What do people think "atheist" means?

[viole]

Viole, when we say atheist that is shorthand for weak atheist. The word weak is automatically implied when we aren't specifically saying "strong atheist". A weak atheist has an absence of belief in gods and an absence of belief that gods don't exist. Atheist because of the absence of belief that gods exist, weak because of the absence of belief that gods don't exist. A strong atheist has also an absence of belief in gods but a presence of belief that gods don't exist. Atheist for the absence of belief that gods exist, strong for the presence of belief that gods don't exist. Colloquially we say atheist when we mean weak atheist because we assume all who knows anything about atheism knows this. It didn't occur to me that people would have to have this explained.

Well,if with "atheist" you mean "weak atheist" then we agree, obviously.

The danger is that it might mislead who has no clue about atheism to believe that all atheists are weak atheists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So if I said to you "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist" and let you know that I've never talked to him personally, never heard him say that he's an atheist in an interview, and never heard any account of any private conversation he's had, you would have absolutely no idea what I could possibly mean?

Then I would assume that you would call him an atheist based on your definition of atheism and your understanding of what his positions are. Neither of us would have any idea what his internal thoughts are, so it would be presumptuous to call him an atheist, particularly if he doesn't want to call himself one. I assume anyone who doesn't want the label has reasons for it. Essentially, such a claim on your part tells me more about you than it does about him.

Fine: "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." Do you cconsider this statement meaningless (or an admission that I've been spying on his private conversations or something)?

I consider it presumptuous and meaningless in terms of adding any useful information about Tyson. Even if I think I understand his positions enough to say that they correlate with my definition of atheism, it adds no useful information about the man, nor does it address his definition of atheism, and why he wouldn't label himself one. The best I can do is say "I think" or "I'd call him an atheist." However, that just addresses what you think about the person, and doesn't actually make them an atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Well,if with "atheist" you mean "weak atheist" then we agree, obviously.

The danger is that it might mislead who has no clue about atheism to believe that all atheists are weak atheists.

Sure. Sometimes it's hard to anticipate how little some people know about the subject.

 

[leibowde84]

It is problematic because he said atheism (unqualified) entails lack of belief that God exists AND lack of of belief that He does not. Since strong atheism believes the latter and is a subset of atheism, it is obvious that the general definition of atheism is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Right you are. I agree. Sorry about that.

 

[Windwalker]

Always. An atheist is a person who hasn't decided whether to believe gods exist or believe gods don't exist. In atheist school this is what you learn in first grade Windwalker.

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods and doesn't believe that gods don't exist either. An atheist is just any person who is not a theist. A strong atheist in addition to not believing gods exist also believes that gods don't exist.

"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

I suggest you read some beginners information about atheism and agnosticism before posting anything else.

Thank you for your childish insults. However, they only serve to make yourself look like a complete fool.

So to begin with lets cite something a little more authorititave that an article posted on "about.com", okay? Instead of your source, I went to Stanford University's Philosophy department online pages. I assume you are familiar with Stanford University? Wouldn't you agree they would be a better source of authority than "About.com"? Let's see what it says:

Atheism: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
​

"The denial of the existence of God." Hmmm.... "Undecided" is not the same thing as the "denial" of God. No. That's a different very common term you seem to have missed somewhere along the line in your classes on atheism you took online, or wherever it was you got your education from.

Let's see what it says for Agnosticism:

Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe.... Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it.
...

As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable.​

What we see here is the agnostic is the one who claims they can't know, and therefore are undecided, neither affirming nor denying, whereas the atheist on the other hand, denies. Now maybe this source isn't enough for you? Maybe your prefer about.com as a source of authority?

Now, as far as my familiarity with atheism which you stupidly presume I have none, I'd say it's pretty darned extensive considering I self-identified as one for quite a number of years, arguing right-alongside the like of Dawkins and Harris and whatnot, teaching in various groups the sorts of arguments against creationism, teaching the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the various theisms, and whatnot,until I finally found my views become a tad bit beyond what could be jammed into that tight like restricted box of thinking. You can call me a post-atheist, if you wish. But the point is, you sound ridiculously foolish to me, as well as my partner who considers herself atheist, as opposed to agnostic, when I read your comments to me a little bit ago. She was a bit dumbfounded by your ignorance that confused atheism with the "undecided" point of view of agnosticism Sorry, but that was really foolish of you.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. It's too much like arguing with fundamentalists for me. Believe what you want.

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you for your childish insults. However, they only serve to make yourself look like a complete fool.

So to begin with lets cite something a little more authorititave that an article posted on "about.com", okay? Instead of your source, I went to Stanford University's Philosophy department online pages. I assume you are familiar with Stanford University? Wouldn't you agree they would be a better source of authority than "About.com"? Let's see what it says:

Atheism: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
​

"The denial of the existence of God." Hmmm.... "Undecided" is not the same thing as the "denial" of God. No. That's a different very common term you seem to have missed somewhere along the line in your classes on atheism you took online, or wherever it was you got your education from.

