Why call ourselves Atheist?

[lebrecht52]

If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.

This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.

To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."

I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.

I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website.   annelebrecht.com

[ThinkAnarchy]

If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.

This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.

To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."

I have to disagree. Atheist and agnostic can mean the same thing essentially. Based upon the lack of evidence I know there is no god. That is not to say I'm 100% certain there isn't one. It's the same as how I can say there are no leprechauns. I'm not 100% certain they don't exist, but given the lack of evidence, I feel comfortable saying I know they don't.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm going to nit pick at this, because to me there is a distinction between believing or not believing (theist or atheist) and knowing or not knowing (gnostic or agnostic). I don't know that leprachauns don't exist. Maybe they do in some portion of the universe. I don't believe they exist, though.

I'm just not that comfortable using the word 'know' in some situations. 

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm going to nit pick at this, because to me there is a distinction between believing or not believing (theist or atheist) and knowing or not knowing (gnostic or agnostic). I don't know that leprachauns don't exist. Maybe they do in some portion of the universe. I don't believe they exist, though.

I'm just not that comfortable using the word 'know' in some situations. 

Perhaps it's the way I define "know." I can only know something based on the knowledge I currently have. The fact that I have a particular piece of knowledge, does not even mean that knowledge is accurate. I simply side with those who see the terms as interchangeable. I think Dawkins is one.

[Whitney]

If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.

This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.

To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."

I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.

I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website.   http://www.annelebrecht.com

atheism [ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm]
n
(Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods
[from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Atheists

I don't see anything about claiming certainty in the philosophy definition.  The definition of theism also doesn't imply certainty.

[Guardian85]

Wheter you are certain or not is unimportant. It is on what you base your life that matter.
If you live your life as if there is no god, then you are an atheist.
It is acts, not words that define people.

[Buddy]

I feel that if a theist is allowed to say that they know for sure that there is a god, then an atheist should be able to say that there isn't a god.

[OldGit]

Quite right, Budhorse.  Seems to me there's philosophical knowing and practical knowing.  Bertrand Russel's orbital teapot is a good case in point: a philosopher can't prove there's not one there, but in reality you'd be loony not to dismiss it for practical purposes.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

A physicist talking about quantum uncertainties once pointed out to me that at any moment his foot might burst into flames and fly across the quad.  Only it was pretty unlikely - so unlikely that in the real world you'd get locked up for believing it was going to happen.

So with god: I don't care how often they tell me that I cannot ultimately disprove his existence.  For all practical and rational purposes, there is no such thing.  End of story.

[Tank]

If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.

This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.

To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."

I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.

I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website.   http://www.annelebrecht.com

Highlighted is incorrect. I am an atheist and I have never stated that I know there is no God. What a do know is that I have seen no compelling evidence nor argument to convince me there is a God. And in addition the total lack of any evidence for the existence of God has pushed me way beyond agnostic as regards the existence of God(s).

[Amicale]

If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.

This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.

To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."

I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.

I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website.   http://www.annelebrecht.com

Highlighted is incorrect. I am an atheist and I have never stated that I know there is no God. What a do know is that I have seen no compelling evidence nor argument to convince me there is a God. And in addition the total lack of any evidence for the existence of God has pushed me way beyond agnostic as regards the existence of God(s).

Tank, what you said here definitely makes sense, and it's why I'm leaning more into soft atheism, rather than agnosticism. It would be more rational to call one's self an agnostic if there was even some proof or evidence, however sparse it was -- then we could be more comfortable in saying 'well, MAYBE there's a God since a bit of the evidence seems to suggest there could be, but we just don't know'. As things stand, the total lack of evidence has pushed me away from saying 'maybe, I don't know' to 'I don't see any compelling evidence or arguments that convince me God exists', as you stated.

[Too Few Lions]

Yeah, like Whitney's pointed out, atheism derives from the Greek word a-theos, which literally means 'without god(s)' or 'free of god(s)'. As far as I'm concerned it merely means living one's life without the belief in gods and free of related religion / superstition. It's not saying that one knows for a fact that no gods exist. I live my life without thought or consideration for any gods, therefore I'm an atheist.

[Whitney]

just noting that I removed the hyperlink in lebrecht52's post because I think she may have just posted enough to get past our radar on the spam rule...the books on her site don't seem to having anything to do with atheism; especially not anything scholarly enough to be pointing to them like they are a source.