All atheists are not theists. All atheists don't believe gods exist. All people who identify as atheists are not theists and don't believe gods exist. Based on that guess what the correct definition of atheism that covers every single atheist is?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is not a default position
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well of course not - why are you saying that?
There is no correct definition.
We seem to be going about in a circle.
Dictionaries attempt to provide such uses, but thanks to the internet, the interdisciplinary nature of modern academia, movements towards open source scholarship, etc., it is possible to bypass the dictionaries altogether by examining the sources used by those who create dictionaries. That is, one can (for free) examine modern English language usage (not just English and American, either) by free access to balanced corpora (in particular, those maintained by Davies and hosted at BYU). Some simple searches through some of these corpora (in particular, COCA and the BNC) reveal that determining what definition most "atheists" use is non-trivial even if we (incorrectly) assume that words have dictionary-like meanings rather than that lexical meaning is more "encyclopedic".
It is also true of every deist and many other belief systems which posit gods or similar religious beliefs. A property which holds true of every exemplar/instantiation of some word/concept doesn't necessarily define it. All pears are fruit, but not every fruit is a pear.
...and no infant can tell me this.
If I don't believe that X exists, it is not the same as "the absence of belief in" X. If I ask you whether or not you believe X is true or believe in X, and you have no idea what I mean by it (perhaps it is a word in a language you don't know or simply one you haven't come across before), your belief with respect to the truth or existence of X is absent. If, however, you believe X is false/doesn't exist, then you have a belief about X.
ROTFL. You are hilarious!
All atheists are not theists. All atheists don't believe gods exist. And yet people manage to avoid understanding that since all atheists are not theists and don't believe gods exist the definition of an atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I believe that my pantheist friends God exists, but am an atheist. His God is the universe by the way. My Somali friend has a God in his house, near the back door - I believe it exists and is a God as he defines 'God'. But am still an atheist.7ROTFL. You are hilarious!
I have slept way out in the desert in the arms of the aboriginal God, as they define 'God' - but am still an atheist.
All humans are mammals. All mammals are not lizards. Therefore...?ROTFL. You are hilarious!
Let us grant that all atheists are not theists. Neither are deists, rocks, polytheists, Buddhists, agnostics, etc. Saying that a property applies to all atheists no more characterizes all atheists than does the fact that all humans are mammals characterize humans. We are quite different from mice, bats, whales, etc., and there exists entire sets of finer classifications (such as our species and subspecies, homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, respectively, or "primates") which testify to the importance of properties defining humans other than that they are mammals and the fundamental irrelevancy of a property universal to all instances/exemplars of a word/concept when that property is shared by so many other things.
In this case, your logic can be "paraphrased/rephrased" as follows: "All rocks are not theists. All rocks don't believe gods exist". Ergo...? (same with "all atheists are human", a property that, I would hope, you believe all atheists share but one which is true of all theists). Congratulations, you've found a property that atheists and rocks share. So what? Rocks aren't atheists.
Perhaps because this definition implies rocks are atheists, fails to distinguish between theism and other beliefs about gods, and isn't equivalent with the claim that atheists lack a belief about god or that atheists are those for whom a belief in god is absent ("doesn't believe god exists" can mean "believes god doesn't exist", as every person who believes god doesn't exists "doesn't believe god exists"). Rocks aren't atheists, and even if "all atheists are X" doesn't imply anything significant about atheists. A defining characteristic distinguishes the defined group/set/class/etc., from others in general, not from one other specifically.
We were discussing the definition of atheism not the definition of "god". You could start a new thread...
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well atheism is not the rejection of all conceptions of God. That is the point.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I don't think the implication about rocks is an issue, given that it is reasonable to assume when discussing atheism/theism that we are talking about things people think. As opposed to exploring the philosophical opinions of inanimate objects.
Last edited:
This seems awfully convoluted.
I'd just say all atheists lack a belief in God.
There are subsets of course, such as those who reject the idea of god or those who positively assert that no God exists, but these are still part of the set of things that lack a belief in God.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I still don't see why just asking whoever you are talking to to clarify their position isn't the best option. As opposed to trying to enforce a specific definition and demanding people agree to it.
If you want to know exactly what a person means when they identify as atheist - ask them.
Why is this so contested?
If you want to know exactly what a person means when they identify as atheist - ask them.
Why is this so contested?
I don't respond to Legion's posts because in my opinion by bringing up rocks in a discussion about theism/atheism he has disqualified himself from being taken seriously. No offense.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
LOL I'm with you there mate.
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. That people have different conceptions of what a god is is beside the point. The definition of atheism is not required to also contain a definition of "god".
Curious George
Veteran Member
I don't think the question about implicit atheism is an issue, given when we are discussing theism and what you affectionately call a response to theism we are discussing a persons belief or response to that belief. As opposed to exploring the philosophical opinions of those without the capacity for belief or a response to a belief.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No offence mate, but if atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, how can the definition of God being applied be anything other than critical, rather than irrelevant?
Without a definition of God atheism has no meaning whatsoever.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure. Agreed. The term 'implicit atheist' covers those people adequately anyway.
Nobody contests this. When a person tells you he's an atheist you know this person is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. Please feel free to ask him to clarify and explain in more detail.
...I know she or he isn't an infant.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Then you shouldn't mind taking the next step and agreeing that implicit atheism is just as irrelevant as opining about the "philosophical opinions of inanimate objects." Correct?