What's an Atheist? Catch-All

Pages

It seems this topic comes up again and again: what's the difference between an Atheist and a Theist? Are there different flavors of Atheism? When did Agnostics go from the poster children to the red-headed stepchildren of this debate?

So why not have an 'overflow tank' for when a specific discussion threatens to be overwhelmed by this more general one to keep other threads lean'n'mean and on the rails?

Enjoy!

About 5'11" 230 pounds, dark brown hair and beard, graying at the edges. I like to cook, kiss my girlfriend, and go to the movies.

It's always seemed to me that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, or a god, and a theist is one who does. However, it's recently been brought to my attention that there may be other definitions. I'll be interested to hear others.

I'm going to guess that this thread is going to go around and around and become frustrating very quickly, and possibly get locked. Which would be a shame because it seems to me the best use for this thread would be a place to tally the number of times this question comes up in other threads. Every time someone says "Well, then define atheism!" we put a link to the thread in here. Then we can look back at this thread in years to come and laugh.

An atheist is one who believes in one less god than Christians do.

Yay! Robear!

The question was, do Americans consider a non-god-worshipping Buddhist an atheist? There are Buddhists who do not consider Buddha a god, right? Are they still atheists, or are they theists by other criteria?

LarryC wrote:

Yay! Robear!

The question was, do Americans consider a non-god-worshipping Buddhist an atheist? There are Buddhists who do not consider Buddha a god, right? Are they still atheists, or are they theists by other criteria?

They are Atheists by definition. However, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians would see them as idol worshipping pagan theists.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Yay! Robear!

The question was, do Americans consider a non-god-worshipping Buddhist an atheist? There are Buddhists who do not consider Buddha a god, right? Are they still atheists, or are they theists by other criteria?

They are Atheists by definition. However, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians would see them as idol worshipping pagan theists.

This. In America, not believing in the God of the Bible = Atheist.

The worse term I've heard is defining a Christian apostate as "in rebellion" and therefore a de facto Satanist. This was from a close family member.

LarryC wrote:

Yay! Robear!

The question was, do Americans consider a non-god-worshipping Buddhist an atheist? There are Buddhists who do not consider Buddha a god, right? Are they still atheists, or are they theists by other criteria?

It's my understanding that even if Buddhists don't *worship* a god, they still believe in diverse spirits, gods (small g), demons, and other supernatural entities that can effect their current or afterlife. This would seem to preclude them from atheist status.

Tanglebones wrote:

This would seem to preclude them from atheist status.

*edit* missed your small g gods, my mistake. On the other stuff though:

The terminology deals with gods and gods alone. If you believe in the loch ness monster, reincarnation, alien probing, telekinesis...etc and are able to do so without believing in any deity then you'd still be an atheist.

So a Buddhist that simply believed in reincarnation, the way to enlightenment, and other such things, but not in gods, he would be an atheist?

LarryC wrote:

So a Buddhist that simply believed in reincarnation, the way to enlightenment, and other such things, but not in gods, he would be an atheist?

They are Atheists by definition, because the term Atheist is the non-belief in a deity. However, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians would define them as idol worshipping pagan theists.

How about non-Buddhist atheists? Would they consider him an atheist as well?

LarryC wrote:

How about non-Buddhist atheists? Would they consider him an atheist as well?

[sort of kidding, sort of not]No, they worship Satan.[/sort of kidding, sort of not]

Malor:

I am starting to understand how true that is.

Few Americans give it that much thought. Either you're with 'em, or agin 'em.

This is a country where, no joke, wearing a FreeBSD daemon shirt can get you a Serious Talking To by rough types in a diner. "We don't cotton to your type in these parts."

Malor wrote:

Few Americans give it that much thought. Either you're with 'em, or agin 'em.

This is a country where, no joke, wearing a FreeBSD daemon shirt can get you a Serious Talking To by rough types in a diner. "We don't cotton to your type in these parts."

This. Corners of the Internet like GWJ where people try and debate fairly and in a friendly manner are rare. So I don't really think atheists get to spend much time in America sorting this stuff out. Too busy defending themselves. If it were me, I would say an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a supernatural force controlling the universe.

In other words, atheists are often rational and science-based, but not always. I think we just mostly agree that we're on our own. I think someone who believes in ghosts and reincarnation is believing in mystical things akin to Unicorns. But as long as they're not worshipping these things I feel like their atheism cred is solid.

It might be nice if more accurate and precise terms like "irreligious" and "anti-religion" were in common use. Although that (like your definition of atheism above) opens the whole can of worms about what exactly is a religion, what exactly is supernatural? Certain philosophical ideals could be considered supernatural, because they have no direct foundation in the observed universe. Heck, certain mathematical structures could be considered likewise.

