How do you define "Atheist"?

[joolz]

Within christianity that's perfectly logical. If you believe in god then why wouldn't you follow him?

I think you have that backwards. If tomorrow it was proven that the christian religion is true in every detail, I still wouldn't follow the dictates of their god - because I see no reason to do so.

I don't follow a person's rules unless I see reason not to, I follow rules if I see reason to do so.

I should have put a comma instead of a full stop. As you say, you don't need to follow any god even if you found one that exists. I was trying to say that it is logical for christians to follow their god because, as christians, they 'obey' their god and, therefore follow him.

You are, of course, correct that, even if the christian god is proved to be true, you don't have to become a christian.

 

[Brian-M]

You are technically correct,

Which is the best kind of correct.

but passive atheism is a completely useless concept. Newborn babies, amoebas, rocks, quarks... They're all "passively atheist". When (apart from these discussions) would you ever describe something as passively atheist? What could it possibly add to the description of that thing?

Newborn babies, amoebas, rocks, quarks... They're all apolitical. Does this make the word apolitical useless? No, but you'd never normally apply the word apolitical to babies, amoebas, rocks and quarks, except when being pedantic. It's only useful when applied to people capable of holding political opinions. The same applies to the phrase passive atheist. It's only useful when applied to people capable of holding beliefs about God(s).

The phrase passive atheist has a useful function, to indicate a person is an unbeliever but not a disbeliever. The word agnostic is often misused to indicate this concept.

But if you don't like the English language being mangled by the misuse of words, what word or phrase would you use in place of agnostic? I use passive atheist.

 

[Tricky]

Newborn babies, amoebas, rocks, quarks... They're all apolitical. Does this make the word apolitical useless? No, but you'd never normally apply the word apolitical to babies, amoebas, rocks and quarks, except when being pedantic. It's only useful when applied to people capable of holding political opinions. The same applies to the phrase passive atheist. It's only useful when applied to people capable of holding beliefs about God(s).

The phrase passive atheist has a useful function, to indicate a person is an unbeliever but not a disbeliever.

No, it's still useless. An apolitical person is still aware of what politics are. Callling a person who did not have a knowledge of the definition of politics would be wrong and pointless. Would you call a person who had no concept of deities an 'unbeliever'? That makes no sense. If you said to someone, "You are an unbeliever", they'd probably say, "An unbeliever in what?" Then you'd have to explain God. Then, if they still didn't believe, they'd be a 'disbeliever'. In practice, there is no difference between an unbeliever and a disbeliever.

The word agnostic is often misused to indicate this concept.

It is true that many people misuse the term agnostic, but I've never heard anyone call a newborn baby "agnostic", and for the same reason. Being an agnostic requires that you understand the position on knowledge, just as being an atheist requires that you understand the position on belief. To describe a non-sentient or barely sentient being or object as having either of these positions is nonsensical.

Can you imagine someone using a sentence like this?
"Well, he was a Christian up until the minute he died, but now he's a passive atheist."

 

[arthwollipot]

Although, the minute chance that there is some god is so unsatisfying that I feel I concede the argument when I say I am agnostic.

Saying you're agnostic concedes nothing. It's simply an acknowledgement that there is no evidence.

 

[arthwollipot]

Poppycock.
Absolute bloody nonsense.

Are you agnostic regarding His Noodliness?

Yes, I am. I see no evidence for His existence, and am therefore agnostic, and this leads me to conclude that He doesn't exist, for otherwise there would be some evidence for His existence. Hence, I am atheist.

No evidence of worth or merit has ever been put forth for god(s). That's why I'm an atheist. Same with any other ludicrous or paranormal claim.
Why do we have to walk on eggshells when it comes to non-belief/belief in sky daddies?

Agnosticism is nothing to do with eggshells. It is simply an acknowledgement that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. One can believe in a god despite the lack of evidence, but such a position is not rationally supportable. Agnosticism, in my opinion, leads directly to atheism.

 

[arthwollipot]

Pretty much: I'm very sure I'm right, but there is a hypothetical possibility I'm wrong.

I would strenuously avoid describing it in this way. Rather: I'm very sure I'm right, because there is no evidence to suggest I'm wrong. The first part is a statement of atheism, the second part a statement of agnosticism.

 

[Brian-M]

No, it's still useless.

Hardly useless. It doesn't only apply to those who have no concept of God, but also those who do.

An active atheist is someone who actively holds the opinion that no god(s) exist. A passive atheist is someone who holds no opinion as to whether or not any god(s) exist.

A person does not have to be ignorant of a concept to hold no opinion as to whether or not the concept is valid; someone who understands the concept of God can still be a passive atheist.

As such, the distinction between active and passive atheism does serve a function... to distinguish atheists who hold no opinion about god's (non-)existence from those who do.

An apolitical person is still aware of what politics are. Callling a person who did not have a knowledge of the definition of politics would be wrong and pointless.

Pointless, but not wrong. An ordinary building brick is apolitical, atheist and asexual. It might be silly and absurd to describe it by these labels, but not wrong.

Would you call a person who had no concept of deities an 'unbeliever'?

I'd call them as a non-believer. The word unbeliever adds subtext. Like undead instead of not-dead.

That makes no sense. If you said to someone, "You are an unbeliever", they'd probably say, "An unbeliever in what?" Then you'd have to explain God.

Why would you have to explain the concept of God? They can't believe in something for which they have no concept for, therefore they must be non-believers.

Being an agnostic requires that you understand the position on knowledge, just as being an atheist requires that you understand the position on belief.

The word atheist ultimately derives from the ancient Greek word ἄθεος (atheos), literally meaning "without god". The prefix "a-" simply means "without".

Does a newborn baby have a political viewpoint? If not, it's apolitical.
Does a newborn baby have a god? If not, it's atheos, or atheist.

To describe a non-sentient or barely sentient being or object as having either of these positions is nonsensical.

But describing a non-sentient or barely sentient being or object as lacking a position is perfectly valid, which is what essentially the word atheist means in this context.

Can you imagine someone using a sentence like this?
"Well, he was a Christian up until the minute he died, but now he's a passive atheist."

No. Aside from the redundancy of "passive", a person no longer exists after death^*. Ascribing a lack of belief to an extant object or entity is one thing, but ascribing a lack of belief to a non-existing object or entity is a completely meaningless assertion.

^*Unless you wish to argue that his soul or spirit lives on, in which case you have no reason to assert that they are now atheist without first communicating with this soul or spirit to determine their current state of belief.

 

[wollery]

I have not seen any evidence for any gods and in fact I have plenty of evidence for the non-existence of any of the gods postulated by the religions that are in circulation and until one is produced I will take the only intelligent course of action and conclude that there are none. But I am open to changing my opinion according to scientific principles once evidence is produced.

If you are willing to change your opinion then you are implicitly admitting that you aren't 100% certain. That makes you agnostic.

That's what agnostic means.

You can be an atheist (or a theist) at the same time as admitting that you don't have complete knowledge.