Define “Atheist”

[ynot]

Not having a belief in gods is what makes me an atheist. That I claim I know gods don’t exist describes what type of atheist I am. I was an atheist without a god belief long before I concluded that I know gods don’t exist.

Knowledge on which I base my “I know gods don’t exist” claim . . .

Knowledge that after thousands of years of intensive and desperate searching there hasn’t been a single piece of credible evidence found that establishes gods do actually exist.

Knowledge that there is no known method by which gods even could or might exist.

Knowledge of scientific discoveries that negate the need to use god beliefs to fill gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge that god beliefs are created by the minds of humans.

That’s a few “off the top of my head”, I’m sure I cloud come up with more.

 

[Steve]

No gods exist. On the very rare occasion that is is necessary I find it convenient label myself Atheist. All others may label me as you wish. Makes absolutely no difference.

 

[ynot]

No gods exist. On the very rare occasion that is is necessary I find it convenient label myself Atheist. All others may label me as you wish. Makes absolutely no difference.

Given I started this thread and made it all about "atheist", I'm sorta committed to continue using it in this thread at least.

 

[Egg]

But atheists can point to the overwhelming lack of evidence for any specific god.

As an argument against that god's existence in a debate against theists? Sure. Explaining why it might be overwhelming, why particular evidence would be expected, why one should posit non-existence from a lack of evidence, that their evidence is worthless etc. But that's not dodging the burden of proof.

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.

Well, obviously nobody is being compelled to debate anyone or prove anything. Really the burden of proof is on the one trying to assert that their position is correct or trying to persuade others. So I guess it would depend on what position you'd be taking when debating a Bigfooter. Is your argument just that what they present is unconvincing or are you arguing that they're wrong and there is no Bigfoot?

 

[This is The End]

A theist believes there is a creator without any proof.

An atheist believes there is not a creator without any proof.

Both are just as boneheaded.

An agnostic only believes in things (or not) based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs.



Anyone who tells you anything different than the above is either an atheist or a theist (even if they deny being either) and is letting tribal B.S. cloud their definitions.

 

[David Mo]

But atheists can point to the overwhelming lack of evidence for any specific god.

Of course, the "overwhelming lack of evidence", when any there should be, is in itself the opposite evidence. A few millennia trying to prove that at least one god exists without succeeding is highly significant.

 

[David Mo]

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

True curiosity knows no bounds.
Of course I am not curious to know if God exists -this is too clear for me-, but to analyze the ways in which people justify their belief. The ways in which believers justify their beliefs are very interesting.

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto, you know.

 

[David Mo]

Both are just as boneheaded.

(...)


Anyone who tells you anything different than the above is either an atheist or a theist (even if they deny being either) and is letting tribal B.S. cloud their definitions.

What's the next game? The game of provocations?

There is a clear proof that God does not exist: the only excuse he has for everything he has done is that he does not exist.

A conclusive test.

 

[BadBoy]

This thread is for the exclusive purpose of debating the meaning of the word “atheist”. It isn’t for debating other words like “agnostic”. Please don’t derail this thread.

Here’s my current definition of “atheist”. I’m happy to change it if anyone comes up with a better one.

An atheist is a person that is not a theist (doesn’t have a belief in a god or gods).

Why a person isn’t a theist isn’t what defines them as an atheist, it’s merely that they’re not a theist that does.

Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been pointed out.

This whole argument IMO about the meaning of atheism stems from constant shifting of the burden of proof. Theists claim Atheists believe gods don't exist as it puts the burden on the Atheist to prove it. However what they miss is even if an Atheist can't prove it, it doesn't mean by default that Gods do exist. that burden is still on the theist.

Whenever I have descended into this hole with a theist they claim I am just an Agnostic, which to them for some reason means they win the argument. No idea why.

For me and from what I can make out most atheists generally prefer to say the word means a lack of belief. To call a dude who lacks a belief in a God or Gods an Agnostic makes no sense if you understand what the term Agnostic means which is about knowledge - or what is known, and not a dudes position on if they have a belief in a deity.