Let's see what it says for Agnosticism:

Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe.... Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it.
...

As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable.​

What we see here is the agnostic is the one who claims they can't know, and therefore are undecided, neither affirming nor denying, whereas the atheist on the other hand, denies. Now maybe this source isn't enough for you? Maybe your prefer about.com as a source of authority?

Now, as far as my familiarity with atheism which you stupidly presume I have none, I'd say it's pretty darned extensive considering I self-identified as one for quite a number of years, arguing right-alongside the like of Dawkins and Harris and whatnot, teaching in various groups the sorts of arguments against creationism, teaching the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the various theisms, and whatnot,until I finally found my views become a tad bit beyond what could be jammed into that tight like restricted box of thinking. You can call me a post-atheist, if you wish. But the point is, you sound ridiculously foolish to me, as well as my partner who considers herself atheist, as opposed to agnostic, when I read your comments to me a little bit ago. She was a bit dumbfounded by your ignorance that confused atheism with the "undecided" point of view of agnosticism Sorry, but that was really foolish of you.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. It's too much like arguing with fundamentalists for me. Believe what you want.

This doesn't say that agnostics are undecided. It says that they believe knowledge of God is not possible. That doesn't mean that agnostics can't be both atheist or theist. It is a different subject altogether. Belief in God vs. Knowles of God.

 

[Willamena]

There is no reason to discuss it.

Well, okay, if you don't want to talk about it, I'll shut up.

But seriously, I was just using discussion as an example of how non-existent this characterless, truth-valueless absence you refer to is (...or isn't).

It is implicitly absent. There is no need for us to recognize the absence.

What does it mean to be implicitly absent?

My dictionary says, "in a way that is not explicitly addressed." It would seem to me that we would need some familiarity to express it in any way, explicitly or implicitly. In ignorance of it, there is nothing to address.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thank you for your childish insults. However, they only serve to make yourself look like a complete fool.

So to begin with lets cite something a little more authorititave that an article posted on "about.com", okay? Instead of your source, I went to Stanford University's Philosophy department online pages. I assume you are familiar with Stanford University? Wouldn't you agree they would be a better source of authority than "About.com"? Let's see what it says:

Atheism: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
​

"The denial of the existence of God." Hmmm.... "Undecided" is not the same thing as the "denial" of God. No. That's a different very common term you seem to have missed somewhere along the line in your classes on atheism you took online, or wherever it was you got your education from.

Let's see what it says for Agnosticism:

Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe.... Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it.
...

As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable.​

What we see here is the agnostic is the one who claims they can't know, and therefore are undecided, neither affirming nor denying, whereas the atheist on the other hand, denies. Now maybe this source isn't enough for you? Maybe your prefer about.com as a source of authority?

Now, as far as my familiarity with atheism which you stupidly presume I have none, I'd say it's pretty darned extensive considering I self-identified as one for quite a number of years, arguing right-alongside the like of Dawkins and Harris and whatnot, teaching in various groups the sorts of arguments against creationism, teaching the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the various theisms, and whatnot,until I finally found my views become a tad bit beyond what could be jammed into that tight like restricted box of thinking. You can call me a post-atheist, if you wish. But the point is, you sound ridiculously foolish to me, as well as my partner who considers herself atheist, as opposed to agnostic, when I read your comments to me a little bit ago. She was a bit dumbfounded by your ignorance that confused atheism with the "undecided" point of view of agnosticism Sorry, but that was really foolish of you.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. It's too much like arguing with fundamentalists for me. Believe what you want.

Do you understand the difference between "I don't know" and "I can't know"?

 

[Windwalker]

This doesn't say that agnostics are undecided. It says that they believe knowledge of God is not possible. That doesn't mean that agnostics can't be both atheist or theist. It is a different subject altogether. Belief in God vs. Knowles of God.

It says that atheism is the denial of God, and that agnosticism neither affirms nor denies God. It leave it "undecided", in so many words. That is not what atheism is which is a "denial" of God. And like I said, that's fine. If some does not believe in God, then call yourself an atheist. If someone does not wish to either affirm or deny, and leave it open as possible, then call yourself agnostic. But changing the word atheist to mean "undecided" defies reason. If you say you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. And NO, not anyone who is not a theist is and Atheist! That's a dumb argument. It that silly argument that babies are born atheists.

As I said, I'm not going to debate this anymore, but I thought I would respond this last time for you. I know the "touchiness" or sensitivity to the word "belief" that some seem to have an allergy to. Don't forget, I was a self-identified atheist for years, and I do have more than a little experience with those who identify as atheists. Some have no problem saying "I don't believe in God", and calling it their belief. Why should they, since it is? It's nothing to be ashamed of. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, and I do realize there are many shades and gradients where people fit in on this continuum. There are are no sharply defined lines. My only objection was to the foolish and insulting comments coming my way. I don't have the space for that nonsense.

 

[ArtieE]

So to begin with lets cite something a little more authorititave that an article posted on "about.com", okay?

