What do people think "atheist" means?

[leibowde84]

Yes. As is the same with theism.

You can only draw a line from atheism to "without a God belief".
In turn, a line can only be drawn from theism to "has a God belief".

That is all that can ever be assumed about either position.
Anything more is a false addition, and is not at all supported.

I wholeheartedly agree. They are both very general terms.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, that is true. I would say only something that is considered a strongly held belief would elicit such rancor and dispute. Hardly a matter of "I really don't think about it". So then to answer the question of what it means when someone says to you "I am an atheist", they are speaking of their beliefs, affirming a belief, not merely the absence of them.

I disagree. I often have this debate with my fellow theists, as I find it disturbing that people try to equate the lack of belief in God with a belief.

 

[ArtieE]

Actually, that is true. I would say only something that is considered a strongly held belief would elicit such rancor and dispute. Hardly a matter of "I really don't think about it". So then to answer the question of what it means when someone says to you "I am an atheist", they are speaking of their beliefs, affirming a belief, not merely the absence of them.

And yet, the only thing you can deduce from "I am an atheist" is that the person is not a theist. If you deduce from that that he believes gods don't exist and he goes on to say "but not a strong atheist" then what?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When a person tells me that he or she is an atheist, I think that tells me that this person is not a theist, that this person doesn't believe in the existence of gods.

When a person tells you he/she is an atheist, what do you think that tells you? No philosophical treatises please, just a few short sentences.

A lack of belief in the existence of deities.

 

[Quintessence]

Actually, that is true. I would say only something that is considered a strongly held belief would elicit such rancor and dispute. Hardly a matter of "I really don't think about it". So then to answer the question of what it means when someone says to you "I am an atheist", they are speaking of their beliefs, affirming a belief, not merely the absence of them.

Perhaps a belief, perhaps identity instead (or in addition to). Held identities also elicit considerable rancor and dispute when questioned.

If nothing else can be said, there are certainly folks on this forum who have some very strong beliefs about what the terms "atheist" and "theist" mean.

 

[dust1n]

Actually, that is true. I would say only something that is considered a strongly held belief would elicit such rancor and dispute. Hardly a matter of "I really don't think about it". So then to answer the question of what it means when someone says to you "I am an atheist", they are speaking of their beliefs, affirming a belief, not merely the absence of them.

I, for the purposes of someone getting to a point, can conceptualize the matter either way. The important part being how long it's going to take to get to the point already.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, that is true. I would say only something that is considered a strongly held belief would elicit such rancor and dispute. Hardly a matter of "I really don't think about it". So then to answer the question of what it means when someone says to you "I am an atheist", they are speaking of their beliefs, affirming a belief, not merely the absence of them.

The below from "American Atheists" explains the frustration that often causes debates such as this. This is why, as a theist, I find it necessary to argue this point, as it is fraudulent and seemingly in the interest of discrimination. What are your thoughts on this short article?

WHAT IS ATHEISM? (http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?)
No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

 

[Willamena]

When a person tells me that he or she is an atheist, I think that tells me that this person is not a theist, that this person doesn't believe in the existence of gods.

When a person tells you he/she is an atheist, what do you think that tells you? No philosophical treatises please, just a few short sentences.

When a person tells me that he or she is an atheist, I think that tells me that that person doesn't believe in any gods, because that's what atheism means.

I don't automatically assume it has anything to do with theists (people who believe in gods), because it's not about them. It's about atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

When a person tells me that he or she is an atheist, I think that tells me that that person doesn't believe in any gods, because that's what atheism means.

I don't automatically assume it has anything to do with theists (people who believe in gods), because it's not about them. It's about atheism.

I agree with your first statement, but am having a bit of trouble with the second. Can you expand on it a bit?

 

[Wilson Wilson]

When a person tells me that he or she is an atheist, I think that tells me that this person is not a theist, that this person doesn't believe in the existence of gods.

When a person tells you he/she is an atheist, what do you think that tells you? No philosophical treatises please, just a few short sentences.

That tells me a god is inconsequential to this person. I have heard many atheist views that differ from eachother. It all just comes back to my first statement in the end.

This thread is a hoot!