I think that, in general, most people would interpret "atheist" as "irreligious", with some tendency to assume "anti-religion" if they've been around a lot of extra-pushy anti-religion sorts who call themselves atheists.

But, of course, that's imprecise. You can believe in the supernatural without believing in any gods. You can be religious without believing in the supernatural. etc. etc.

(P.S. I think that it's possible to make a reasonable argument that the "little-g gods" in Buddhism don't count... If I recall correctly, deities exist no more than any other being exists—but they're in a state where it is unlikely they will ever discern their delusion. Rather sad, really—the idea of gods that are doomed to eternal suffering purely because they cannot see that they aren't actually all that important.)

And that raises another division, actually: The biggest thing that makes gods distinct in this scenario from other sorts of beings is that they are capable of and willing to perform boons for their worshippers. So you can make a distinction between someone who believes in supernatural beings and performs acts to ask for their aid (and expects that aid), someone who believes in supernatural beings and believes that are able and willing to provide aid but does not ask for it, someone who believes in supernatural beings and believes they are unable or unwilling to provide aid (and does or does not ask for it), etc.

Even if you bound religion by requiring it to be about the supernatural, there's a *lot* of territory there. And once you remove that bound (allowing for the concept of "religions" that are more or less competing schools of philosophy that differ on metaphysical questions) it's even messier.

The definition as I know it is, an atheist is a person who believes there is no god(s). An agnostic is someone who has no opinion either way.

Hypatian:

I think it would be even nicer if there weren't any labels at all whatsoever, and everyone just asked you your beliefs in friendly dialogue without assigning you all kinds of assumptions and baggage. But of course, that would be impossible.

The little g-gods in Buddhism and similar beliefs in some kinds of Confucianism aren't exactly worshiped, right? If so, then how are they all that different from a pagan animistic belief system where anything and everything has a spirit (including man) and we all live in an inherently supernatural world? The man doesn't worship anything. He just trades for favors, in exactly the way you would carry on a mundane trade. He leaves you meat, you leave his camp alone (or favor his hunting spear or something).

In that nothing is a god (or everything is a god) and the man does not worship anything or anyone, is this an atheist?

DSGamer wrote:

In other words, atheists are often rational and science-based, but not always. I think we just mostly agree that we're on our own. I think someone who believes in ghosts and reincarnation is believing in mystical things akin to Unicorns. But as long as they're not worshipping these things I feel like their atheism cred is solid.

I want to add aliens into that list. I know a lot of atheists that are convinced that we are not alone in the universe. Maybe one day this will be proven, but until then, it is no more or less rational then believing in god (maybe god is an alien and most atheists and theists are the same).

LarryC wrote:

So a Buddhist that simply believed in reincarnation, the way to enlightenment, and other such things, but not in gods, he would be an atheist?

Having mulled this over more, I would say yes.

Theism/Atheism are simply put, polar positions on the topic is the existence of deities. Christians, Muslims, Jews, certain Buddhists and Hindus, Wiccans, Shintoists (spelling?), etc: these are all examples of theists. Some monotheists, some polytheists.

Atheists, in the simplest terms, do not believe in the existence of any deities.

Theists like to couch this in terms that make atheism a belief system. This is a false equivalency; it's not necessarily a belief system, but often simply the lack of a deity-centric belief system.

I cannot speak for other atheists, but my position is strictly an evidentiary one: there is no convincing evidence of the existence of any deities. That does not mean they do not exist. It just means that if they do, there are no repeatable experiments or empirical data to provide sufficient evidence to convince me.

kazar wrote:

The definition as I know it is, an atheist is a person who believes there is no god(s). An agnostic is someone who has no opinion either way.

This may or may not be the case for the agnostic. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, more specifically;

weak agnosticism: The belief that we do not currently know whether or not at least one god exist.
strong agnosticism: The belief that it is fundamentally impossible to know whether or not at least one god exist.

Both of which can be theist, atheist, or undecided when it comes to their belief (despite the lack of knowledge) about whether at least one god exist.

It complicates matters because many people do use it to mean "I am undecided or I have not yet made up my mind about whether or not I believe in any god" rather than the more proper epistemological statement that is intended.

Farscry wrote:
LarryC wrote:

So a Buddhist that simply believed in reincarnation, the way to enlightenment, and other such things, but not in gods, he would be an atheist?

Having mulled this over more, I would say yes.

Theism/Atheism are simply put, polar positions on the topic is the existence of deities. Christians, Muslims, Jews, certain Buddhists and Hindus, Wiccans, Shintoists (spelling?), etc: these are all examples of theists. Some monotheists, some polytheists.

Atheists, in the simplest terms, do not believe in the existence of any deities.

