Define “Atheist”

[ynot]

And what do you call a person who claims that no god exists?

Correct.

And what do you call a person who claims that you can't tell if there is a god or not?

Incorrect.

Both are atheists according your definition because neither of them affirms that a god exists. Are they two different kinds of atheists?

They are two different people, neither of which has a belief that gods actually exist.

 

[ynot]

Rather than defining “atheist” by applying types to labels, it would be more appropriate and meaningful to apply labels to types . . .

Default-Type = “I have no belief in god(s)”
Label = “Atheist”.

Sub-Type = “I also believe god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Belief-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I also know god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Gnostic/knowledge-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I can’t know if god(s) exists or not but I either also lack belief in god(s) or also believe god(s) don’t exist”.
Label = “Agnostic-atheist”

 

[The Greater Fool]

Rather than defining “atheist” by applying types to labels, it would be more appropriate and meaningful to apply labels to types . . .

Default-Type = “I lack belief in god(s)”
Label = “Atheist”.

Sub-Type = “I also believe god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Belief-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I also know god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Gnostic/knowledge-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I can’t know if god(s) exists or not but I either also lack belief in god(s) or also believe god(s) don’t exist”.
Label = “Agnostic-atheist”

Aren't you just the label king.

No thank you.

 

[ynot]

Aren't you just the label king.

No thank you.

Do you even know for sure I'm not a queen?

 

[Apathia]

Getting close, but not quite close enough to join the club yet. Keep trying.

I think I'll have a club soda.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think I'll have a club soda.

Mitch Hedberg

I order the club sandwich all the time, but I'm not even a member, man. I don't know how I get away with it. How'd it start anyway? I like my sandwiches with three pieces of bread. So do I! Well let's form a club then. Alright, but we need more stipulations. Yes we do; instead of cutting the sandwich once, let's cut it again. Yes, four triangles, and we will position them into a circle. In the middle we will dump chips. Or potato salad. Okay. I got a question for ya, how do you feel about frilly toothpicks? I'm for 'em! Well this club is formed; spread the word on menus nationwide. I like my sandwiches with alfalfa sprouts. Well then you're not in the ****in' club!

How do YOU feel about frilly toothpicks?

 

[Apathia]

Mitch Hedberg


How do YOU feel about frilly toothpicks?

Those frills? They give to much opportunity for the Theists to claim the sandwich. Like it's God that creates the frills.

But I think I'll take the frillies, but hold the sprouts. I've got to have some dignity.

 

[Toontown]

An atheist does not believe a god is necessary to explain anything, therefore sees no utility in belief in a god.

I positively disbelieve in the versions I find personally disgusting. For me, personal dislike of a supernatural creep is the clincher - there is no reason to believe the creep exists, and there is nothing I can do about it if it does exist, since I can't kill it and don't seem to have a "like" button. So the entire question becomes moot.

 

[David Mo]

Rather than defining “atheist” by applying types to labels, it would be more appropriate and meaningful to apply labels to types . . .

Default-Type = “I have no belief in god(s)”
Label = “Atheist”.

Sub-Type = “I also believe god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Belief-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I also know god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Gnostic/knowledge-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I can’t know if god(s) exists or not but I either also lack belief in god(s) or also believe god(s) don’t exist”.
Label = “Agnostic-atheist”

I think we're in agreement. According to your terminology there are two types of atheistic positions:
Those who believe or claim that gods do not exist. "Gnostic"
Those who don't know if gods exist or not. "Agnostic".
In both cases we can say that they do not believe that the gods exist.

Just for your information and without wishing to start the names war again, I will tell you that in philosophy the first position is commonly called "atheism" and the second "agnosticism". If atheism and agnosticism were to be given a common name, we would say that they are non-believers or unbelievers. But I say this only to warn you in case you read a philosophical article.

What is the main consequence of our agreement?
Disbelief or atheism, as you call it, does not exist as an independent position in the debate with the theist. An atheist -according to your definition- will be gnostic or agnostic.

If he's a gnostic atheist , he will have to show his reasons. If you are atheistic-agnostic you can wait the theists and atheists-gnostics to give theirs and then show why they are not convincing. None of the positions can claim that is exempt from reasoning its position. The most the agnostic atheist can do is wait for others to give theirs first and then counter-attack. In other words, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that something exists, but the other participants in the debate must make their own arguments sooner or later.