Sam Harris thinks he word is bad news. Better to just say "I don't believe in God because I have not seen enough good evidence to convince me" (paraphrased)

 

[ynot]

Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been pointed out.

This whole argument IMO about the meaning of atheism stems from constant shifting of the burden of proof. Theists claim Atheists believe gods don't exist as it puts the burden on the Atheist to prove it. However what they miss is even if an Atheist can't prove it, it doesn't mean by default that Gods do exist. that burden is still on the theist.

Whenever I have descended into this hole with a theist they claim I am just an Agnostic, which to them for some reason means they win the argument. No idea why.

For me and from what I can make out most atheists generally prefer to say the word means a lack of belief. To call a dude who lacks a belief in a God or Gods an Agnostic makes no sense if you understand what the term Agnostic means which is about knowledge - or what is known, and not a dudes position on if they have a belief in a deity.

Sam Harris thinks he word is bad news. Better to just say "I don't believe in God because I have not seen enough good evidence to convince me" (paraphrased)

See THIS POST in the correct thread to "Define Agnostic".

 

[Egg]

Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been pointed out.

This whole argument IMO about the meaning of atheism stems from constant shifting of the burden of proof. Theists claim Atheists believe gods don't exist as it puts the burden on the Atheist to prove it. However what they miss is even if an Atheist can't prove it, it doesn't mean by default that Gods do exist. that burden is still on the theist.

Whenever I have descended into this hole with a theist they claim I am just an Agnostic, which to them for some reason means they win the argument. No idea why.

For me and from what I can make out most atheists generally prefer to say the word means a lack of belief. To call a dude who lacks a belief in a God or Gods an Agnostic makes no sense if you understand what the term Agnostic means which is about knowledge - or what is known, and not a dudes position on if they have a belief in a deity.

You must have missed the memo. "Theism" is now defined as "a lack of belief in the non-existence of deities".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

A theist believes there is a creator without any proof.

An atheist believes there is not a creator without any proof.

Both are just as boneheaded.

An agnostic only believes in things (or not) based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs.

Anyone who tells you anything different than the above is either an atheist or a theist (even if they deny being either) and is letting tribal B.S. cloud their definitions.

The method employed for making sense of the natural world, as well as arguments in the court room, all rely on sticking to demonstrable fact and good reasoning. What would you call someone who simply never comes across a fact or reason to subscribe to something? A lucky person.

Your definition of atheist requires there to be theists making claims in order to provoke any statement regarding their lack of support in the data. As those claims together comprise a theism, then anyone finding the claims unsupported is free to consider theism as lacking value. The term for that? An atheist. Not so much lucky anymore, as he/she is constantly bothered by crazy wild people holding swords and/or demanding full sway.

Tribalism has little bearing on the case, other than to reinforce the influence of cultural totems.

 

[JesseCuster]

An agnostic only believes in things (or not) based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs.

That is utter nonsense, whether interpreted as a definition of agnostic or as a description of agnostics.

That's not what the word 'agnostic' means and it's really silly to think that agnostics actually only believe things "based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs."

Nobody "only believes in things (or not) based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs".

 

[ynot]

That is utter nonsense, whether interpreted as a definition of agnostic or as a description of agnostics.

That's not what the word 'agnostic' means and it's really silly to think that agnostics actually only believe things "based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs."

Nobody "only believes in things (or not) based on scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs".

It’s important to distinguish between belief and knowledge. Agnostics don’t want to believe gods exist they want to know, same as all atheists. Knowledge (not belief) is gained from scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs.

ETA - Also important to remember we're talking specifically about god belief (paranormal belief).

 

[JesseCuster]

Agnostics don’t want to believe gods exist they want to know, same as all atheists.

Is that a fact? I'm an atheist and I don't "want to know" about God. I'm happy and confident in my viewpoint about God. There seems to be a lot of blanket declarations in this thread about the beliefs of agnostics and atheists that don't seem to actually correspond to what agnostics and atheists believe in real life.

