• 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”

LarryS said:
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).
Click to expand...

Just that: this use of "god" is admitted because it is the most common in our culture and in others I know. They are the ones that are often used in the books, articles and debates I know. Whether or not it is written in some sacred text is another matter.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am NOT interested now in what "atheism" means to you. You are right: there is opposition between those who think that God exists and those who do not believe that God exists. And between those who don't believe that God exists and those who claim that God does not exist and those who claim that they do not justify the claim that God does not exist and those who claim that they believe to have some reason that God does not exist and those who do not speak out on this issue and all the others... etc., etc., etc., etc.
What interests me is how everyone justify his position. Not whatever they're called.
 
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Think you misunderstood me, but you bring up another point, if you are using the plural "gods" then you are excluding the god of the vast majority of the religious theists in the world believe in since they believe in only one god.
 
David Mo said:
I am NOT interested now in what "atheism" means to you. You are right: there is opposition between those who think that God exists and those who do not believe that God exists. And between those who don't believe that God exists and those who claim that God does not exist and those who claim that they do not justify the claim that God does not exist and those who claim that they believe to have some reason that God does not exist and those who do not speak out on this issue and all the others... etc., etc., etc., etc.
What interests me is how everyone justify his position. Not whatever they're called.
Click to expand...

Then you are in the wrong thread - this thread is the "Define “Atheist”" thread.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just for purposes of discussion, we could also say that, as formulated, the term means 'one who holds to no theist dogma,' leaving the issue of belief in a deity unresolved. In that reading, it's still stronger than agnostic, as it yet makes a general claim regarding religious dogma.

Just kicking the can. Lord knows I don't want to backdoor any gods... er, wrong turn of phrase!
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I always figure the following:
0) Define god
1) Take out a sheet of paper and pencil
2) Make a list of all the gods you believe exist
3) If that list is blank, then you are an atheist
4) If that list is not blank, it would depend on what you list. If you say that "I listed a toaster, because I heard there is a tribe on a remote island that worshipped a toaster as a god, and that toaster certainly exists" then I will tell you to buzz off and not worry about it. Or if say something like, "god is the nature of the universe" aka Spinoza's god, then again, I won't worry about it.
 
David Mo said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've decided to be a simpleton. For any person who tells me ze is an Atheist, Theist, Non-Theist, or whatever I will listen and let that person explain what ze means by that.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
If this thread gets to 4 pages I will believe in a God. It has to be divine intervention that prevents a develoed species understanding something so simple as disbelief. Nothing else can account for such stupidity.
Click to expand...

Shall we pray?
 
Darat said:
Then you are in the wrong thread - this thread is the "Define “Atheist”" thread.
Click to expand...
I am interested in the definition of atheist'. But not in your personal opinion that you present as the only possible one. I'm trying to unblock the subject.

Darat said:
Think you misunderstood me, but you bring up another point, if you are using the plural "gods" then you are excluding the god of the vast majority of the religious theists in the world believe in since they believe in only one god.
Click to expand...
So what, then? So much theistic is the one who believes in one god as the other who believes in fifty. Or is it not?
 
Given it seems there will never be any consensus on a generic definition of “atheist” . . .

If others want to label me for not believing in gods and use the word “atheist” to do so, then I only accept that they have the right to do so using my definition of “atheist”. If others that lack belief in gods are happy to accept definitions of “atheist” that don’t agree with their own definition then that’s their choice.

Anyway, I might have found a “better” definition of “atheist” . . .

Atheist – A label many theists and a few others apply to those that don’t have a belief in gods with the definition that such a lack of belief is a belief.
 
Last edited:
Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word “Atheist” Means.

This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word “handicapped” is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.

Secondly, a “lack of belief” definition for the word “atheist” would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the “lack of belief” atheists and I haven’t heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition.
Click to expand...

