All atheists have these characteristics?

[Augustus]

BTW: what do the next few sentences of the entry on atheism say?

Here's the whole entry:

atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god.

Unless you're planning to give a rational justification of your position this time, I'm inclined to agree.

Then we are agreed

I take it from your response that you don't understand why I think there's inherent bigotry in your approach. Do you want me to explain it again?

Not really. It wasn't persuasive the previous 10 times.

Edit: gods are categorically different from ghosts. With gods, we have a whole host of things that are similar to gods but are definitively not gods (angels, djinn, spirits, etc.). If you need to manipulate the definition of "god" in a way that implies that a monotheist is a polytheist or that a polytheist is an atheist, then your definition doesn't reflect how the word "god" is actually used.

Seems lots of people manage to use it pretty easily. You are the only person I'm aware of that consistently has these problems

But it's largely irrelevant as the only person you have to satisfy regarding questions of subjective belief is yourself.

We don't get this weirdness with words like "ghost."

Showing your anglo-centric bigotry here

 

[Willamena]

Edit: gods are categorically different from ghosts. With gods, we have a whole host of things that are similar to gods but are definitively not gods (angels, djinn, spirits, etc.). If you need to manipulate the definition of "god" in a way that implies that a monotheist is a polytheist or that a polytheist is an atheist, then your definition doesn't reflect how the word "god" is actually used. We don't get this weirdness with words like "ghost."

The categorical "gods" is no different from the "categorical difference." If one can deny any similarity between the two--any at all--then one has denied all similarities and affirmed a new category: ghosts and gods are different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems lots of people manage to use it pretty easily. You are the only person I'm aware of that consistently has these problems

If it's so easy, then I'm sure you can give a definition for the word "god" that reflects normal usage. I wait with bated breath.

But it's largely irrelevant as the only person you have to satisfy regarding questions of subjective belief is yourself.

Though you'll find that my position on these questions is the same as many other people:

- if I became convinced that the divine messenger Hermes existed, would I consider myself a believer in a god? Yes.

- if I became convinced that the divine messenger Gabriel existed, would I consider myself a believer in a god? No.

- is there a relevant difference between Hermes and Gabriel that would explain why one is a god and the other isn't? No, not as far as I can tell.

I think you'll find that many people would answer these questions in a similar way.

 

[Augustus]

If it's so easy, then I'm sure you can give a definition for the word "god" that reflects normal usage. I wait with bated breath.

In what way would my definition be relevant to the issue of whether lots of people manage to use the term pretty easily?

Do you consider that the word god is problematic for almost everyone? Outside of the internet, I can't remember a single time that it has caused even the slightest problem in conversation.

Would you not agree that most people do indeed manage to convey meaning with the term?

- is there a relevant difference between Hermes and Gabriel that would explain why one is a god and the other isn't?

Yes, context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what way would my definition be relevant to the issue of whether lots of people manage to use the term pretty easily?

If you know what the term means, and it means something straightforward, you should be able to say what it means.

Do you consider that the word god is problematic for almost everyone? Outside of the internet, I can't remember a single time that it has caused even the slightest problem in conversation.

The only time the issue comes up is in dealing with people who insist that atheism is the rejection of gods, but these people only make themselves known on internet discussion forums.

In the real world, I only run into people who either:
- say that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, or
- say that atheism is the rejection of God - their God - and don't give any regard to all the theistic belief systems that aren't their particular brand of monotheism.

Would you not agree that most people do indeed manage to convey meaning with the term?

Not in a general sense, no. Usually, we have to narrow the discussion to a particular belief system before the term becomes meaningful.

Yes, context.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[Willamena]

The only time the issue comes up is in dealing with people who insist that atheism is the rejection of gods, but these people only make themselves known on internet discussion forums.

That's absurd, though.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Augustus - Bottom line: if you're going to insist on a definition of atheism as "rejection of the existence of gods" and you actually use the term to describe real-life people, then you're implying that not only is it humanly possible to reject all gods, but also that every single person you describe as an atheist has done it.

... which means that:

- the category "gods" can be defined in such a way that a person can reject all of it.

- every god is coherently defined enough - and coherently expressed enough - for someone to say "that claim is false" (as opposed to, for instance, "I can't tell exactly what is being claimed").

- either every god is falsifiable, or every atheist is necessarily irrational.

I can understand why a theist would push for that last implication, but not someone who claims to be an atheist.

... but you're still stuck on that first implication, either unwilling or unable to define "god" in a way that someone could actually reject it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's absurd, though.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Read the quote more carefully.

 

[Willamena]

Read the quote more carefully.

I'll do one better, I'll restore the beginning of the quote.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

[Willamena]

@Augustus - Bottom line: if you're going to insist on a definition of atheism as "rejection of the existence of gods" and you actually use the term to describe real-life people, then you're implying that not only is it humanly possible to reject all gods, but also that every single person you describe as an atheist has done it.

... which means that:

- the category "gods" can be defined in such a way that a person can reject all of it.

- every god is coherently defined enough - and coherently expressed enough - for someone to say "that claim is false" (as opposed to, for instance, "I can't tell exactly what is being claimed").

- either every god is falsifiable, or every atheist is necessarily irrational.

I can understand why a theist would push for that last implication, but not someone who claims to be an atheist.

... but you're still stuck on that first implication, either unwilling or unable to define "god" in a way that someone could actually reject it.

If one cannot eat apples, one does not need an intimate familiarity with every single apple or type of apple in the category of apples to refrain from eating apples.

Dismissing gods is as simple.

Edit: To answer the question addressed to Augustus, since "god" to an atheist is nothing more than a word, defining the category is nothing more than, "anything that gets to be called a 'god'."

 

[Apologes]

Atheism is simply not accepting the truth of a proposition "God exists". An atheist can be a supernaturalist, a moral realist or anything else that doesn't require the truth of this proposition.

 

[Pudding]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I particularly like It-Aint-Necessarily-So's explanation. Also thanks for help explaining the difference between option 1 and 2, Leibowde84.

 

[Pudding]

Do you think that you can extend the deadline for the poll (Mar 14, 2026 at 3:32 PM) a bit? I'm thinking.

No, that is the maximum range.

Please can you add a "None of the above" option.

10 is the maximum range and the poll cannot be edited once there are votes in it.

 

[Nakosis]

All atheists have the characteristics as described in the poll?

I think a characteristic all atheist might share is a refusal to accept any belief which which uses the supernatural as part of its explanation for the universe.