Knowledge (not belief) is gained from scientific proofs, evidentiary proofs, and logical proofs.

So what?

ETA - Also important to remember we're talking specifically about god belief (paranormal belief).

Was there some confusion about this? The thread is titled 'define Atheist' so it goes without saying that it's about god belief. Am I missing something?

More to the point, what does any of what you just posted have to do with the post of mine you quoted? It doesn't seem like a response to what I actually said.

 

[David Mo]

Is that a fact? I'm an atheist and I don't "want to know" about God. I'm happy and confident in my viewpoint about God. There seems to be a lot of blanket declarations in this thread about the beliefs of agnostics and atheists that don't seem to actually correspond to what agnostics and atheists believe in real life.

So what?

It is one thing for you to be tired of the debate or displeased with the way it is going on and other different thing is to have reasons not to believe that God exists or to deny that he exists. I suppose that if you say you are sure of your view about God it is because you have some kind of compelling reason. Isn't that right?

 

[JesseCuster]

It is one thing for you to be tired of the debate or displeased with the way it is going on and other different thing is to have reasons not to believe that God exists or to deny that he exists.

Yes, those are indeed different things. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said or to do with anything a all.

I suppose that if you say you are sure of your view about God it is because you have some kind of compelling reason. Isn't that right?

Yes, I suppose that's right. I don't see the connection between this and my point that it's incorrect to say that "atheists want to know" about God. Saying the atheists "want to know" seems to imply that they're involved in a continuous search for the truth about this elusive God character. I dispute that idea, but I'm not getting the gist or point of this post of yours. It seems disconnected what I was saying.

 

[ynot]

Is that a fact? I'm an atheist and I don't "want to know" about God. I'm happy and confident in my viewpoint about God. There seems to be a lot of blanket declarations in this thread about the beliefs of agnostics and atheists that don't seem to actually correspond to what agnostics and atheists believe in real life.

If you gave as much time and effort to understanding the gist of conversation rather than the literal meaning of individual words you may have better understood what I was saying.

All atheists don’t have a belief in god(s). Atheists don’t reject gods that actually exist, they reject/don't accept adopting a belief that gods actually exist. If they didn't they would become theists. If gods actually exist atheists “want to know” (require knowledge from evidence) that gods actually exist. This doesn’t mean atheists are searching for such evidence and knowledge, it means it doesn’t exist, and all theism can offer therefore is “Just believe”. Atheists "want to know" because they don't "want to just believe". Is that any clearer?

 

[Thor 2]

Is that a fact? I'm an atheist and I don't "want to know" about God. I'm happy and confident in my viewpoint about God. There seems to be a lot of blanket declarations in this thread about the beliefs of agnostics and atheists that don't seem to actually correspond to what agnostics and atheists believe in real life.

If you gave as much time and effort to understanding the gist of conversation rather than the literal meaning of individual words you may have better understood what I was saying.

All atheists don’t have a belief in god(s). Atheists don’t reject gods that actually exist, they reject/don't accept adopting a belief that gods actually exist. If they didn't they would become theists. If gods actually exist atheists “want to know” (require knowledge from evidence) that gods actually exist. This doesn’t mean atheists are searching for such evidence and knowledge, it means it doesn’t exist, and all theism can offer therefore is “Just believe”. Atheists "want to know" because they don't "want to just believe". Is that any clearer?

Perhaps Jesse is one of those atheists some theists talk about? You know ... the ones that believe in God and hate him.

 

[ynot]

Perhaps Jesse is one of those atheists some theists talk about? You know ... the ones that believe in God and hate him.

I think more likely perhaps an atheists that might claim “I don’t want to know about gods” even if there was irrefutable evidence that gods actually do exist .

Or perhaps even more likely it was merely a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of my words that was blown out of meaning and proportion (I've done that myself more than once).