Theists like to couch this in terms that make atheism a belief system. This is a false equivalency; it's not necessarily a belief system, but often simply the lack of a deity-centric belief system.

I cannot speak for other atheists, but my position is strictly an evidentiary one: there is no convincing evidence of the existence of any deities. That does not mean they do not exist. It just means that if they do, there are no repeatable experiments or empirical data to provide sufficient evidence to convince me.

If you are just saying that the evidence doesn't stack up but you don't discount the possibility (which is the foundation of science) then would you not be an agnostic and not an atheist? If not, I would argue that atheists = agnostics, so what name do we give to people who believe there is no god(s)?

kazar wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I cannot speak for other atheists, but my position is strictly an evidentiary one: there is no convincing evidence of the existence of any deities. That does not mean they do not exist. It just means that if they do, there are no repeatable experiments or empirical data to provide sufficient evidence to convince me.

If you are just saying that the evidence doesn't stack up but you don't discount the possibility (which is the foundation of science) then would you not be an agnostic and not an atheist? If not, I would argue that atheists = agnostics, so what name do we give to people who believe there is no god(s)?

An agnostic takes no position and/or views that the existence (or not) of deities is inherently unknowable. That essentially it is all but impossible to make the determination.

I take the scientific position that, currently, there is insufficient evidence or proof that any gods exist. Hence there is no reason for me to believe in one. However, were we to be able to determine the existence of a god, I would willingly acknowledge their existence.

There are varying degrees of atheists. On that scale, I am a weak explicit atheist: I specifically do not believe in the existence of a deity, but do not specifically assert that the existence of a deity is impossible.

Yeah, the problem is that (myself included until recently) most people are unaware of the very specific delineations between what qualifies as agnosticism versus atheism.

I had the same thought, too. Isn't that an agnostic?

FWIW, I have a similar proof-position. There is no material going either way, so the question remains open. I believe in God because I choose to, but on the question of knowledge, I'm still agnostic, even though I am not an atheist.

EDIT: question already clarified above

Farscry:

Follow up question:

What if you were a kind of animist who believed that the world itself was spiritual in nature, and so everything had a spirit in the same way that everything has color and sight and sound. So in that way, the sun has a spirit in the same way that the air, the plants, the rock, and yourself - all spirits in a spirit world.

This is not that far away from early Aristotelian natural philosophy, actually, except that Aristotle did not assign agency to his elements.

So, the entire world is composed of "gods" (you yourself are a god), but you worship none of them. This is actually also somewhat similar to Shinto Buddhiism, which you referred to. So on the basis of that, theist?

Farscry wrote:
kazar wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I cannot speak for other atheists, but my position is strictly an evidentiary one: there is no convincing evidence of the existence of any deities. That does not mean they do not exist. It just means that if they do, there are no repeatable experiments or empirical data to provide sufficient evidence to convince me.

If you are just saying that the evidence doesn't stack up but you don't discount the possibility (which is the foundation of science) then would you not be an agnostic and not an atheist? If not, I would argue that atheists = agnostics, so what name do we give to people who believe there is no god(s)?

An agnostic takes no position and/or views that the existence (or not) of deities is inherently unknowable. That essentially it is all but impossible to make the determination.

I take the scientific position that, currently, there is insufficient evidence or proof that any gods exist. Hence there is no reason for me to believe in one. However, were we to be able to determine the existence of a god, I would willingly acknowledge their existence.

There are varying degrees of atheists. On that scale, I am a weak explicit atheist: I specifically do not believe in the existence of a deity, but do not specifically assert that the existence of a deity is impossible.

That's where I slot in. Which is why I call myself agnostic. I'm fairly certain there are no higher powers, but if one shows up I'm not going to say "you're not real".

It sounds like based on what krev82 said, everyone is pretty much an agnostic of some kind (everyone doubts). It is just a question of whether you sit on the atheist side or the theist side of the fence.

Edit: I have an interview to go to now so I have to bow out of the conversation for a bit.

That's where I slot in. Which is why I call myself agnostic. I'm fairly certain there are no higher powers, but if one shows up I'm not going to say "you're not real"

You tell him "You are clearly an incredibly powerful being, but I have no way of knowing if you are (a) God."

Larry, I don't think that animist-style spirits qualify *unless* they are deemed to have *supernatural* powers over their domain, small though it may be. The question of whether there is a "spirit" in each of us is independent of the question of whether there are supernatural powers which influence the world.

So someone who believes that everything has a spirit, a consciousness of some sort, a place in the world, could still be an atheist. If they also believed that those spirits were created by an All-Father figure of supernatural power, then he'd be a theist. But the two are not necessarily congruent beliefs.

Pages