Yes why don't we. This is what American Atheists say:

"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."
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

Are you really trying to claim that the organization American Atheists don't know what atheism is?

What we see here is the agnostic is the one who claims they can't know, and therefore are undecided, neither affirming nor denying

Then how can you have agnostic theists who have DECIDED to believe gods exist?

She was a bit dumbfounded by your ignorance that confused atheism with the "undecided" point of view of agnosticism Sorry, but that was really foolish of you.

What is "undecided" about an agnostic theist who has DECIDED to believe that gods exist?

 

[leibowde84]

It says that atheism is the denial of God, and that agnosticism neither affirms nor denies God. It leave it "undecided", in so many words. That is not what atheism is which is a "denial" of God. And like I said, that's fine. If some does not believe in God, then call yourself an atheist. If someone does not wish to either affirm or deny, and leave it open as possible, then call yourself agnostic. But changing the word atheist to mean "undecided" defies reason. If you say you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. And NO, not anyone who is not a theist is and Atheist! That's a dumb argument. It that silly argument that babies are born atheists.

As I said, I'm not going to debate this anymore, but I thought I would respond this last time for you. I know the "touchiness" or sensitivity to the word "belief" that some seem to have an allergy to. Don't forget, I was a self-identified atheist for years, and I do have more than a little experience with those who identify as atheists. Some have no problem saying "I don't believe in God", and calling it their belief. Why should they, since it is? It's nothing to be ashamed of. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, and I do realize there are many shades and gradients where people fit in on this continuum. There are are no sharply defined lines. My only objection was to the foolish and insulting comments coming my way. I don't have the space for that nonsense.

But, the atheists we are referring to are not "undecided" when it comes to believing that God exists. They reject that notion due to lack of support. But, that doesn't mean that they can't also reject the belief that God cannot exist. In actuality, they DECIDE that both positions should not be taken due to lack of evidence. They are, however, open to the existence of God if evidence does arise.

On another note, I am an Agnostic Christian. I believe that God exists, and I believe that Jesus was divine. But, I also do not believe that KNOWLEDGE of God is possible. No one knows anything about God, and, if they claim to, they are merely professing a strongly held belief.

 

[Willamena]

Yes why don't we. This is what American Atheists say:

"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."
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

That I agree with, as it refers to a lack as deficiency and not elimination.

Are you really trying to claim that the organization American Atheists don't know what atheism is?Then how can you have agnostic theists who have DECIDED to believe gods exist?What is "undecided" about an agnostic theist who has DECIDED to believe that gods exist?

That's funny, because whenever I draw on them as authority I get people shouting, Are you really trying to claim American Atheists as definitive of what atheism is?

 

[ArtieE]

If someone does not wish to either affirm or deny, and leave it open as possible, then call yourself agnostic.

And why in the world would they do that when you can have both agnostic theists and agnostic strong atheists?

 

[leibowde84]

That I agree with, as it refers to a lack as deficiency and not elimination.

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods (belief that God doesn't/cannot exist); it is a lack of belief in gods (or being "without" a belief in gods)."

It doesn't say this at all. If you read the quote and the rest of the article, it says that Atheism is merely the absence of theism.

How on earth could "atheism" be seen to be "belief in God, just not enough belief in God"? That doesn't seem nonsensical to you?

 

[leibowde84]

That I agree with, as it refers to a lack as deficiency and not elimination.


That's funny, because whenever I draw on them as authority I get people shouting, Are you really trying to claim American Atheists as definitive of what atheism is?

I would think that they should have more of a say in this definition than theists trying to put claims in their mouths. Not you, of course, as I understand that you don't do this. But there are some on this forum that seem to want to make atheism an easier target.

 

[Cephus]

It's anyone who doesn't believe in any gods of any kinds. That's it.

 

[Bunyip]

It's anyone who doesn't believe in any gods of any kinds. That's it.

I think that after we all discover the 'correct definition', we can hunt rainbow unicorns and move into our sky castles.

 

[Willamena]

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods (belief that God doesn't/cannot exist); it is a lack of belief in gods (or being "without" a belief in gods)."

It doesn't say this at all. If you read the quote and the rest of the article, it says that Atheism is merely the absence of theism.

It says further on that page that the common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Obviously if they refer to hard as well as soft atheists, as they are referring to a common thread, "lack" in this sense refers to deficiency.

How on earth could "atheism" be seen to be "belief in God, just not enough belief in God"? That doesn't seem nonsensical to you?

It is nonsensical: belief doesn't come in degrees, it's just a truth-value toggle. The deficiency refers to having something you know you are without.

 

[Willamena]

I would think that they should have more of a say in this definition than theists trying to put claims in their mouths.

Well, they are, after all, American.

 

[Willamena]

Why on Earth would you think that?

What if someone said to you "I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." Tyson specifically avoids answering whether he is or isn't an atheist (in public, at least - I have no idea what he tells his close friends). Let's assume that the person telling you this doesn't know Tyson personally. What would you think he was trying to tell you about Neil deGrasse Tyson?

"I think" is the operative phrase.