Written by an atheist for atheists
 
The Big Dog said:
here is a rather "strong" atheist type who agrees with my definition of atheism as someone who believes there is no God.

http://www.evilbible.com/definition-of-atheism/
Click to expand...

I like this because it makes me question my usual stuff, but if it is the be all end all statement, it comes down to me not being an Atheist.

If it weren't asserted by an Atheist, I'd wonder if that wasn't its purpose.
 
The Big Dog said:
here is a rather "strong" atheist type who agrees with my definition of atheism as someone who believes there is no God.

http://www.evilbible.com/definition-of-atheism/
Click to expand...
I'm curious, TBD. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you believe in a Christian God (I'm not positive about that), do you believe there is no Zeus (or Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., you get the idea) or do you lack a belief in these deities?

Also, since it is apparent that you would not put babies in the atheist category, how would you classify them?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fossil evidence is only evidence that dinosaurs did and can exist. Nothing to do with whether they still exist or not. Much more than can be said about gods.

If all dinosaurs have evolved into birds then dinosaurs aren’t extinct. Are you claiming all dinosaurs evolved into birds and “Dinosaurs are extinct” is false? If not, is saying “Dinosaurs that didn’t evolve into birds are extinct” equally as irrational as saying “Gods don’t exist”?

Replace “Dinosaur” with “Dodo” if it helps.

Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Santa is known to be a myth created for people. "It is known to be contrived and his literal existence is never entertained by adults" is irrelevant, and at best is an "argument ad (adult) populum" fallacy. The analogy is sound. Where’s my cigar? (not that I’ve ever smoked).

Replace “Santa” with “Bigfoot“ if it helps. Many adults very much entertain their literal existence.

Thermal said:
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'.
Click to expand...
To claim belief in the existence of gods is a unique (special) argument with a unique (special) status very much special pleading. Your examples of unique (special) arguments could apply to all things for which there's no evidence.

Thermal said:
But again, how can we define atheist without first defining god?
Click to expand...
Which god belief do you want defined, and why do you ignore all the others? I not only don't believe/reject all god beliefs, I also don't believe/reject all other paranormal beliefs. The only definition of gods beliefs I need to not believe/reject them all is that they are all paranormal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
You guys are falling in the Big Dog slipknot. The dog hunting the dogcatchers! You are not going to gain anything by fighting with him over the meaning of "atheism". Ask him better where he wants to go with hist definition and we shall talk about things instead of getting into an absurd quarrell.

The Dog probably wants to demand that you prove that his beloved God-pipe-dream doesn't exist. You are not going to solve that with definitions, but by showing the way knowledge works.
 
Last edited:
“I think X doesn't exist” and “I don't think X exists”. What difference does it make?

In the fights between unbelievers and believers, the distinction between:
(a) I believe that X does not exist.
(b) I do not believe that X exists.
And also in some cases:
(c) Neither X exists nor X does not exist is an undecidable question.
(d) X exists.

Despite the frequency with which these distinctions are made, I have some problems understanding them. I hope someone can explain them to me.

My problems basically relate to (b). If a person doesn't have the belief in X it may be due to different causes. It may be because you have some reason to believe that the reasons for (d) are false. Or, put another way, that the reasons that gives (d) are inconclusive. But then, what would differentiate (a) from (b) and (c)? If (b) objects to (a) it is because he is not convinced by the reasons given by (a). But, then, his posture is equal to (c): he says neither one thing nor the other. If you want to object to (c) you will have to give some reason to not accept the equidistance, and your position will be equal to (a), which we have already excluded.

Therefore, statement (b) sounds very good when it is only expressed. But in the course of the debate (b) will be obliged to mark his position on (a) and (c) —since they will want to know how (b) differs from their position—and it will become clear that there is no real difference. Either (b)=(a) or (b)=(c). In analytical philosophy, one would say that his proposal is a pseudo-proposal: it sounds good, but it doesn't mean anything.

NOTE: "X" can mean anything: Brussels sprouts or a god. Try both ways to see how it sounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom