Define “Atheist”

[David Mo]

(...) I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said or to do with anything a all.

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. (...)

It seems that I'm not the only one who doesn't understand your deep thoughts. I subscribe to what Ynot says: "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".

You should pay less attention to individual phrases of what is told and more to the general sense. No one says atheists are worried to know about God. I told you about it in my previous post.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Breaking News: Mean-spirited faithists have started worshipping a new deity, Athe.

In Other News: Athe-ists are panicking and dropping iPhones the world over, as Google and Apple's Siri now spam them with everything intended for the deeply faithful.

 

[MRC_Hans]

After reading the thread, and other similar threads, and giving it some thought, I have decided to give it a go.

- An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

- So define god. Well, it will appear that god defies definition, which makes good sense, because if god could be defined, it would be science (even if it turned out to not exist).

- Obviously this means that you cannot define the god that atheists do not believe in.

- Instead, I offer this definition: An atheist assumes that the world is ultimately definable. Thus, an atheist rejects anything that is intrinsically undefinable as part of reality.

.... Yep ...!

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

- Instead, I offer this definition: An atheist assumes that the world is ultimately definable. Thus, an atheist rejects anything that is intrinsically undefinable as part of reality.

.... Yep ...!

Hans

Undefinable like love, beauty, grace, etc? Ok, but if I were an "atheist" I'd be bummed out.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Undefinable like love, beauty, grace, etc? Ok, but if I were an "atheist" I'd be bummed out.

Really, you are smarter than that. You can assign some attributes to the god, but you cannot define the god. And even those attributes are not really defined:

Love? So did your god love Jeremiah? Strange way to show it.
Is your god beautiful? Undefined.
Grace? Tell that to the wretched people of the world.

But ... in another thread. Let's stay on topic.

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

Really, you are smarter than that. You can assign some attributes to the god, but you cannot define the god. And even those attributes are not really defined:

Love? So did your god love Jeremiah? Strange way to show it.
Is your god beautiful? Undefined.
Grace? Tell that to the wretched people of the world.

But ... in another thread. Let's stay on topic.

Hans

I was referring to other things that are part of our reality and are undefinable as a method of explaining the flaws in your definition of "atheist." I was not attributing those to a a God.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was referring to other things that are part of our reality and are undefinable as a method of explaining the flaws in your definition of "atheist." I was not attributing those to a a God.

Ah, pardon me, then. I think they can be defined. Not without reference to feelings, but feelings are also part of reality.

Hans

 

[ynot]

After reading the thread, and other similar threads, and giving it some thought, I have decided to give it a go.

- An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

- So define god. Well, it will appear that god defies definition, which makes good sense, because if god could be defined, it would be science (even if it turned out to not exist).

- Obviously this means that you cannot define the god that atheists do not believe in.

- Instead, I offer this definition: An atheist assumes that the world is ultimately definable. Thus, an atheist rejects anything that is intrinsically undefinable as part of reality.

.... Yep ...!

Hans

Sorry but .... Nope ...! (IMO)

- Atheist definition correct! (although it should be “in any god or gods”)

- Defining gods they don’t believe in has nothing to do with atheism or atheists.

- Some atheists believe in things (other than gods) that are intrinsically undefinable as part of reality.

Atheism/atheist doesn't need to be defined beyond your first definition. To do so is to define types of atheist. The only thing common to all atheists is that they lack belief in a god or gods.

 

[ynot]

I must confess to being somewhat agnostic as to the correctness of your definition of "atheist".

If you care to explain why your definition is The Truth® and why anyone with other ideas must be merely "theists/philosowankers", I believe someone started a thread for that.

Spot the mistake . . .
Atypical = Not typical
Asymmetrical = Not symmetrical
Apolitical = Not political
Atheist = Believes there is no God(s)
Amoral = Not moral
Asexual = Not sexual

 

[Egg]

Spot the mistake . . .
Atypical = Not typical
Asymmetrical = Not symmetrical
Apolitical = Not political
Atheist = Believes there is no God(s)
Amoral = Not moral
Asexual = Not sexual

Well, I could argue that the mistake is not including any other "a-" words with an "-ist" suffix. I agree the "a-" is "not", but is it prefixing god(s) or god belief?

 

[ynot]

Well, I could argue that the mistake is not including any other "a-" words with an "-ist" suffix. I agree the "a-" is "not", but is it prefixing god(s) or god belief?

When "a" is specifically prefixing "theist", and "theist" specifically means "a person that believes in god(s)", why would "atheist" not mean "not theist" ("not a person that believes in god(s)")? Are you claiming another definition of "theist" as well? If so I'd like to see it.

 

[Egg]

When "a" is specifically prefixing "theist", and "theist" specifically means "belief in god(s)", why wouldn't "atheist" not mean "not theist"? Are you claiming another definition of "theist" as well? If so I'd like to see it.

We have a prefix and a suffix. How is the "a" specifically prefixing "theist" and not the "ist" specifically suffixing "athe"? Seems to me that either could be legitimate.

