Define “Atheist”

[MetalPig]

This doesn't work, as a non-belief in Zeus, Santa Claus, pink unicorns, stamp collecting, would also have to be defined as a religion.

A non-belief in stamp collecting?

I am pretty sure stamp collecting exists. I use to live near a place which I suppose is called a stamp collecting church, where stamp collectionists convened and performed their stamp collecting rituals, which consisted mainly of shuffling bits of paper around.

 

[David Mo]

Me?

Your positions are at the moment meaningless since no definition is given for "god". Until a definition is given one can't take any view on whatever it is you are talking about.

Plus I'm still curious why this always ends up with a general "god that we won't define", such a god is not the god of the major Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and so on religions, why don't we stick to the definitions/descriptions of gods that those that claim a god or gods exist use?

I can tell you what I meant by "god" when I was writing my comment.

The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
And:
A superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think that's what people in this forum more or less understand. We could therefore continue the discussion on this basis. Is it O.K?

 

[David Mo]

These are not the same, and why your attempt at answering the question is fatally flawed. Further, your two categories for B are not the only 2 possible categories.

So yes, I don't accept that anything in your flawed analysis represents my position.

Of course, B is not equal to B1. The latter is a subgroup of the former.

And what is your position that is not in my classification? Please don't put a name to it.

Maybe you can explain your point better.

 

[David Mo]

I have always found it curious that my definition of an atheist "An atheist is a person who believes there is no God," draws such didactic, indeed even emotional answers, particularly when my definition is but my definition.

Further, I personally believe it is superior as it is both an affirmative description, which I am certain one can easily understand, and also does not suffer the problem of being an "absolute" statement which skeptics are quite correct to see the flaws in making.

The definition of atheism causes problems if we put different things into it. As you write it, it seems to point to a justifiable claim about God nonexistence. However, there are people who do not believe that there is a god and who think that there is no need to justify it. And they call themselves atheists too.

The underlying problem is the burden of proof. This is an issue that is not always well understood. It is over-simplified when it is said that the burden of proof lies with the one who affirms. To affirm what? This is the question.
In short, like most of what you say by pretending to be naive, there is a lot of groundswell that you can't pretend to solve with a simple definition.

And what is your position about theism? Do you think God exists? Are you sure? Please don't give it a name.

 

[David Mo]

Thanks!
Yes. I will limit myself to the provided dictionary definition.
I think that so I won't create more confusion, I'll not invent some new word but simply leave things as they are.

Whether there is one definition or another will depend on the dictionary you choose. Don't think it's so simple. What dictionary did you use?

 

[David Mo]

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.

You're right. The underlying problem is whether a person who does not believe in God has to justify his position and whether all beliefs are the same.
But instead of dealing with this problem that is real, we create a naming problem that is never going to be solved because we don't address the underlying problem.
So, since there is no will to reach a consensus about definitions, we should limit ourselves to discussing the real question: Should a person who does not believe in God justify his belief? Is believing in God and not believing in God the same kind of belief?

 

[ynot]

So, since there is no will to reach a consensus about definitions, we should limit ourselves to discussing the real question: Should a person who does not believe in God justify his belief? Is believing in God and not believing in God the same kind of belief?

A "real question" I'd like answered is when and how did not believing become a belief?

But I totally agree that our time would be better spent debating "believing in gods" and "not believing gods" without labels, rather than how we should define labels. If you accept a label for your position you will be branded by another persons definition of that label. This is why definitions of labels are so hotly debated.

The debates always seem to be about defining atheist labels and never theist labels. Perhaps atheists should reject all labels and simply state that they "don't believe in gods" or they "believe gods don't exist" or they "know gods don't exist" then there's no room for ambiguity. What's achieved for atheists by attaching labels?

Darn! just had a deja vu moment that I've reached this conclusion before. Maybe Elagabalus is right and I've done all this before. Perhaps even many times . . . Bloody alzheimer's

So - I don't believe in gods, and I know, as much as I know just about anything, that gods don't actually exist. I'm not going to accept labels and other people's definitions of those label because label aren't required. So there!

 

[Porpoise of Life]

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.

How a word should be defined has nothing to do with whether or not a definition can provide a rhetorical edge to one side of a debate.

You can't insist on a definition of a word that automatically shows that your position is the superior one*. And any argument based on the wording of a dictionary definition would be a fallacy anyway.

“Believes there is no god or gods” is a perfectly servicable definition.
It includes those who simply lack a belief in something divine, those who actively believe it doesn't exist, those who feel the proposition should be rejected because of lack of evidence, but are open to be proven wrong, and so on.
Why is there a need for one single definition of 'real' atheists?

*that smacks of the "the dictionary says a marriage is a union between a man and a woman!" argument...

 

[David Mo]

A "real question" I'd like answered is when and how did not believing become a belief?

But I totally agree that our time would be better spent debating "believing in gods" and "not believing gods" without labels, rather than how we should define labels. If you accept a label for your position you will be branded by another persons definition of that label. This is why definitions of labels are so hotly debated.

(...)

Darn! just had a deja vu moment that I've reached this conclusion before. Maybe Elagabalus is right and I've done all this before. Perhaps even many times . . . Bloody alzheimer's

So - I don't believe in gods, and I know, as much as I know just about anything, that gods don't actually exist. I'm not going to accept labels and other people's definitions of those label because label aren't required. So there!

