Question For Atheists

[dybmh]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

 

[Vinayaka]

Not by the pure definition, but one can be atheist to a certain version of God, while being theist to other versions. Problem seems to be the false assumption that God is God, and there is only one version.

 

[Altfish]

I would say that if you believe in one or more gods you cannot be an atheist.

 

[Nimos]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

I don't think that is possible or at least it would sort of ruin or cause a lot of confusion about the meaning of atheism.

 

[Audie]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

That is a pretty silly question.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

Sure, if the belief does not include whatever would make such an entity a god or deity by the expectations of that specific person.

I don't doubt that Haile Selassie existed, for instance. Nor Elvis Presley or Francis Edgar Williams.

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

What would you consider existence? Atheists are aware of many deities, including many that are explicitly fictional. We do not need to be ignorant.

 

[icehorse]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

Are you maybe thinking of deism? E.g., "Could an atheist be a Deist?"

 

[dybmh]

That is a pretty silly question.

I know, Luis and I are going back and forth in another thread about whether or not Buddha Gautama is an Atheist.

And he seems to be in denial about what it means to be an Atheist. It is silly.

I brought a quote from an respected RF'er who is an Aethist. That was ignored. I brought a definition from wikipedia. That was ignored.

So at this point I am checking my own understanding and reading comprehension.

Audie, please... I know it sounds silly. Kinda like your little brother asking if the sky is blue. Please humor me.

?? If I believe in the existence of 1 or more gods, I am **not** an Atheist, right?

 

[ChristineM]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

Right

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theist : a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[dybmh]

Right

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theist : a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Whew!

I was starting to feel like I was living in bizzarro world. So...

if a person says, "denying that god(s) exists is the wrong path? The wrong path leads to hell." Is it possible for that person to be labeled an Atheist?

 

[ChristineM]

Whew!

I was starting to feel like I was living in bizzarro world. So...

if a person says, "denying that god(s) exists is the wrong path? The wrong path leads to hell." Is it possible for that person to be labeled an Atheist?

No.

 

[dybmh]

Sure, if the belief does not include whatever would make such an entity a god or deity by the expectations of that specific person.

I don't doubt that Haile Selassie existed, for instance. Nor Elvis Presley or Francis Edgar Williams.



What would you consider existence? Atheists are aware of many deities, including many that are explicitly fictional. We do not need to be ignorant.

Help me understand. Please. What is your definition of a deity. A fictional deity is not a real deity. A fantasy world is not a real world. right?

 

[dybmh]

Are you maybe thinking of deism? E.g., "Could an atheist be a Deist?"

No. I mean literally... and I know it seems completely obvious.

If someone says, "denying belief in god(s) is the wrong path. the wrong path leads to hell." Can that person be accurately described as an Atheist?

 

[LuisDantas]

I know, Luis and I are going back and forth in another thread about whether or not Buddha Gautama is an Atheist.

Nope, you are.

And he seems to be in denial about what it means to be an Atheist. It is silly.

I brought a quote from an respected RF'er who is an Aethist. That was ignored. I brought a definition from wikipedia. That was ignored.

So at this point I am checking my own understanding and reading comprehension.

Audie, please... I know it sounds silly. Kinda like your little brother asking if the sky is blue. Please humor me.

?? If I believe in the existence of 1 or more gods, I am **not** an Atheist, right?

Atheism is not something to be allowed by some external authority. That would be very silly indeed.

People know whether they have any form of god-concept, whether they believe in its validity, and to which extent.

As it turns out, deities are almost supremely arbitrary concepts, perhaps ironically.

Anyone who considers himself an atheist is one, because all it takes to be an atheist is not seeing a reason to take deities seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

Help me understand. Please. What is your definition of a deity. A fictional deity is not a real deity. A fantasy world is not a real world. right?

I just don't know what you are imagining. It is is all really so very simple.

 

[dybmh]

Not by the pure definition, but one can be atheist to a certain version of God, while being theist to other versions. Problem seems to be the false assumption that God is God, and there is only one version.

That's not the problem.. I'm sorry.

The problem is, in another thread, Luis criticized another member for saying Buddha was not an Atheist. And he and I cannot agree on the definition of Atheist.

Or at least who is **not** an Atheist.

 

[dybmh]

@LuisDantas
this is a Q&A discussion...

It seemed like Audie needed to know the context for why i would ask a silly question. it probably sounds silly, because the answer is obvious to virtually anyone.

 

[LuisDantas]

@dybmh , there is only so much depth to be had in such a matter.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not the problem.. I'm sorry.

The problem is, in another thread, Luis criticized another member for saying Buddha was not an Atheist. And he and I cannot agree on the definition of Atheist.

Or at least who is **not** an Atheist.

People can think whatever. I just don't see why anyone should take anyone else's opinions on such highly arbitrary matters seriously unless one feels like it.

As for Buddha "not being an atheist", well, that is its own brand of silly, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[dybmh]

I just don't know what you are imagining. It is is all really so very simple.

I am trying to understand how you define Atheism. And I'm trying to find out if that is a mainstream commonly held definition, or if it's a fringe, uncommonly held definition.

Can a person who discourages non-belief in god(s) as the wrong path be an Atheist?