What is an Atheist?

Originally posted by googlefudge
People are of course free to use or not use any label about themselves that they like.


However the definition of and sole requirement for being an atheist is simply to not
have a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

You (as stated) do not have a belief in the existence of god or gods.

Thus you are an atheist.

Not 'technically' or 'so ...[text shortened]... ave a belief (a firm conviction) that a god or gods exist IS an atheist.
Period.

Interestingly (well, to me anyway) I've just take a quick straw-poll of about 30 well-educated (ok, teachers, so at least moderately well educated) people and found that 23 of them read 'atheist' to mean "denying the existence of [god or gods]" rather than simply not holding a belief therein. Words are, of course, defined by their popular usage, not their original definition.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Interestingly (well, to me anyway) I've just take a quick straw-poll of about 30 well-educated (ok, teachers, so at least moderately well educated) people and found that 23 of them read 'atheist' to mean "denying the existence of [god or gods]" rather than simply not holding a belief therein. Words are, of course, defined by their popular usage, not their original definition.

That is not at all surprising to me.

The major religions (esp Christianity in the west/USA) have done a great hatchet job
redefining (lying about) what the term atheist means.


However I would counter point out that ALL the major atheist organisations have
clearly and emphatically defined atheism to simply mean an absence of belief in gods.

And also all the major popular figures in atheism from Dawkins to Hitchins.

I really don't give a flying whatsit what the religious think it means.

Atheist means not-theist.

That is what I will stick to, and it's what all the major atheist organisations stick to.

So I am pretty much of the view that anyone claiming some other meaning is simply wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that creates division which creates conflict - often not coming from the people wanting to 'preserve their identity' but from those around them. It is usually the minorities that suffer. What I don't see is any good argument for preserving identity and preserving divisions. I value different cultures and and the exchange of ideas between cultures, but ...[text shortened]... there will be problems. And religions are such that they generally encourage that separation.

There's an Amish guy that comes to the Royal Oak Farmers' Market every week. I've bought stuff from him in the past. Afterward, he goes back to his world and I go back to mine. We interact peaceably within those confines, with neither trying to impose anything more upon the other. The fact that he's a religious man who doesn't use electricity affects me not at all.

Your desire to have a community with all faiths intermingling is all well and fine...provided that is what they want. They can't be forced into it. If they want to maintain a separate identity, then it should be their right to do so. Beyond establishing a means to peaceably interact, they should be encouraged to maintain at least some regional, religious or cultural distinctness. The loss of cultural diversity is analogous to humanity what species loss is to a ecosystem - it weakens its ability to adapt and remain healthy.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is not at all surprising to me.

The major religions (esp Christianity in the west/USA) have done a great hatchet job
redefining (lying about) what the term atheist means.


However I would counter point out that ALL the major atheist organisations have
clearly and emphatically defined atheism to simply mean an absence of belief in gods.

o.

So I am pretty much of the view that anyone claiming some other meaning is simply wrong.

Well you know, words do change their meaning with popular misuse - it's just what happens. You can be all Canute about it if you like, but it is what it is.

edit: Incidentally, only 3 of those questioned admit to being christian. I suspect that one of the others may be also, but she's a coy sort and it's difficult to tell. Most of them are overtly atheist, in accordance with either definition.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well you know, words do change their meaning with popular misuse - it's just what happens. You can be all Canute about it if you like, but it is what it is.

edit: Incidentally, only 3 of those questioned admit to being christian. I suspect that one of the others may be also, but she's a coy sort and it's difficult to tell. Most of them are overtly atheist, in accordance with either definition.

I am not 'being canute' about it.

I am fully aware that there is a popular misconception about what the word 'atheist' means.

Which is why I jump up and down and correct people when they get it wrong.

The meaning has been hijacked and distorted (particularly in America) by Christians seeking
to discredit atheists and atheism.

We (the organised atheist movement) are taking it back.

We are adopting the label with pride and correcting people who tell us that it means something
that it doesn't.

It's not futile because it's working, and will keep working.

From American Atheists...

http://atheists.org/content/about-atheism

"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 funny retorts to the
nonsense that atheism is a religion are:
1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour, 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, colours, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints."

And the fact that most of the people who you conducted your highly unscientific straw poll on ;-p
were atheists surprises me not in the least. We have had centuries of theists declaring that atheists
are evil and wicked and all kinds of bad PR to overcome.

However theists are going to try to miss-define or distort whatever label we give ourselves so we are
sticking with the original and best.

Theists don't get to define what it is to be an atheist.

That would be like me defining what it is to be a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, ect....

Originally posted by googlefudge
I for one am anti all religions.

For the simple reason that all religions have the same flaw in that they not only allow but promote belief based on blind faith.

And as I consider belief based on faith to be both dangerous and immoral I dislike and oppose the promotion of faith based belief.


However I am not going to stand by and watch someone ...[text shortened]... asa's posts contain is hatred for the people, based on his own twisted and false beliefs.

It appears to me that atheism is based on blind faith, since one can see that there is no God. Even the theory of evolution is based on blind faith, since no one has ever seen a lizard change to a bird. People believe many things on blind faith and you are no exception. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears to me that atheism is based on blind faith, since one can see that there is no God. Even the theory of evolution is based on blind faith, since no one has ever seen a lizard change to a bird. People believe many things on blind faith and you are no exception. 😏

Nobody cares how it 'appears to you' because you are totally ignorant of pretty much everything
and have less grasp of logic and reason than a 3 year old.


blind faith is the belief in a proposition/claim without evidence to justify that proposition/claim or
despite evidence that contradicts it.

As atheism is the ABSENCE of a belief in gods it cannot possibly be based on faith.

You need to have a belief before it can be based on something.

Note: See RJHinds as exhibit A, The archetypal Christian fundi lying and distorting to try to make his point.
Pathetic isn't it.... And this is why you think we should give up and allow the meaning of atheism
to get changed?

Also, evolution doesn't predict that a lizard would 'turn into a bird' as you well know. (or would if you listened to
anything anyone said to you)

Your transparent lies and straw man arguments just make you look bad, they don't advance your position.

Actually they make it look worse.... Which is saying something because your position was totally untenable
to start off with.

Originally posted by wolfgang59


[b] It just so happens that atheists tend to be
more intelligent, better read and more liberal

[b]

WG
I can certainly understand that atheists are more liberal; better read, maybe... maybe not; more intelligent? Hmmm, I would believe that some may suffer from elitism, thinking they are more intelligent... in fact I know a few. I think you are being just a tad unfair, don't you?

-K

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think I've spotted a trend here.

What might it be?

Originally posted by JS357
All I can report is that when I introspect, I find no belief in deity. For all I know, this might change. I did believe in a deity I called God, until I was about 14. I don't spend any time trying to understand why that belief went away. Anything I say would be a narrative, possibly a rationalization. For all I know, this might change too.

A good place to be.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I originally came here after posting a complaint in 'debates' about the movement in the US to try to get 'intelligent design' taught in the science class. I was told to take it to spirituality.
...[text shortened]... I have also come understand science and psychology better and it has become more and more clear that theism is a delusion and that there are no good reasons for believing in a God.

Thank you for your response, just the kind of thing I was hoping to get.

-K

Originally posted by googlefudge
The basic question of "what is an atheist?" (generally not capitalised unless at beginning of a sentence)
has been answered.

... [text shortened]....

I hope this helps answer your question.

Thank you, very informative.

-K

Originally posted by rwingett
An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods. Sorry, but there's not much else to say about it.

Atheism is not a belief, nor does it contain any beliefs. Someone who is an atheist may believe any number of things, none of which have anything to do with his status as an atheist.

I apologize in advance for participating in a thread after several pages have been generated, only to go back to what someone said on page 1. Problem is, I don't participate daily and I like to start from the beginning when I respond in a thread, and often I find something to reply to on page 1.

I've already read up on a recent exchange where someone said Christians "hijacked" the true meaning of Atheism, as if there was some kind of conspiracy over hundreds of years to change a word's definition. As was aptly put, the common usage of a word defines it better than the original definition whatever it was. Not because the common usage is superior, but rather because it more clearly defines the word as it is used in everyday language.

That being said, Atheism, as described by someone else is basically a lack of Theism. And as rwingett puts it, Atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in any god.

However, if you leave it at just that.. a simple "lack of belief," then what you really end up with is Agnosticism. In today's day and age, Atheism separates itself from Agnosticism by taking it a step further. Today (regardless of what it meant hundreds of years ago), the term "Atheism" is used to describe someone who not only doesn't believe in any gods, but also BELIEVES THERE IS NO GOD. There's a difference. An Agnostic simply doesn't believe -- in other words, reserves judgment because there is no evidence to support a belief in any gods. The Atheist, however, makes a judgment: and that judgment is, THERE IS NO GOD.

When there isn't evidence to support something, it makes complete since not to believe in it. But to come out and say it absolutely does not exist? That's another thing altogether and that's what separates the Agnostic from the Atheist.

Originally posted by rwingett
There's an Amish guy that comes to the Royal Oak Farmers' Market every week. I've bought stuff from him in the past. Afterward, he goes back to his world and I go back to mine. We interact peaceably within those confines, with neither trying to impose anything more upon the other. The fact that he's a religious man who doesn't use electricity affects me not at all.

The fact that you can find examples of peaceful interactions tells us nothing. It remains a fact that as long as that Amish guy maintains his religion, there is a higher likelihood of social conflict between him and those of others in the area. Sure, if the work hard at maintaining peace they may manage to do so, but they must work at it.

If they want to maintain a separate identity, then it should be their right to do so. Beyond establishing a means to peaceably interact, they should be encouraged to maintain at least some regional, religious or cultural distinctness.
You have just crossed from 'have the right to do so' to 'should be encouraged to do so'. I disagree on both counts. Both are similar to apartheid and racism in some ways and both are likely to result in discrimination and conflict.

The loss of cultural diversity is analogous to humanity what species loss is to a ecosystem - it weakens its ability to adapt and remain healthy.
At the same time, maintaining separate breeds of a particular species and completely stopping them from interbreeding only leads to genetic disease and weakness.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Words are, of course, defined by their popular usage, not their original definition.

Actually words are defined whatever way you want to define them. They only take on popular usage when no definition is offered and it is unknown what usage is intended.
When someone says he is an atheist then he means whatever he takes to be the definition. What popular usage has to say, or what other people have to say are irrelevant as the important thing is to understand the meaning intended by the labeller. For this reason I respect the person that started the thread as he did not wish to force any definition on anyone but rather find out what they mean when they label themselves atheist. And even though most responders seem to have a single definition, it is perfectly possible that there are other people who label themselves atheist but mean something quite different.