 

[Windwalker]

The below from "American Atheists" explains the frustration that often causes debates such as this. This is why, as a theist, I find it necessary to argue this point, as it is fraudulent and seemingly in the interest of discrimination. What are your thoughts on this short article?

I can try to point out of few things in it. But I just want to add here my agreement with Quintessence about atheism as an identity. Yes, that is true and not to be overlooked. When someone becomes defensive about the term, that indicates a sense of self-identification with a group. It's more than just a personal belief, but self-identity. That also explains a lot of the rancor and dispute, not just from how others outside the group define them, but how those within fight amongst themselves over what it means. And that does happen quite a lot.

WHAT IS ATHEISM? (http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?)

<snip>

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Atheism is definitely a belief, but anyone to call it a "system" has no basis for that. What is the system? It is correct however to say atheism is a belief. If you identify yourself as such, you are making a positive affirmation regarding your views on the question of God. "I believe God does not exist". This "mere absence of belief", rings rather hollow, as no one positively identifies themselves by a name in regards to everything else in the world their merely lack knowledge or belief in. No one calls themselves an "aunicornist", for goodness sake! There is clearly an identification of a type of belief here.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

I don't accept this for the reasons stated above. It's trying to soft-sell something. It is logically inconsistent. "I don't believe" is a statement of belief. What's wrong with that? Nothing. They seem to just be touchy about the word "belief". Man up, man!

Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

I think anyone who cites dictionaries as sources of authority on defining words, clearly doesn't understand language or dictionaries!

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Yes, and there is a lot of rancor and dispute amongst themselves as a group what that means. What the person who wrote this is failing to see is that inherent in his statement is this: Group Identification. "Atheist [as a group] will identify themselves [as a group]". If you do this as he says, you have now created, here it comes...... a common belief. Groups share common beliefs, common points of view, common values, and so forth. I really don't see a way to wiggle out of that. And you know, "they" don't need to. It's alright if they do.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

Technically true, but certainly in practice for many it is treated as such, defended as such, and promoted as such. It really is a matter of the mindset of the individual and how they see and approach this as their group identification, and as holding certain points of view that reflect the "atheist" position (recall above he said that atheists get to define themselves?). There are clearly certain individuals who are deconvert from the religion of their upbringings, and simply transfer the same religious mentality into atheism. They clearly exist, despite those who deny they are there, and become the "evangelical atheists". Not all atheists of course, but this is definitely there. It's an individual thing, and therefore it can be treated as a religion by some, or as a set of beliefs and values represented by "atheism", thereby becoming a "system" for them with the flags of "Freethinker" flying on their new steeples. Again, some, not all.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion.

I would never call Buddhism an atheistic religion. Non-theistic is probably a better term, as it makes no statements of belief about God. It simply ignores it. But then, not all of Buddhism does! Mahayana Buddhism certainly has tons of deities. Of course how they are treated is not in the classic theistic or polytheistic ways. I never hear Buddhist at their temples say, "I'm an atheist".

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.

Which is a belief they don't exist. They have a point of focus on a "thing". It is a positive focus, not "merely" a lack of belief.

Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope.

Except for what he just shared was their common belief. I think he is creating a bit of a red herring to define it as "belief system". It is however a belief, and it is a common belief that is shared by them which results in group-identification. This is very clear.

This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

Same can be said of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

Ok, so I guess I did go a bit more in depth than I intended. Let the rancor begin!

 

[Willamena]

I agree with your first statement, but am having a bit of trouble with the second. Can you expand on it a bit?

Theism and atheism, as ideological concepts, exist whether or not there are theists. If a plague suddenly and incidentally wiped all theists from the planet, there would still be atheism so there would still be atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

I can try to point out of few things in it. But I just want to add here my agreement with Quintessence about atheism as an identity. Yes, that is true and not to be overlooked. When someone becomes defensive about the term, that indicates a sense of self-identification with a group. It's more than just a personal belief, but self-identity. That also explains a lot of the rancor and dispute, not just from how others outside the group define them, but how those within fight amongst themselves over what it means. And that does happen quite a lot.


I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Atheism is definitely a belief, but anyone to call it a "system" has no basis for that. What is the system? It is correct however to say atheism is a belief. If you identify yourself as such, you are making a positive affirmation regarding your views on the question of God. "I believe God does not exist". This "mere absence of belief", rings rather hollow, as no one positively identifies themselves by a name in regards to everything else in the world their merely lack knowledge or belief in. No one calls themselves an "aunicornist", for goodness sake! There is clearly an identification of a type of belief here.


I don't accept this for the reasons stated above. It's trying to soft-sell something. It is logically inconsistent. "I don't believe" is a statement of belief. What's wrong with that? Nothing. They seem to just be touchy about the word "belief". Man up, man!


I think anyone who cites dictionaries as sources of authority on defining words, clearly doesn't understand language or dictionaries!


Yes, and there is a lot of rancor and dispute amongst themselves as a group what that means. What the person who wrote this is failing to see is that inherent in his statement is this: Group Identification. "Atheist [as a group] will identify themselves [as a group]". If you do this as he says, you have now created, here it comes...... a common belief. Groups share common beliefs, common points of view, common values, and so forth. I really don't see a way to wiggle out of that. And you know, "they" don't need to. It's alright if they do.


Technically true, but certainly in practice for many it is treated as such, defended as such, and promoted as such. It really is a matter of the mindset of the individual and how they see and approach this as their group identification, and as holding certain points of view that reflect the "atheist" position (recall above he said that atheists get to define themselves?). There are clearly certain individuals who are deconvert from the religion of their upbringings, and simply transfer the same religious mentality into atheism. They clearly exist, despite those who deny they are there, and become the "evangelical atheists". Not all atheists of course, but this is definitely there. It's an individual thing, and therefore it can be treated as a religion by some, or as a set of beliefs and values represented by "atheism", thereby becoming a "system" for them with the flags of "Freethinker" flying on their new steeples. Again, some, not all.


I would never call Buddhism an atheistic religion. Non-theistic is probably a better term, as it makes no statements of belief about God. It simply ignores it. But then, not all of Buddhism does! Mahayana Buddhism certainly has tons of deities. Of course how they are treated is not in the classic theistic or polytheistic ways. I never hear Buddhist at their temples say, "I'm an atheist".


Which is a belief they don't exist. They have a point of focus on a "thing". It is a positive focus, not "merely" a lack of belief.


Except for what he just shared was their common belief. I think he is creating a bit of a red herring to define it as "belief system". It is however a belief, and it is a common belief that is shared by them which results in group-identification. This is very clear.


Same can be said of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

Ok, so I guess I did go a bit more in depth than I intended. Let the rancor begin!

I must point out your ignorance of the most outspoken atheists and their claims regarding this issue. They often get upset when they are accused of "believing that God does not exist", as that is not the case. They "do not believe that God exists" due to a lack of evidence. They go where the evidence takes them. Because of this, it would be absurd for them to hold a belief that God does not exist because 1) it is not possible to prove a negative in this context, and 2) they are scientists who don't believe in anything. They look at probabilities and what is most likely. They don't believe that God does not exist, they merely find the evidence for God's existence extremely lacking (and, sometimes, non-existent).

To equate "not believing in the existence of God" with "the belief that God does not exist" is fraudulent and, reasonably, frustrating for them. It is simple logic that this is not the case. It is the myth that one has to take one side or the other, which is absurd.

 

[leibowde84]

I can try to point out of few things in it. But I just want to add here my agreement with Quintessence about atheism as an identity. Yes, that is true and not to be overlooked. When someone becomes defensive about the term, that indicates a sense of self-identification with a group. It's more than just a personal belief, but self-identity. That also explains a lot of the rancor and dispute, not just from how others outside the group define them, but how those within fight amongst themselves over what it means. And that does happen quite a lot.


I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Atheism is definitely a belief, but anyone to call it a "system" has no basis for that. What is the system? It is correct however to say atheism is a belief. If you identify yourself as such, you are making a positive affirmation regarding your views on the question of God. "I believe God does not exist". This "mere absence of belief", rings rather hollow, as no one positively identifies themselves by a name in regards to everything else in the world their merely lack knowledge or belief in. No one calls themselves an "aunicornist", for goodness sake! There is clearly an identification of a type of belief here.


I don't accept this for the reasons stated above. It's trying to soft-sell something. It is logically inconsistent. "I don't believe" is a statement of belief. What's wrong with that? Nothing. They seem to just be touchy about the word "belief". Man up, man!


I think anyone who cites dictionaries as sources of authority on defining words, clearly doesn't understand language or dictionaries!


Yes, and there is a lot of rancor and dispute amongst themselves as a group what that means. What the person who wrote this is failing to see is that inherent in his statement is this: Group Identification. "Atheist [as a group] will identify themselves [as a group]". If you do this as he says, you have now created, here it comes...... a common belief. Groups share common beliefs, common points of view, common values, and so forth. I really don't see a way to wiggle out of that. And you know, "they" don't need to. It's alright if they do.


Technically true, but certainly in practice for many it is treated as such, defended as such, and promoted as such. It really is a matter of the mindset of the individual and how they see and approach this as their group identification, and as holding certain points of view that reflect the "atheist" position (recall above he said that atheists get to define themselves?). There are clearly certain individuals who are deconvert from the religion of their upbringings, and simply transfer the same religious mentality into atheism. They clearly exist, despite those who deny they are there, and become the "evangelical atheists". Not all atheists of course, but this is definitely there. It's an individual thing, and therefore it can be treated as a religion by some, or as a set of beliefs and values represented by "atheism", thereby becoming a "system" for them with the flags of "Freethinker" flying on their new steeples. Again, some, not all.


I would never call Buddhism an atheistic religion. Non-theistic is probably a better term, as it makes no statements of belief about God. It simply ignores it. But then, not all of Buddhism does! Mahayana Buddhism certainly has tons of deities. Of course how they are treated is not in the classic theistic or polytheistic ways. I never hear Buddhist at their temples say, "I'm an atheist".


Which is a belief they don't exist. They have a point of focus on a "thing". It is a positive focus, not "merely" a lack of belief.


Except for what he just shared was their common belief. I think he is creating a bit of a red herring to define it as "belief system". It is however a belief, and it is a common belief that is shared by them which results in group-identification. This is very clear.


Same can be said of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

Ok, so I guess I did go a bit more in depth than I intended. Let the rancor begin!

"I don't believe" is not an expression of a belief, as, obviously enough, "I don't believe" is CERTAINLY not equivalent to "I believe that _____ doesn't exist". This is the issue that many atheists have in this area. For some reason, you think they are equal, when they are obviously and logically not.

 

[Willamena]

This is all that can be reasonably assumed by the term "atheist" or "without theism".

"Without theism" is a better wording that "not a theist."

Theists and atheists are incidental--when we discuss them, theism and atheism are the real subject.

 

[Windwalker]

I must point out your ignorance of the most outspoken atheists and their claims regarding this issue.

I'm not ignorant at all what they say. I'm basing my response on my awareness of what they say.

They often get upset when they are accused of "believing that God does not exist", as that is not the case. They "do not believe that God exists" due to a lack of evidence.

Yes, this is what they claim. I think that's a gross over-simplification, and somewhat self-congratulatory, about something which is vastly more complex than just "evidence". Yes, I know that's what they believe about themselves. I used to say the same thing. As I said, it's way more complex than just "evidence" when it comes to points of view regarding questions that deal with Absolutes.

They go where the evidence takes them.

Yeah, no. It's what is claimed. But like anything, how we see an interpret even "the evidence" is subjective. You can't bypass the myriad contributing factors of our humanness that goes into how we perceive and believe everything. It's an illusion that we think we are purely rational beings. It's also a myth.

Because of this, it would be absurd for them to hold a belief that God does not exist because 1) it is not possible to prove a negative in this context, and 2) they are scientists who don't believe in anything.

You think all atheists are scientists, and that all scientists are atheist? I'm confused. Neither of course are true.

They look at probabilities and what is most likely. They don't believe that God does not exist, they merely find the evidence for God's existence extremely lacking (and, sometimes, non-existent).

That's not what all atheists say of themselves, you know. The so-called "strong atheist" very clearly states they do not believe God exists. The 'weak atheist' is more what you are describing, but again I argue this, whether it's "where the evidence takes them", or not, they still say to themselves they don't believe in the existence of God. They have a belief about the question, even if it is left open as 'remotely possible'. That's all I'm saying. I don't see how that is unavoidable.