All this seems very obvious, but the fact that there is so much discussion about it suggests that something strange is happening.

 

[David Mo]

An atheist does not believe a god is necessary to explain anything, therefore sees no utility in belief in a god.

I positively disbelieve in the versions I find personally disgusting. For me, personal dislike of a supernatural creep is the clincher - there is no reason to believe the creep exists, and there is nothing I can do about it if it does exist, since I can't kill it and don't seem to have a "like" button. So the entire question becomes moot.

Philosophers and mathematicians share the same impulse: curiosity.
Whether curiosity is useful or not is a question that comes later.

 

[JesseCuster]

Rather than defining “atheist” by applying types to labels, it would be more appropriate and meaningful to apply labels to types . . .

Default-Type = “I have no belief in god(s)”
Label = “Atheist”.

Sub-Type = “I also believe god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Belief-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I also know god(s) don’t exist”
Label = “Gnostic/knowledge-atheist”

Sub-Type = “I can’t know if god(s) exists or not but I either also lack belief in god(s) or also believe god(s) don’t exist”.
Label = “Agnostic-atheist”

Why are those labels "appropriate and meaningful"?

Is there some problem in need of a solution that you're addressing with all this? I don't get it.

 

[Egg]

...
Just for your information and without wishing to start the names war again, I will tell you that in philosophy the first position is commonly called "atheism" and the second "agnosticism". If atheism and agnosticism were to be given a common name, we would say that they are non-believers or unbelievers. But I say this only to warn you in case you read a philosophical article.

What is the main consequence of our agreement?
Disbelief or atheism, as you call it, does not exist as an independent position in the debate with the theist. An atheist -according to your definition- will be gnostic or agnostic.

If he's a gnostic atheist , he will have to show his reasons. If you are atheistic-agnostic you can wait the theists and atheists-gnostics to give theirs and then show why they are not convincing. None of the positions can claim that is exempt from reasoning its position. The most the agnostic atheist can do is wait for others to give theirs first and then counter-attack. In other words, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that something exists, but the other participants in the debate must make their own arguments sooner or later.

All this seems very obvious, but the fact that there is so much discussion about it suggests that something strange is happening.

While I think there are some contributing factors involved which pertain to the particular subject of god(s) (non-strict definitions of god(s), some theists not grasping disbelief at all, anti-theistic agendas etc.), much of the strange thing that is happening seems to me a language issue.

While technically "I don't believe in X" can mean merely lacking a belief, it's generally taken as some kind of active disbelief. Telling someone that you don't believe them suggests that you think they're either mistaken or lying.

So for many (probably most) listeners, "I don't believe in god" is functionally identical to "I believe there is no god" and therefore describing quite a different position to "I'm unconvinced".

I don't think this is specific to god beliefs, we could exchange in ghosts, climate change or whatever and essentially see 3 conclusions (it's true, it's not true, not convinced either way) and the position of not having any conclusion, which I would separate from concluding that a claim is unconvincing. And while this is a scale and people can be at various positions along that scale, ultimately it would come down to what factors into someone's reasoning or behaviour. So, someone unconvinced by climate change might be fine with clean energy regulations (just in case), whereas someone who thinks it's probably untrue may be opposed.

What David Mo' describes here as definition for atheist and agnostic in philosophy, in my experience also represents most people's understandings of the terms. Those who are merely unconvinced often see the term "atheist" as describing a position they don't hold and "agnostic" as a more useful label.

 

[David Mo]

While I think there are some contributing factors involved which pertain to the particular subject of god(s) (non-strict definitions of god(s), some theists not grasping disbelief at all, anti-theistic agendas etc.), much of the strange thing that is happening seems to me a language issue.

While technically "I don't believe in X" can mean merely lacking a belief, it's generally taken as some kind of active disbelief. Telling someone that you don't believe them suggests that you think they're either mistaken or lying.

So for many (probably most) listeners, "I don't believe in god" is functionally identical to "I believe there is no god" and therefore describing quite a different position to "I'm unconvinced".

