What is an atheist

[fr0d0]

WHAT ? Tor said the opposite of a word in the dictionary, simple but not defining much , cuz what is a theist ? here we go for another endless loop of defining something else . You can't always define something using its opposite word .

Yes you can.
Do you believe in god? Yes. Theist. No. Atheist.

The problem with that is, you will get endless objections, as is evident here on AF, with atheists demanding that they have no beliefs. That atheism is to theism as off is a TV channel.. etc ad infinitum.

The vast majority of atheist rial at the notion that they believe anything, let alone that God doesn't exist. No doubt you have yet to consider the consequences of that stance.

[Ben Davis]

My personal approach & 'Atheism' as I understand it; is that you believe there is nothing at all to suggest a creator of any sort exists, and masses of physical & documented evidence to back up the theories of evolution through vast subjects of Science.

The term 'atheism' doesn't care about 'why' you don't believe, it's simply a label for those who don't. There are atheists who came by their lack of belief through rational inquiry, some through indoctrination, some through arguments from authority... etc. The only common factor is the absence of theism from their belief-systems..

---

Some can and do make up stuff to make it seem "more rational" Than them. Some demonize the enemy by mocking and belittle them.

Fixed that generalisation fallacy for you.

---

The problem with that is, you will get endless objections, as is evident here on AF, with atheists demanding that they have no beliefs. That atheism is to theism as off is a TV channel.. etc ad infinitum.

The vast majority of atheist rial at the notion that they believe anything, let alone that God doesn't exist. No doubt you have yet to consider the consequences of that stance.

Oh fr0d0, you've done it again: deliberately left out a crucial qualifier so you can make a spurious claim. As you well know, it's not the idea of 'belief' that rational atheists balk at, it's the idea of 'irrational beliefs'. Everyone has beliefs and only the ignorant/irrational claim otherwise; the question is 'do you hold your beliefs for a good reason'. You know it's all about standards of evidence.

[fr0d0]

Oh fr0d0, you've done it again: deliberately left out a crucial qualifier so you can make a spurious claim. As you well know, it's not the idea of 'belief' that rational atheists balk at, it's the idea of 'irrational beliefs'. Everyone has beliefs and only the ignorant/irrational claim otherwise; the question is 'do you hold your beliefs for a good reason'. You know it's all about standards of evidence.

What spurious claim am I making lol?

A spurious claim would include belief in no God. How do you support that belief? Please defend your position? ... are the questions that you invite declaring that position.

Atheists baulk at what they consider to be irrational beliefs, and without reason. Standards of evidence being the illogical get out clause commonly employed

[pavetheway]

*quoting your name messed up, apologies for that*

The term 'atheism' doesn't care about 'why' you don't believe, it's simply a label for those who don't. There are atheists who came by their lack of belief through rational inquiry, some through indoctrination, some through arguments from authority... etc. The only common factor is the absence of theism from their belief-systems..

I do agree (that isn't much different than what I'm saying/trying to say - I just shed slightly more light on the term), I'm basically saying it's a very generalist word/term to use, but thats just another angle to approach it from. I didn't & wouldn't have enough time in the day to state the reasonings on how people do/have/can come to a conclusion about Atheism - which wasn't the original question, thus went unanswered. This is the reason I usually state the term in quotes, as it can be & often is; misconstrued - again, this is where a 'base' line is drawn I think, and the branches of the individuals are formed to make their own reasonings or form their own opinions about the subject going forward.

My original statement is very basic, as is this one. But taking it a further step back - I could have kept it minimalistic, and said like others:

"Do you believe in god? Yes. Theist. No. Atheist."

[RobbyPants]

There is a subtle difference. My cat does not believe in God, but he does not believe that God does not exist. One is a positive, the other is a negative.

Yes I realise that. Both are fully atheist.

This is true. Also, the second is a subset of the first. It is possible to not believe in gods because you simply lack the belief (perhaps due to skepticism or ignorance). It is possible to lack the belief because you believe there are no gods. In either case, both represent a lack of belief, yet the second also asserts a negative claim about the belief in gods, as well.

So, the first option is probably the most pure definition of atheism, without any additional qualifiers added. The first option with the second option explicitly excluded (lack of belief without a negative belief) would define agnostic/weak atheism. The second option defines gnostic/strong atheism.

[pocaracas]

Yes you can.
Do you believe in god? Yes. Theist. No. Atheist.

The problem with that is, you will get endless objections, as is evident here on AF, with atheists demanding that they have no beliefs. That atheism is to theism as off is a TV channel.. etc ad infinitum.

The vast majority of atheist rial at the notion that they believe anything, let alone that God doesn't exist. No doubt you have yet to consider the consequences of that stance.

The "No" in that answer pertains to the question being asked: "do you believe in god?", the answer, in its complete form would be "no, I do not believe in god".

But, for the question to be properly formed so as to include any god, it should be "Do you believe in the existence of any god?" A "no" answer will still yield, "no, I do not believe in the existence of any god".

There is another form of belief related to this question... which I think is what you were aiming at... but the question would be another... "do you believe that no god exists?"

[Ben Davis]

What spurious claim am I making lol?

Your spurious claim was "The vast majority of atheist rial at the notion that they believe anything" and that's just demonstrable nonsense with the deliberate purpose of misrepresenting atheists with a fallacious generalisation. And well you know it.

A spurious claim would include belief in no God. How do you support that belief? Please defend your position? ... are the questions that you invite declaring that position.

I declared no position; I called you out for making a fallacious declaration of 'atheists'' position. As your subsequent questions would derail this thread I'm going to leave them for the moment but I've explained the nature & boundaries of my anti-theism to you before, I seem to recall. Happy to do so again, probably not on this thread.

Atheists baulk at what they consider to be irrational beliefs, and without reason. Standards of evidence being the illogical get out clause commonly employed

Nonsense. For the rational, it's completely reasonable to react negatively to irrational beliefs. And there's nothing illogical about stating the criteria used to establish the credence/veracity of a claim: without clear & established definitions, a position may as well be meaningless. And well you know it.

You're playing games fr0d0.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What is an atheist? I was thinking more along the lines of "wrong".

[Rampant.A.I.]

To most people: someone who has no belief in divine entities.

To religious people on atheist forums: someone who has rejected the one, true God in favor of the religious belief there is no God because of anger at the one, true God. (sic)

---

What is an atheist? I was thinking more along the lines of "wrong".

Too bad you can't prove it.

[tor]

What is an atheist? I was thinking more along the lines of "wrong".

Sorry but you fail.