We agree! This might be the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

 

[David Mo]

How a word should be defined has nothing to do with whether or not a definition can provide a rhetorical edge to one side of a debate.

You can't insist on a definition of a word that automatically shows that your position is the superior one*. And any argument based on the wording of a dictionary definition would be a fallacy anyway.

“Believes there is no god or gods” is a perfectly servicable definition.
It includes those who simply lack a belief in something divine, those who actively believe it doesn't exist, those who feel the proposition should be rejected because of lack of evidence, but are open to be proven wrong, and so on.
Why is there a need for one single definition of 'real' atheists?

*that smacks of the "the dictionary says a marriage is a union between a man and a woman!" argument...

All of us fall into the trap of definitions over and over again. You know, man is the animal that stumbles on the same stone twenty times - a good definition, right?

Definitions can be useful when shared, but they are a handicap when they hide the real problem with things. At this point, the appropriate strategy should be: I'm not going to discuss what this is called, but whether this is X.

 

[Thermal]

Serious question (not playing a silly game). Is saying “I know dinosaurs are extinct” equally an irrational belief?

We can follow empirical evidence of the dinosaurs' development and evolution to birds, etc through the fossil record. The conclusions drawn are rational, and based on the observable.

Or perhaps “I know there is no Santa” might be more appropriate.

Santa is known to be a myth created for children. It is known to be contrived and his literal existence is never entertained by adults. While it sounds good, no cigar, analogy-wise.

We frequently use complete lack of evidence that some things do exist to conclude that those things don't exist. Why do you claim this is irrational?

The existence of a god (whatever that may be) is a unique argument (but not special pleading, as there are reasons for the unique status). You know the arguments, I would think: Radio waves existed regardless of man's ability to recognize or harness them. The idea of a god is not definitively known or not known; the range of reason should run from 'there is no evidence to support this' to 'I'm thoroughly convinced'.

But again, how can we define atheist without first defining god?

 

[applecorped]

No. Not defining it is more fun.

 

[abaddon]

An atheist is a person who believes there is no God

No, that is an anti-theist.

 

[Marcus]

A non-belief in stamp collecting?

I am pretty sure stamp collecting exists. I use to live near a place which I suppose is called a stamp collecting church, where stamp collectionists convened and performed their stamp collecting rituals, which consisted mainly of shuffling bits of paper around.

You're right, that was garbled. I was referring to an analogy: Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, i.e., it's not.

 

[Darat]

I can tell you what I meant by "god" when I was writing my comment.

The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
And:
A superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think that's what people in this forum more or less understand. We could therefore continue the discussion on this basis. Is it O.K?

It's getting there but I'd still say why talk about these "gods" rather than the gods that the vast majority of theists actually believe in?

 

[Thermal]

No, that is an anti-theist.

I know this is a lot of hair splitting, but I would think anti-theism is a more specific term, meaning against or in opposition to theism (Wikipedia agrees). If someone had no belief or interest in religion, I would not call them anti-religious. That adds an oppositional element that I'm not sure is intended.

 

[Darat]

The definition of atheism causes problems if we put different things into it. As you write it, it seems to point to a justifiable claim about God nonexistence. However, there are people who do not believe that there is a god and who think that there is no need to justify it. And they call themselves atheists too.

The underlying problem is the burden of proof. This is an issue that is not always well understood. It is over-simplified when it is said that the burden of proof lies with the one who affirms. To affirm what? This is the question.
In short, like most of what you say by pretending to be naive, there is a lot of groundswell that you can't pretend to solve with a simple definition.

And what is your position about theism? Do you think God exists? Are you sure? Please don't give it a name.

I disagree I think it is about forgetting what atheism is meant to be the opposite of i.e. theism.

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods

We seem happy with leaving theist as undefined and non-specific but those not sharing that belief we seem to insist on some further specificality.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I have always found it curious that my definition of an atheist "An atheist is a person who believes there is no God," draws such didactic, indeed even emotional answers, particularly when my definition is but my definition.

Further, I personally believe it is superior as it is both an affirmative description, which I am certain one can easily understand, and also does not suffer the problem of being an "absolute" statement which skeptics are quite correct to see the flaws in making.

Nifty, I define theists as ignorant children who still need an imaginary friend. Surely you wouldn't object, it is my definition after all.

I disagree I think it is about forgetting what atheism is meant to be the opposite of i.e. theism.

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods

We seem happy with leaving theist as undefined and non-specific but those not sharing that belief we seem to insist on some further specificality.

^ This ^

 

[LarryS]

I can tell you what I meant by "god" when I was writing my comment.

The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
And:
A superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think that's what people in this forum more or less understand. We could therefore continue the discussion on this basis. Is it O.K?

We could accept the above definition because people believe it, but the definition is incoherent and not supported by any scripture (I've come across).

 

[David Mo]

It's getting there but I'd still say why talk about these "gods" rather than the gods that the vast majority of theists actually believe in?

The two parts of the definition together admit the possibility of speaking of gods in plural. I often write "god" in the singular for short and because it is the majority belief in today's world.