For theists: What is an atheist?

[Whitney]

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods.  Other than disbelief in god, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common.

   What an atheist is not (correction of common theist definitions):
-   An atheist is not someone who hates god.
-   An atheist is not a devil worshiper.
-   An atheist is not rebelling against religion or god.
-   An atheist is not under the control of some devil.
-   An atheist is not something that doesn’t exist.
-   An atheist is, in general, not immoral.

What is an agnostic?

Agnostic translates as:  a (without) gnostic (knowledge) so it means “without knowledge.”  A purely agnostic person does not think it is possible to know if a god exists or not and, thus, remains undecided.

What is an agnostic (weak) atheist?

Agnostic atheism is simply another name for the broadest conception of the word atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god yet does not claim to have knowledge of said god’s non-existence.  A weak atheist’s disbelief is largely dependent on a lack of evidence for a god.

What is a gnostic (strong) atheist?

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist.  An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

From http://www.strongatheism.net :

"Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues."

What is an apatheist?

Apatheism is not having a belief in god and couldn't care less if a god exists or not.

[McQ]

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods.  Other than disbelief in god, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common.

   What an atheist is not (correction of common theist definitions):
-   An atheist is not someone who hates god.
-   An atheist is not a devil worshiper.
-   An atheist is not rebelling against religion or god.
-   An atheist is not under the control of some devil.
-   An atheist is not something that doesn’t exist.
-   An atheist is, in general, not immoral.

What is an agnostic?

Agnostic translates as:  a (without) gnostic (knowledge) so it means “without knowledge.”  A purely agnostic person does not think it is possible to know if a god exists or not and, thus, remains undecided.

What is an agnostic (weak) atheist?

Agnostic atheism is simply another name for the broadest conception of the word atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god yet does not claim to have knowledge of said god’s non-existence.  A weak atheist’s disbelief is largely dependent on a lack of evidence for a god.

What is a gnostic (strong) atheist?

Strong atheism is a knowledge claim that certain types of gods definitely do not exist.  A strong atheist may hold that it is possible to prove that a god of a specific religion doesn’t exist or may think it is possible to prove that no type of god exists.  An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

Laetusatheos, where did these definitions come from? Not being funny, I'd really like to know. It's not that I don't agree with them, but I have doubts about the validity of where they run afoul of "proving a negative". Example is being called a "weak atheist" because you believe that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.

It's impossible to prove a negative in any case, so that covers alot more ground than just weak atheism. I don't believe that I or anyone can prove that God (defined loosley as a higher being of some sort that created the universe) doesn't exist. But I doubt it's existence so strongly that I choose to believe there is no God.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but I wanted to throw that into the mix. I call myself a non-believer rather than atheist because of all the trouble defining atheists and the nit-picking that people do with it. I simply don't believe there is or ever has been evidence in favor of any god, so I don't believe in any god, even though I can't prove the negative that there isn't.

The nice thing is that it isn't up to anyone to have to prove a negative! :-)

[Whitney]

what i did was look up how various people define strong and weak atheism then tried to develop a definition which atheists would be most likely to agree with  (the issues with defining the strong/weak distinctions is partially why I find the terms useless).

I mostly pulled the basis of the definitions from then tried to write them in a way that atheists would agree with (it seems that the definitions at about.com and wiki have a lot of bias):

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismques ... g_weak.htm
and wiki

about.com claims that it takes faith to be a strong atheist...that seems completely silly to me and is also a misuse of what is meant by the word faith.  It also claimed that strong atheists have a burden of proof...I don't see why they should have the burden of proof since they aren't the ones making a positive claim.

This is how http://www.strongatheism.net describes strong atheism:

"Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues."

I was thinking of using this for strong atheism, but, I think how it is described on that site is what people usually associate with anti-theism. (this stuff gets confusing)

Then there is of coarse apatheism where a person doesn't believe in god and really couldn't care less if one exists or not. (more to add to the confusion of terms)

Anyway, I don't think an atheist should have to prove a negative either (although I do think it's possible with certain types of gods...once you show a certain amount of fault with a concept it becomes absurd to believe in it)

So, um...ya...any help with clarification would be appreciated. Maybe even alternative defintions of the terms would be appropriate since it seems like everyone defines them in a slightly different manner.

[McQ]

laetusatheos, I like the definition you got off of strongatheism.net
That's a good one. I also love apatheism! It's great!

By the way, you really can't prove a negative. You can only do what you what you said, "...once you show a certain amount of fault with a concept it becomes absurd to believe in it)".

You can go so far as to make it absolutely, ridiculously absurd to believe in it, but for an example of why you can't actually prove a negative, read Carl Sagan's book, Demon Haunted World. In particular, Chapter 10, titled, "The Dragon in my Garage"

[Whitney]

I think I changed the parts where the definitions weren't so clear..let me know what you think.

[McQ]

I think I changed the parts where the definitions weren't so clear..let me know what you think.

Yes, they're clear and succinct. And I still really love the term apatheist!

[sinhater]

Visit this website... it is STRONGLY against atheism

http://www.dailymorality.com

[McQ]

Visit this website... it is STRONGLY against atheism

http://www.dailymorality.com

Well thanks. I think I recall seeing this somewhere else..... :roll:

You are still invited to actually have discourse, of course. Good old verbal intercourse, over the course of the day. But you must behave, no coarse language, of course.

In other words. Talk to us, there is no need to troll or spam websites.

[sinhater]

These guys at this website have really hit atheism pretty hard in their article against atheism


http://www.dailymorality.com/atheism.html


I really don't know how to contend with their arguments.... somebody needs to tell me how to respond

The section about God "Who God is" is also very convincing

definitely check it out.. .

[McQ]

These guys at this website have really hit atheism pretty hard in their article against atheism


http://www.dailymorality.com/atheism.html


I really don't know how to contend with their arguments.... somebody needs to tell me how to respond

The section about God "Who God is" is also very convincing

definitely check it out.. .

OK, we are being very patient with you, but this is your final warning to stop spamming and either participate as a legitimate member or be banned. I hope that is clear enough for you, sinhater.

[pjkeeley]

These guys at this website have really hit atheism pretty hard in their article against atheism

http://www.dailymorality.com/atheism.html

I really don't know how to contend with their arguments.... somebody needs to tell me how to respond

You seriously can't see the flaws in their 'arguments'?

Very well:

"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...."

Bahahahahahahaha! This is hilarious already. Blindness is not an 'ideology', it's a condition. But I'll play along for kicks. I guess if blindness could in any way be called an ideology, it's because there is a movement dedicated to finding treatments for blindness that allow blind people to see. So how is this analogy in any way compromising to atheism? Atheism is about helping blind people see? I have no qualms with that definition.  
 

"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist."

This 'argument' begs the question (as does the entire article itself), because the conclusion is contained within the premise (ie. "absolute truth...is...established by an asbsolute and common creator"). If you don't accept this premise then the conclusion doesn't logically follow.

"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..."

I thought dead atheists go to hell?

"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..."

...

That's... retarded.

"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid."

This makes no grammatical sense. I'd like to refute it, I just can't make sense of it.

"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..."

And your religion is...?

"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist."

Well, if proving God's existence is so easy then by all means go ahead! I'd be glad to hear the evidence... just as long as it's not "all around me". If I get told  the evidence for God's existence is "all around me" one more freaking time...

*scrolls down*

Yeah, why am I not surprised.

[Squid]

I am now actually dumber for reading that site.

Evolution is an absurd and abominable lie. It was concocted by depraved humans who rejected the truth of the Bible. Although evolution is clearly wrong, since God's truths are rejected by those who hate God, the inevitable consequence is a lie that has to be embraced as a substitute. I will elaborate on the details of how seriously erroneous the theory of evolution is later. Check back for updates.

I'm sure these will be logical, evidence-based and supported arguments which utilize current research...surely...

[MommaSquid]

Any time hubby and I are watching an educational program and the narrator says something like, "These rock formations are over 200 million years old" I yell out "blasphemy!" and we have a good laugh.

You know the Earth is only 6000 years old, don't cha?  

[Will]

Let them live their lives in the fog. So long as they stop treading on everyone, their bizarre perspective can be their own. If my daughter learns about Creationism in a science classroom, I will raise hell (pun intended). Ignorance has no place in schools. Or government. Or anywhere outside of church, really.

[SteveS]

How does the bumper sticker read, "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church", something like that anyway....

And I agree with you Willravel, if they try to teach my kids creationism in a school classroom I'm going "raise hell" as well.  Maybe we can make a pact to bail each other out of jail?