Define “Atheist”

[The Greater Fool]

Isn't one a subset of the other? So if one definition is valid, the other would automatically be included in it?

I do consider the "a"-prefix to mean "not". So an Atheist is not a Theist, i.e. someone who does not believe in a God or Gods, as being a "Theist" means exactly that.

I think the so-called double definition of "Atheist" stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of "belief" as well as from a misunderstanding of the nature of accepting or not accepting claims. If I reject the claim (e.g. in absence of evidence) that it will be raining later today, I do not automatically claim that there will be sunshine. Or even a lack of rain, for what it's worth.

You quoted the explanation, not the definition. The explanation does describe the two meanings that people ever quibble about.

The definition I gave covers the subsets:

Atheist = a person that does not believe god(s) exist.

 

[David Mo]

Why try and complicate it. An atheist is someone who does not belive in a god. Doesn't matter then if you think a "god" might exist, or some other possibility belief.

If you don't believe in a god you are an atheist.

This is your definition, it is neither mine nor The Internet Enciclopedia of Philosophy definition.

So what do we do now?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Atheist: Someone who can argue about the definition of the word 'atheist' endlessly.

 

[badnewsBH]

I like to use YouTuber Edward Tarte's definition, which is "I find no credible evidence for the existence of any gods".

 

[David Mo]

I am going to make a classification of the different positions that can be given to the question "Is there a god?" I'm not going to name them. If the classification seems convenient, we will do it later.

(A) I believe that God exists.
(B) I don't believe that God exists.

(A) May be divided into two:
(A1) I can justify my claim that God exists. (Justify = rationally).
(A2) I cannot justify that God exists. I just believe it.

(B) Can be divided into two
(B1) I can justify my belief that God does not exist. I affirm that there is no God.
(B2) It cannot be justified that God exists or does not exist. I abstain from all judgment.

All positions can be divided between those who affirm one thing absolutely and those who admit some degree of uncertainty, but for a first approximation these are the four basic positions on the existence of God or gods. One or more of them may be called atheism and one or more of them may be called agnosticism. I believe that any answer to the question fits into this scheme.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone believe that their atheism or agnosticism is not reflected in these four - or eight - positions?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Do you also allow a microscopically small gap for the possibility that all the large dinosaurs species that once existed are not now extinct?

No, because there are enough bones to show otherwise! Most theists would agree too I think!
And besides, even if one were to appear somewhere, even if not quite so big, they would be recognised as animals, not any kind of god, wouldn't they?

 

[Thermal]

Why not equally a semiatheist? Bit like being half-dead.

Or why not simply . . .

A person that does not believe god(s) exist isn't a person that believes a god does exist. Therefore not a theist, therefore an atheist (not theist).

ETA - If you own a car you're a car owner. If you don't own a car you're not a car owner. If you're deciding whether or not to own a car (or don't think it's possible to own a car) you're not a car owner.

This thinking is far too black-and-white for the subject. It attempts to put all but the most vehemently religious into the atheist category, and give a distorted sense of how people feel about the existence of god.

Your example of a car: it would depend on what you consider ownership. Say I buy a Jeep for my underage kid, but as the legal buyer the title and insurance are in my name. In terms of paperwork formality, the Jeep is mine. When the rubber hits the metaphorical road, the Jeep is my kid's.
A passing anachro-communist would opine that neither of us can own property. On and on.

 

[ahhell]

I am going to make a classification of the different positions that can be given to the question "Is there a god?" I'm not going to name them. If the classification seems convenient, we will do it later.

(A) I believe that God exists.
(B) I don't believe that God exists.

(A) May be divided into two:
(A1) I can justify my claim that God exists. (Justify = rationally).
(A2) I cannot justify that God exists. I just believe it.

(B) Can be divided into two
(B1) I can justify my belief that God does not exist. I affirm that there is no God.
(B2) It cannot be justified that God exists or does not exist. I abstain from all judgment.