 

[ynot]

We have a prefix and a suffix. How is the "a" specifically prefixing "theist" and not the "ist" specifically suffixing "athe"? Seems to me that either could be legitimate.

So what? How does the "ist" suffixing the "athe" ("not")" make "atheist" mean "Is a person that believes there is no god(s)", rather than "Not a person that believes there is god(s)"?

Do you have any problem with the definition of "theist" because "ist" suffixes "the"?

 

[ynot]

Oooops again

 

[ynot]

Well, I could argue that the mistake is not including any other "a-" words with an "-ist" suffix. I agree the "a-" is "not", but is it prefixing god(s) or god belief?

Perhaps the word "atheal" might be more appropriate?

Or perhaps as you suggest . . .

Spot the mistake . . .
Atypicalist = Not a typicalist
Asymmetricalist = Not a symmetricalist
Apoliticalist = Not a politicalist
Atheist = Believes there is no God(s)
Amoralist = Not a moralist
Asexualist = Not a sexualist

Better?

 

[Egg]

So what? How does the "ist" suffixing the "athe ("not")" make "atheist" mean "Is a person that believes there is no god(s)", rather than "Not a person that believes there is god(s)"?

Because it becomes somebody who believes in "not god" instead of someone who is not a god believer.

Do you have any problem with the definition of "theist" because "ist" suffixes "the"?

The "the" bit is the base word, not a prefix.

I don't have a problem with the definition of "atheist" either - it clearly has more than one definition though. If I have any "problem" it might be with someone insisting their definition is the correct one, when many others use the same word to mean something different (words are defined by common usage). I'm fine with either definition, as long as all parties in a discussion are sharing the same definition and nobody skips between definitions when it suits.

 

[Egg]

Perhaps the word "atheal" might be more appropriate?

Or perhaps as you suggest . . .

Spot the mistake . . .
Atypicalist = Not a typicalist
Asymmetricalist = Not a symmetricalist
Apoliticalist = Not a politicalist
Atheist = Believes there is no God(s)
Amoralist = Not a moralist
Asexualist = Not a sexualist

Better?

I don't think this works - is an atypicalist merely not a typicalist or is it someone who is atypical. My spell-checker doesn't like those words, by the way

ETA: Actually, looking again, I think this probably reinforces my point. The prefix generally modifies the base word before the suffix (in meaning, not just position). I'm looking at this list of a-X-ist words and now think that if we are to base the definition of "atheist" on how the word is put together, it probably would be someone who holds the position that there is no god(s). But, as I said, words are defined by common usage - so, the definition you prefer would be included in the dictionary by that standard.

 

[ynot]

Because it becomes somebody who believes in "not god" instead of someone who is not a god believer.

The "the" bit is the base word, not a prefix.

I don't have a problem with the definition of "atheist" either - it clearly has more than one definition though. If I have any "problem" it might be with someone insisting their definition is the correct one, when many others use the same word to mean something different (words are defined by common usage). I'm fine with either definition, as long as all parties in a discussion are sharing the same definition and nobody skips between definitions when it suits.

I'm saying "my" definition is the most "appropriate", not "correct". In my experience of common usage, most atheists say "my" definition is the most "appropriate". Those that prefer that "atheist" should be defined as a belief are usually those that have an ulterior motive for wanting it to be a belief. That ulterior motive is usually something like they can counter "You merely believe god(s) exist" with "Well you merely believe they don't". Many god believers really seem to have a big problem accepting anyone can have no beliefs regarding gods. More specifically, no belief that god(s) either do or don't exist. It's an "Either you're with us, or you're against us" thing.

Trouble with modern dictionary definitions is some (especially religious) seem to reflect more group belief biases than common usage by whole societies. Perhaps it's always been that way.

 

[ynot]

I don't think this works - is an atypicalist merely not a typicalist or is it someone who is atypical. My spell-checker doesn't like those words, by the way

ETA: Actually, looking again, I think this probably reinforces my point. The prefix generally modifies the base word before the suffix (in meaning, not just position). I'm looking at this list of a-X-ist words and now think that if we are to base the definition of "atheist" on how the word is put together, it probably would be someone who holds the position that there is no god(s). But, as I said, words are defined by common usage - so, the definition you prefer would be included in the dictionary by that standard.

If we apply your reasoning to "amoralist" (in dictionary) then that would definite it as "Believes morals don't exist", which isn't what being an "amoralist" means (not in any dictionaries I've read or common usage I've heard anyway).

 

[David Mo]

- So define god. Well, it will appear that god defies definition, which makes good sense, because if god could be defined, it would be science (even if it turned out to not exist).

Undefinable like love, beauty, grace, etc?

You can assign some attributes to the god, but you cannot define the god.

All that can be defined. Starting with "god". Take a dictionary and you'll see the most common use(s) of these words. That's the definition of a word that allow us to speak a common language.
Or is it not? What else is a definition?