bit lost and needed to find the right path was all.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to set anybody on the "right" path. I am just puzzled as to why dyed in the wool atheists here refuse to accept the common definition of atheist that is used in the real world.

"Lack of belief" can only stem from lack of knowledge. For example, (assuming that you are not a computer geek) you might lack a belief about the running times of a comparison based sort. Once you have been given some information about it (such as what a "comparison based sort" is), you can choose to believe it or disbelieve it. You might choose to disbelieve the information you have been given until supporting evidence is given or you may choose to assume it is true in some circumstances and false in other circumstances.

Whatever the case, "lack of belief" can no longer exist. It should be noted that how willing somebody might be to be persuaded to change their POV is not the issue here. It is only what a person currently believes.
 
psionl0 said:
I am not trying to set anybody on the "right" path. I am just puzzled as to why dyed in the wool atheists here refuse to accept the common definition of atheist that is used in the real world.

"Lack of belief" can only stem from lack of knowledge. For example, (assuming that you are not a computer geek) you might lack a belief about the running times of a comparison based sort. Once you have been given some information about it (such as what a "comparison based sort" is), you can choose to believe it or disbelieve it. You might choose to disbelieve the information you have been given until supporting evidence is given or you may choose to assume it is true in some circumstances and false in other circumstances.

Whatever the case, "lack of belief" can no longer exist. It should be noted that how willing somebody might be to be persuaded to change their POV is not the issue here. It is only what a person currently believes.
Click to expand...
Matt Dillahunty gives the jar of gumballs as an example.

If a jar of gumballs is presented to me and a friend, and my friend says "there are an even number of gumballs in that jar", even though I know he has never seen the jar before, I can say "I'm not convinced of that".

I am agnostic about how many gumballs there are myself, but I am an Atheist regarding his specific claim that there are an even number of sweets in the jar. I either agree or disagree. But disagreeing doesn't mean I think there is an Odd number.

So I am happy defining Atheist in the hard or soft sense, as long as theists don't expect that I am adopting a burden of proof here because most Atheists who have come to their position intellectually have done so because the Theist claim doesn't appear to hold together at closer inspection. Also it's worth noting that the meaning of words can change over time and as I suggested above, the words make more sense when Agnostics don't know if a God exists or not, Atheists reject the claim that one does.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
I am agnostic about how many gumballs there are myself, but I am an Atheist regarding his specific claim that there are an even number of sweets in the jar. I either agree or disagree. But disagreeing doesn't mean I think there is an Odd number.
Click to expand...
Saying "you are full of ****" doesn't mean that you are agreeing with or disagreeing with your "friend".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom