What do people think "atheist" means?

[ArtieE]

Indeed, a human being that lacks belief in how the word "god" is defined.

A human being who lacks belief in the existence of any entity described with the word "god".

 

[Unification]

A lack of belief in the existence of deities.

Or a lack of belief that "God" exists as a deity(s) but has the potential to be not a deity(s).

 

[psychoslice]

Or a lack of belief that "God" exists as a deity(s) but has the potential to be not a deity(s).

ha, that's funny.

 

[Bunyip]

A human being who lacks belief in the existence of any entity described with the word "god".

My friend has a dog called 'god' - so he would be a theist? He believes in an entity described with the word God, but not a metaphysical God.

 

[Unification]

A human being who lacks belief in the existence of any entity described with the word "god".

I like that, much better. Then the word atheist and label atheist becomes completely irrelevant and meaningless with no meaning. Then one can define themselves as just an "A."

 

[ArtieE]

I like that, much better. Then the word atheist and label atheist becomes completely irrelevant and meaningless with no meaning. Then one can define themselves as just an "A."

LOL. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods. If you don't know what the word god means just look up Wikipedia or dictionaries. Something that fits the description of a god is a god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Or a lack of belief that "God" exists as a deity(s) but has the potential to be not a deity(s).

Im speaking of God as a deity. If he isnt, then an atheist can believe in God (given that god is not a deity)

Other than that, Im kinda confused. Its making the disbelief in deities quite complicated.

 

[leibowde84]

Saying it another way, you don't believe in aliens but you believe in the potential or chance for aliens to exist.

Simultaneously being not completely sure of what you believe or don't believe. Potential belief and lack of belief co-existing in mind.

Or, you don't believe in the common and notable definition(s) of the word alien but you believe there could be a potential alternative definition(s) of the word alien.

I'm not ready to believe in aliens or believe that aliens don't/can't exist, as there is insufficient evidence for both positions. When the evidence is available, I might make a decision, but there certainly isn't enough now, imho.

That being said, I still lack belief in aliens, as I don't hold a belief that aliens exist, and, thus, I am "without a belief in the existence of aliens".

 

[Willamena]

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.

Well, that's just because belief isn't a thing that can be lacking. We all believe or don't believe the sum of information available to each of us. Belief is that information, posed as true or false. We can refrain from posing the information and therefore exempt ourselves from belief, but we never "lack" for belief.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, that's just because belief isn't a thing that can be lacking. We all believe or don't believe the sum of information available to each of us. Belief is that information, posed as true or false. We can refrain from posing the information and therefore exempt ourselves from belief, but we never "lack" for belief.

I'm confused. The words "lack of", in this context, obviously don't mean "insufficient", they mean "to be without". Do you disagree with this? I mean, it wouldn't make any sense if "atheist" meant that someone believed in God but not enough.

lack
lak/
noun

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

 

[Willamena]

I'm confused. The words "lack of", in this context, obviously don't mean "insufficient", they mean "to be without". Do you disagree with this? I mean, it wouldn't make any sense if "atheist" meant that someone believed in God but not enough.

lack
lak/
noun

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

To me, the state of "being without or not having enough of" is one state, hence one word is sufficient to embody it, but that's another argument.

The point is that we cannot "be without" information that isn't in the sum of information available to us. That's tantamount to believing in fantasy or nonexistent things, like Russell's tea pot.

 

[leibowde84]

To me, the state of "being without or not having enough of" is one state, hence one word is sufficient to embody it, but that's another argument.

The point is that we cannot "be without" information that isn't in the sum of information available to us. That's tantamount to believing in fantasy or nonexistent things, like Russell's tea pot.

That's not true. Being without something in no way requires knowledge of it. It just means that you don't possess or hold it.

 

[leibowde84]

To me, the state of "being without or not having enough of" is one state, hence one word is sufficient to embody it, but that's another argument.

The point is that we cannot "be without" information that isn't in the sum of information available to us. That's tantamount to believing in fantasy or nonexistent things, like Russell's tea pot.

For example, someone who is completely blind from birth is without or lacks vision.

 

[leibowde84]

To me, the state of "being without or not having enough of" is one state, hence one word is sufficient to embody it, but that's another argument.

The point is that we cannot "be without" information that isn't in the sum of information available to us. That's tantamount to believing in fantasy or nonexistent things, like Russell's tea pot.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that a synonym for "lack" is "absence"?

 

[Willamena]

That's not true. Being without something in no way requires knowledge of it. It just means that you don't possess or hold it.

It requires familiarity with it, be that knowledge or not, because to declare the state of something's existence with no familiarity with it is just to make a fool of yourself.

I have very cleverly actually planted a tea pot in orbit around Mars for just this reason.

 

[Willamena]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that a synonym for "lack" is "absence"?

Absence is a relation. Relation requires two entities.

 

[leibowde84]

Absence is a relation. Relation requires two entities.

I agree but where does knowledge come from as a requirement?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes that is "agnosis" so why are you dragging "agnosis" into a discussion about atheism? Atheism is about what people believe not what they know don't change the subject.

I didn't drag it in. You did. I responded to what you said about "undecided". Here are your words,

"What if one person says "I don't believe they exist and I don't believe they don't exist either I'm undecided..." and another person says "I believe they don't exist" do you really think they say the same thing?"​

In your example the first person is not an atheist. They are agnostic. The second person is an atheist. So do you agree with this, since you just acknowledged that undecided means agnostic?

Soccermatch

1. I don't believe team A wins. (I don't believe gods exist)
2. I don't believe team B wins. (I don't believe gods don't exist)
3. I believe neither undecided.

Since when did saying you don't believe team A wins mean that you automatically believe team B wins?

Since when does "undecided" mean atheist?

 

[David M]

The word ATHEISM:

A = No

Theos = God

No God.

"I believe no God".

Incorrect.

A = Without
Theos = God (strictly speaking a theistic God).

An atheist is simply someone who lacks theistic beliefs.

Within the umbrella of atheism there is the subset who lack belief in a god and also believe that there are no Gods, this is what has been termed Strong Atheism. Before that term was coined that would fall under antitheism, but antitheism has multiple meanings that go further than simply saying "there are no God(s)"t to active opposition of religion

 

[Willamena]

I agree but where does knowledge come from as a requirement?

I believe Aristotle and then, almost directly, Wittgenstein. That's a huge leap, admittedly, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Aristotle's law of identity gives us existents: identity is the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. Wittgenstein's "the world is everything that is the case."

The world is all that is the case.
What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
A thought is a proposition with sense.
A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth function of itself.)
The general form of a truth-function is [p, ξ, N(ξ)].
This is the general form of a proposition.
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.