Do you consider someone an Atheist when:

They are an Anti-Theist (Against theism in general)

or

They simply lack faith in any kind of belief that is unfounded by evidence.


I describe myself as an Atheist because I am against the idea of organized religion. However that may just be me. Any thoughts?

This is a tricky thing, language is. Communication by language is dependent on the consistent occurrance that if someone says a word, everyone understands it to mean something that is unique and that the identifier-meaning relationship is to last at least a few decades.

A means "without" in ancient Greek.
Theist means "advocate for god".

Atheist means believing there is no god.

Religion means organized activities for a definite god.

Irreligious means nothing. It's not a word. (Just saying.)

Sacreligious means an act or uttering of disrespect for religion and its tenets. It's dissing god, but still accepts its existence.


If you want to make no claim over your believing in god or not, but you want to make a claim that religions ought to be disbanded, then I'd say use "anti-religious".

Atheist means faith that there is no god;
Anti-religiousness allows for the existence of (a) god(s), but is against organized worship and rituals.

I trust you'll know where to go from here.

Yes that helps quite a bit.

I acknowledge that they have a belief with our without evidence, but I don't acknowledge what they believe in.

I sometimes get frustrated with the word faith; When you said Atheist means faith that they're is no god. I don't really view it that way. Its more like ... there's no solid factual evidence for a gods exhistance ... so instead of believing in something without evidence I choose to dis-believe it, or put it on hold as a possible hypothesis, and kind of X it off the list of rational real-world choices. It isn't a real option to be considered in ones search for spirituality as there is no hard evidence for it. My opinion of course. Interestingly enough this kind of basic rational thinking is lost to the majority of people I meet.

One thing I liked about your post is when you said how tricky language is. Isn't it funny how you can run circles around someone with definentions and speech, when the points are still the same? No matter how you spin it, still no evidence. Sam Harris has this happen to him all the time in the debates I've seen him in.

DMW, welcome to mingle2!


Both of the ideas you give qualify as 'atheism'. Some people make the distinction with the labels 'weak atheism' (lack of belief in a deity) from'strong atheism' (presence of disbelief in a deity) .

I really enjoyed the discussion on the topic in this thread:

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/250700

Particularly Bushido's comments within the first few pages.

Thanks for the welcome! I'm really enjoying these forums.

And i really enjoyed that thread. I'm still reading it. It's interesting and funny as well.

Strong and weak atheism. Divided we fall. haha. I think that makes sense to me ... but by the definition of weak atheism then wouldn't I be able to have both? Or i guess that's what makes it strong atheism ... you already lack the belief ... now you have the presence of disbelief to add on top of that. Thinking out loud. But I like it!

i stay away from definitions of atheism and theism as best i can. being agnostic, nothing is knowable to me, not the least of which is the definition of atheism. besides, if you define atheism as a belief that there is no god, then neither the atheist nor the theist can ever prove himself right and the other wrong so i fail to see the point. but what do i know? i'm agnostic.

What we see from our experience is that we exhist. We can't see an all powerful being nor any invisible variable interacting with us on a daily basis. So as far as we know he doesn't exhist.

We can't see this all powerful being so he could exhist beyond our knowledge. We have no evidence he does not exhist besides the above paragraph. Possibly, without interaction, he could exhist.

So you can believe that he does exhist without any evidence that points to that conclusion (faith) or you can believe based on the evidence that we can't see him nor any of his interactions that he does not exhist.

Based on that you can decide wether to cross this god thing off of your list of reasonable oppertunities or keep him on there. Or do both.

Keeping an open mind is always best. I prefer to follow my nose on this topic, and that leads me to the first paragraph of my post. I go a step further by saying I trust the evidence my eyes/senses present me.

P.S. I'm not very good at the philosophy thing ... haven't taken any classes yet

Don't worry about that, kid... Socrates sucked at it, too, if you listened to him.

You don't have to go to school to become an expert. You just open your own school of thought. It helps you to save on tuition fees and books.

Yes, I agree. All strong atheists are also weak atheists. wikipedia has a nice venn diagram showing the inclusion.

Yeah, seriously! I'm not really convinced that 'studying philosophy in school' makes many students better thinkers. For some, sure! For others, they just stuff their heads full of fallacious arguments and other 'facts'.

you left out one other option. you can think that both of the above are delusional for believing either way. that neither the faithful nor the atheist can prove his believe to be true and the opposing belief false. most refer to such folks as agnostic. we think that nothing can be known absolutely unless we experience it.

i'm quite proud that my philosophical outlook has not been influenced by being "educated" in the world's philosophies. my "ignorance" of the ancient and modern philosophers has left me with a blank canvas for my own philosophical artistry.

So in other words you have disbelief in disbelief and belief alike; Until someone proves either side. Sitting on the fence isn't so bad in this situation. I think being an agnostic has it's merits.

But if we're defining atheism as someone who doesn't believe in god(s) wouldn't you fall under that heading as well. If you are reserveing judgement due to a lack of evidence either way ... you still have an abscence of faith. Wouldn't that be weak atheism as well as agnosticism?

That's what I try to keep my mind as open as possible. Many professors come into the classroom with their own idea of 'the way it is' and try and teach you their way. I always look at it from their point of view and then use it in my own perspective on things ... but studying the greats in philosophy can never hurt anyone!

no, not in other words. i never used the word disbelief. nor did i suggest that someone might prove either side. indeed i said that neither side can ever prove his side right or the other wrong so i'd never say "until someone proves either side". i'll ask that you read my words as my words and not "in other words". i'll clarify a statement if you wish but please don't clarify for me.



and here's precisely why i said what i just said. you may consider me to be on the fence. i certainly do not. to be on the fence of an argument i would have to have joined the arguement and be waiting for one side to convince me. that hasn't happend. i argue no point because there is no point that can be concluded.



this is why i don't care for the definitions that fly around this issue. is atheism a lack of belief that god exists or is atheism a BELIEF that god DOES NOT exist. everybody who is anything other than a theist lacks a belief in god. so that would mean that if you believe in god you are a theist, if you do not believe in god you are an atheist. but i define a theist as one who believes it to be a fact that there is a god, a strong atheist as one who believes it to be a fact that there is no god, and a weak atheist as one who believes neither to be fact and that there is not enough evidence to prove either the existence or nonexistence of god. but a weak atheists still holds to the possibility that evidence might some day be offered that can prove the existence of god. until then, he'll not believe in god.

the agnostic on the other hand thinks that neither the theist nor the atheist, strong, weak, whatever, can ever prove one side right. that there will never be evidence that can be tested either way. no agnosticism is not weak atheism because a weak atheist considers it possible that god can someday be known to exist or known never to have existed. both are forever unknowable to the agnostic.

Well, actually, I am limping because of the "Republic" and I have this huge, stabbing pain in my left kidney because I ran into the writings of a gang of logical positivists.

Nietzsche flattend my sex drive.

An atheist is a medieval criminal or a 21st century realist.



No! Do not allow this suppression of your will!