All positions can be divided between those who affirm one thing absolutely and those who admit some degree of uncertainty, but for a first approximation these are the four basic positions on the existence of God or gods. One or more of them may be called atheism and one or more of them may be called agnosticism. I believe that any answer to the question fits into this scheme.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone believe that their atheism or agnosticism is not reflected in these four - or eight - positions?

B1a, I can justify my belief that god(s) do not exist but its by the absence of evidence and absence of evidence isn't really evidence, but sometimes it's close enough.

 

[Darat]

I am going to make a classification of the different positions that can be given to the question "Is there a god?" I'm not going to name them. If the classification seems convenient, we will do it later.

(A) I believe that God exists.
(B) I don't believe that God exists.

(A) May be divided into two:
(A1) I can justify my claim that God exists. (Justify = rationally).
(A2) I cannot justify that God exists. I just believe it.

(B) Can be divided into two
(B1) I can justify my belief that God does not exist. I affirm that there is no God.
(B2) It cannot be justified that God exists or does not exist. I abstain from all judgment.

All positions can be divided between those who affirm one thing absolutely and those who admit some degree of uncertainty, but for a first approximation these are the four basic positions on the existence of God or gods. One or more of them may be called atheism and one or more of them may be called agnosticism. I believe that any answer to the question fits into this scheme.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone believe that their atheism or agnosticism is not reflected in these four - or eight - positions?

Me?

Your positions are at the moment meaningless since no definition is given for "god". Until a definition is given one can't take any view on whatever it is you are talking about.

Plus I'm still curious why this always ends up with a general "god that we won't define", such a god is not the god of the major Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and so on religions, why don't we stick to the definitions/descriptions of gods that those that claim a god or gods exist use?

 

[Darat]

This is your definition, it is neither mine nor The Internet Enciclopedia of Philosophy definition.

So what do we do now?

Er... nothing? Carry on discussing this? Make a cup of The TEA?

My definition makes sense in how we define "theist" i.e. someone who believes in god*, since atheist is meant to be the converse/opposite it seems to me to make sense to make the definition the same type of definition i.e. someone who doesn't believe in god**.


*Obviously to be specific about any one theist you would have to include their definition for god.***

**Obviously to be specific about any one atheist you would have to include their definition for god.

***Which is why I keep going back to saying we have to define "god" for all these questions to have any kind of meaning, otherwise we are talking about "the entire set of all things people can mean when they use the word 'god'" which could include anything!****

****Which is why I keep asking why don't we stick to the gods that theists say they believe in?

 

[MikeG]

I am going to make a classification of the different positions that can be given to the question "Is there a god?" I'm not going to name them. If the classification seems convenient, we will do it later.

(A) I believe that God exists.
(B) I don't believe that God exists.
(A) May be divided into two:
(A1) I can justify my claim that God exists. (Justify = rationally).
(A2) I cannot justify that God exists. I just believe it.

(B) Can be divided into two
(B1) I can justify my belief that God does not exist. I affirm that there is no God.
(B2) It cannot be justified that God exists or does not exist. I abstain from all judgment.

All positions can be divided between those who affirm one thing absolutely and those who admit some degree of uncertainty, but for a first approximation these are the four basic positions on the existence of God or gods. One or more of them may be called atheism and one or more of them may be called agnosticism. I believe that any answer to the question fits into this scheme.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone believe that their atheism or agnosticism is not reflected in these four - or eight - positions?

These are not the same, and why your attempt at answering the question is fatally flawed. Further, your two categories for B are not the only 2 possible categories.

So yes, I don't accept that anything in your flawed analysis represents my position.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

My definition makes sense in how we define "theist" i.e. someone who believes in god*, since atheist is meant to be the converse/opposite it seems to me to make sense to make the definition the same type of definition i.e. someone who doesn't believe in god**.

But... that means the word atheist can mean several similar but distinct things at the same time.
How ever will we manage?