I don't think this is specific to god beliefs, we could exchange in ghosts, climate change or whatever and essentially see 3 conclusions (it's true, it's not true, not convinced either way) and the position of not having any conclusion, which I would separate from concluding that a claim is unconvincing. And while this is a scale and people can be at various positions along that scale, ultimately it would come down to what factors into someone's reasoning or behaviour. So, someone unconvinced by climate change might be fine with clean energy regulations (just in case), whereas someone who thinks it's probably untrue may be opposed.

What David Mo' describes here as definition for atheist and agnostic in philosophy, in my experience also represents most people's understandings of the terms. Those who are merely unconvinced often see the term "atheist" as describing a position they don't hold and "agnostic" as a more useful label.

All the discussions about the names of something are hiding various concepts about what this something actually is. In my opinion, the war of names over the concept of atheism includes two hidden agendas:
(a) The burden of proof.
(b) Criticism of atheism as a mere belief.

The theists argue that if atheism is a belief, it must be demonstrated in the same way as belief in God.
They also argue that if atheism is a belief, it is worth the same as belief in God.

A discussion of what atheism is should leave the endless name wars and devote itself to discussing these two theistic agendas, which in my opinion are wrong.

The question is: is the absence of belief in God a mere non-belief or should it present some kind of justification that fights theism? In my opinion, the convinced atheist must criticize theists' beliefs and put forward some kind of argument to reinforce his belief that there are no gods. That's why I consider myself an atheist and not an agnostic, atheist-agnostic, or whatever you want to call it. We must enter into the debate forcefully and not pass the buck.

 

[ynot]

Why are those labels "appropriate and meaningful"?

Is there some problem in need of a solution that you're addressing with all this? I don't get it.

The problem is theists and psychowankers making up labels and applying them atheists without their agreement how those labels should be appropriately defined. It's as dishonest and immature as one forum member repeatedly calling another member "Trump-like"

There are boxes that are each filled with a different type of fruit. Your job is to write fruit types on labels and stick them on the fruit boxes. Will the labels be more appropriate and meaningful if you write and stick the labels before or after you know what types of fruit are in each box?

 

[Egg]

...

The question is: is the absence of belief in God a mere non-belief or should it present some kind of justification that fights theism? In my opinion, the convinced atheist must criticize theists' beliefs and put forward some kind of argument to reinforce his belief that there are no gods. That's why I consider myself an atheist and not an agnostic, atheist-agnostic, or whatever you want to call it. We must enter into the debate forcefully and not pass the buck.

Well nothing compels a convinced atheist to enter the debate at all, but I agree, that if they are going to debate theists, hiding behind the broad definition of "atheism" as a shield from the burden of proof, when the actual position held is that there are most probably no gods and theists are mistaken/delusional, is pretty disingenuous.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well nothing compels a convinced atheist to enter the debate at all, but I agree, that if they are going to debate theists, hiding behind the broad definition of "atheism" as a shield from the burden of proof, when the actual position held is that there are most probably no gods and theists are mistaken/delusional, is pretty disingenuous.

But atheists can point to the overwhelming lack of evidence for any specific god.
Just like it's up to Bigfooters to provide evidence for Bigfoot, and the rest of us aren't compelled to go out and prove definitively that such a creature could never exist before we're allowed to say we don't think Sasquatch roams the Pacific Northwest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Prove me a negative using a variable definition I refuse to clarify."

 

[Toontown]

Philosophers and mathematicians share the same impulse: curiosity.
Whether curiosity is useful or not is a question that comes later.

I'm as curious as the next guy, and I'll argue that curiosity is useful. But I don't equate curiosity with belief.

 

[LarryS]

As I keep going back to - we have a whole slew of "god" and "gods" that theists say they believe in, so I say lets deal with the gods that people actually believe exist when we talk about atheism. It really makes no kind of sense to create a definition of god that excludes the gods that the vast majority of the theists say they believe in and define atheism in regards to that.

Makes no sense - many folks believe that climate change is a Chinese hoax, or the earth is flat, or the universe is 7,000 year old, etc. . . . that does not mean these beliefs are worth considering.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As I keep going back to - we have a whole slew of "god" and "gods" that theists say they believe in, so I say lets deal with the gods that people actually believe exist when we talk about atheism. It really makes no kind of sense to create a definition of god that excludes the gods that the vast majority of the theists say they believe in and define atheism in regards to that.

The fact that there is as much objective evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Cthlulhu or Q from Star Trek as there is for God is sort of the point though.