The only ones I would say get's out of this is the "agnostic", or the "undecided". They believe it's possible, and that the evidence does not lead to a position either for or against the existence of God. That to me is where the "lack of belief" comes in. It doesn't come in for the either weak or strong atheist. Whether its definitive or provisional, it's still a assumed point of view, a position on a question, which is what a belief is.

To equate "not believing in the existence of God" with "the belief that God does not exist" is fraudulent and, reasonably, frustrating for them.

It's not fraudulent at all when you look at it in this light. Frustrating for them? For some, sure. As I said, it's my view that all the wrangling of terms to get away from calling it a "belief" is because the word has ugly connotations for many of them. It's sounds religious, and that just won't do. I'm saying its simpler to just say it's a belief and be done with it. So what if it is? It doesn't means its a religion.

It is simple logic that this is not the case. It is the myth that one has to take one side or the other, which is absurd.

That's true you don't have to take one side or the other, but when you self-identify as atheist, you have taken a position.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not ignorant at all what they say. I'm basing my response on my awareness of what they say.


Yes, this is what they claim. I think that's a gross over-simplification, and somewhat self-congratulatory, about something which is vastly more complex than just "evidence". Yes, I know that's what they believe about themselves. I used to say the same thing. As I said, it's way more complex than just "evidence" when it comes to points of view regarding questions that deal with Absolutes.


Yeah, no. It's what is claimed. But like anything, how we see an interpret even "the evidence" is subjective. You can't bypass the myriad contributing factors of our humanness that goes into how we perceive and believe everything. It's an illusion that we think we are purely rational beings. It's also a myth.


You think all atheists are scientists, and that all scientists are atheist? I'm confused. Neither of course are true.


That's not what all atheists say of themselves, you know. The so-called "strong atheist" very clearly states they do not believe God exists. The 'weak atheist' is more what you are describing, but again I argue this, whether it's "where the evidence takes them", or not, they still say to themselves they don't believe in the existence of God. They have a belief about the question, even if it is left open as 'remotely possible'. That's all I'm saying. I don't see how that is unavoidable.

The only ones I would say get's out of this is the "agnostic", or the "undecided". They believe it's possible, and that the evidence does not lead to a position either for or against the existence of God. That to me is where the "lack of belief" comes in. It doesn't come in for the either weak or strong atheist. Whether its definitive or provisional, it's still a assumed point of view, a position on a question, which is what a belief is.


It's not fraudulent at all when you look at it in this light. Frustrating for them? For some, sure. As I said, it's my view that all the wrangling of terms to get away from calling it a "belief" is because the word has ugly connotations for many of them. It's sounds religious, and that just won't do. I'm saying its simpler to just say it's a belief and be done with it. So what if it is? It doesn't means its a religion.


That's true you don't have to take one side or the other, but when you self-identify as atheist, you have taken a position.

"Agnosticism" deals with knowledge of God, not belief. And, when used (somewhat erroneously) as an in between for atheism and theism, "agnostics" are in the "weak atheism" camp, as they still are "without a belief in the existence of God".

And, the valuing of certain evidence is not at issue here. We are talking about what the term "atheism" actually means. Whether you agree with someone's decision on granting evidence validity is irrelevant.

 

[ArtieE]

That's true you don't have to take one side or the other, but when you self-identify as atheist, you have taken a position.

If you self-identify as a (weak) atheist you haven't taken neither the position that gods exist nor the position that gods don't exist. That is what (weak) atheist means... If you self-identify as a "strong atheist" you have taken a position.

 

[Windwalker]

If you self-identify as a (weak) atheist you haven't taken neither the position that gods exist nor the position that gods don't exist. That is what (weak) atheist means... If you self-identify as a "strong atheist" you have taken a position.

Then why not call yourself a weak theist?

 

[leibowde84]

Then why not call yourself a weak theist?

Theism REQUIRES a belief in God or gods. Thus, unless you believe in God or gods, you aren't any kind of theist.

On the other hand, atheism merely requires an absence of theism, or the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Thus, the person mentioned could accurately be classified as a "weak atheist" who does not actively believe that God cannot exist, but cannot be accurately classified as a "weak theist", as they do not believe in the existence of God or gods.