I demand that it only has one possible meaning.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have always found it curious that my definition of an atheist "An atheist is a person who believes there is no God," draws such didactic, indeed even emotional answers, particularly when my definition is but my definition.

Further, I personally believe it is superior as it is both an affirmative description, which I am certain one can easily understand, and also does not suffer the problem of being an "absolute" statement which skeptics are quite correct to see the flaws in making.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I have always found it curious that my definition of an atheist "An atheist is a person who believes there is no God," draws such didactic, indeed even emotional answers, particularly when my definition is but my definition.

Further, I personally believe it is superior as it is both an affirmative description, which I am certain one can easily understand, and also does not suffer the problem of being an "absolute" statement which skeptics are quite correct to see the flaws in making.

Then I am not an atheist, yet I am not a theist as in a theist is a person who believes there is a God.
Yet as per this definition, lack of belief or disbelief in any god, I am an atheist.

 

[MikeG]

Then I am not an atheist, yet I am not a theist as in a theist is a person who believes there is a God.
Yet as per this definition, lack of belief or disbelief in any god, I am an atheist.

Theists simply cannot comprehend that others don't "believe in" stuff. It messes with their brains. Hence the desire to call atheism a belief, which is in fact the opposite of what it is. Having us "believe in" something acts as affirmation that belief itself is OK, even though us atheists are obviously misguided enough to believe in the wrong thing. Oh, the knots they tangle themselves up in........

 

[Apathia]

Instead of commenting on your beliefs about what atheists are[/B ]like, it would be better if you just gave a definition of the use of "atheist" that can be accepted by all those we are discussing. Can you limit yourself to that?

I understand that you use the word "atheist" in two ways:
One who simply does not believe that God exists without affirming that God does not exist.
Another who claims that there is no god.
You value the two types of atheism very differently. To avoid confusion, wouldn't it be better to use two different words?

Thanks!
Yes. I will limit myself to the provided dictionary definition.
I think that so I won't create more confusion, I'll not invent some new word but simply leave things as they are.

 

[Darat]

But... that means the word atheist can mean several similar but distinct things at the same time.
How ever will we manage?

I demand that it only has one possible meaning.

It is strange, folk seem to have no problem in understanding that a theist doesn't believe in every single thing people label god, yet the converse causes confusion.

 

[Darat]

I have always found it curious that my definition of an atheist "An atheist is a person who believes there is no God," draws such didactic, indeed even emotional answers, particularly when my definition is but my definition.

Not seen the "emotional responses" you have seen? Any examples?

Further, I personally believe it is superior as it is both an affirmative description, which I am certain one can easily understand, and also does not suffer the problem of being an "absolute" statement which skeptics are quite correct to see the flaws in making.

In a "serious" discussion I think it is fine to not make the simple declarative comments we probably all make in our day to day lives. So if you asked me here do I believe in "god" I'd have to ask you to define your use of the word "god". But in day to day life I'd probably assume people are talking about the CofE/RCC/Sunni/Judaic god so would be able to say "no".

 

[ynot]

Semitheist was a quip, argue it as you will.

Neither being “half-dead” or “half-alive” is being dead.

Neither being a “semi-theist” or “semi-atheist” is being a theist.

 

[ynot]

Theists simply cannot comprehend that others don't "believe in" stuff. It messes with their brains. Hence the desire to call atheism a belief, which is in fact the opposite of what it is. Having us "believe in" something acts as affirmation that belief itself is OK, even though us atheists are obviously misguided enough to believe in the wrong thing. Oh, the knots they tangle themselves up in........

Many theists simply cannot comprehend that others don't believe in their god or any god.

Seems to be mainly theists* that most want “atheist” to be defined as “Believes there is no god or gods”. Obviously this definition better suits their purpose as they can counter “You merely believe a god exists” with “You merely believe a god doesn’t exist”. Which they quickly slam dunk with “You can’t prove a god doesn’t exist”. As if this makes the realistic odds of a god existing or not equally possible.

*Or psychowankists that speak with a heavily theistic accent.