Don't marry an Atheist.

[Chili]

If people are afraid of being accurately described, I'm okay with that. I've stated that numerous times. I've even conceded that his definition is correct, but not complete. So, I've not made the claim that no one is right but me. If someone wants to claim I'm wrong or lying, after I've demonstrated the accuracy of my claim, I'm going to challenge them. If they can't provide evidence, or only provide evidence that supports me, I'm going to call them out on it.

I'll also challenge people when they assert things that I don't agree with because I might be wrong. They might have evidence to support their claim that I'm unaware of. Without challenging them, I may never know what I am wrong on and, as I've stated before, I want to believe a many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. That's why I don't pretend that a label doesn't apply to me just because I'm afraid of being associated with others in that group. Nor do I pretend that a small subset of that group represents the whole.

Why does it have to be "afraid"? I am not afraid of being labeled an atheist, I just do not agree that it correctly describes my position. There is no fear involved.

This is the same reason I do not refer to myself as Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, etc.. I agree with some parts of each, but none accurately describe my political opinions as a whole. It's like saying that if you aren't liberal, then you are conservative. There is a whole lot of grey area in between there.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Demonstrate this.

because English,dolt.

[Sean88gt]

If atheists can't convince each other of what they don't believe, how can they sway others?

[Baron Von Crowder]

If atheists can't convince each other of what they don't believe, how can they sway others?

I think they leave that up to the believers.

[Maddhattter]

I can see both sides to this argument (separating out the agnostic piece). The hang up that I have (which I assume is the same as jluv) is that the definition of atheist (at least the one used here) is that one actively believes there is no god.

You're the only one here who provided a definition that actively stated that an atheist believes there is no god. That's why I asked why we should accept that definition over another.

The problem is that I do not agree that a lack of belief necessarily means the same as a belief in the opposite.

I've not, nor have I seen anyone else claim that this is the case.

To me, non-believer is more appropriate than atheist. I don't necessarily believe in a god or gods, but I also don't necessarily believe that there is no god or gods. I lack a belief in either.

Then you do not believe in a god/s. Which fits the definition of atheist that I and jluv provided. This is why I brought up the squares are rectangles analogy. Atheism is the rectangle, and those who actively believe there is not god/s are squares. They're both rectangles, so the definition you've provided is, in fact, correct. It's just not accurate because it leaves out a whole subset of atheists.

There are, logically, only two options. You either believe, or your don't. I agree that a different label could be provided for those that actively believe there is no god but they would still be atheists on top of that additional label.

This is not about proving a thesis or scientific fact, this is about trying to describe one's position on god, as accurately ans succinctly as possible. It is not an either or.

I agree. It's not either/or, it's both.

[Maddhattter]

because English,dolt.

That does not demonstrate your statement. The intangible is demonstrated all the time.

Like radiation. You can't touch it, but it can be demonstrated. Evolution is intangible. You can't touch it, it is immaterial, and it is still demonstrated.

[Maddhattter]

Why does it have to be "afraid"? I am not afraid of being labeled an atheist, I just do not agree that it correctly describes my position. There is no fear involved.

I didn't say that everyone was afraid of being labeled as atheist. Of course, it doesn't have to. However, when one's position is that they don't want to be labeled as an atheist because of what other atheists do, that is fear.

This is the same reason I do not refer to myself as Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, etc.. I agree with some parts of each, but none accurately describe my political opinions as a whole. It's like saying that if you aren't liberal, then you are conservative. There is a whole lot of grey area in between there.

It's not the same. Republican and Democrat is not a dichotomy, nor is conservative and liberal. Theist and atheist is a dichotomy of the belief claim. Much like gnostic and agnostic is a dichotomy of the knowledge claim. They are singular statements, like true and untrue. Political ideology is a large group of positions and beliefs. You can mostly agree with one, yet disagree on minor issues. However, the terms are large umbrellas.

Take theism, for example. It simply means a belief in a god/s. So, christians are theists, the Mayan's were theists (I admittedly don't know the name of their religion), the hindu's are theists. They disagree on almost everything outside of that, but they are all theists.

Atheism is the same way. Atheists do not believe in a god/s. The raliens are atheists, as are the scientologists(as I understand them) and some buddhists. So are those who believe and claim to know that no god exists. That's why I've consistently conceded (multiple times), that yes, those who believe there is no god/s are atheists and all squares are rectangles.

[Chili]

You're the only one here who provided a definition that actively stated that an atheist believes there is no god. That's why I asked why we should accept that definition over another.

I have always used Merriam-Webster, it's not like I went hunting for one that said what I wanted. That is the resource I use. Clearly, the insurmountable factor in this argument is the disparity between the definitions of "atheist" that you choose to accept versus the one that I choose to accept.

Anyhow.. I did find a good basis for your argument on the meaning of the word, assuming this is accurate (Not sure who the source is):

http://www.defineatheism.com/

Linguistic structure
Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without," hence an "atheist" can be concisely characterized as "not a theist."

But what I don't get, is on that same website it indicates the following:

Roughly 2,000 years later during the 1570s and 1580s, the word "athéisme" was introduced to the French language. After that, the word "atheism" became a part of the English language over the next 5 to 15 years, and long before "theism" was added to the vocabulary (which brings into question the seemingly logical assumption that the word "atheism" is dependent on the word "theism").

So if the word atheism existed as a word prior to the word "theism" how can that reference under "Linguistic structure" make any sense whatsoever?

Oh well, enough time wasted on this. I will fall back to and early statement you made:

Should we use the definition that the group uses to define itself?

Yes, lets.. And being that I am apparently a part of that group, then you should accept my definition. lol

[Baron Von Crowder]

That does not demonstrate you're statement. The intangible is demonstrated all the time.

Like radiation. You can't touch it, but it can be demonstrated. Evolution is intangible. You can't touch it, it is immaterial, and it is still demonstrated.

your*

[Maddhattter]

So if the word atheism existed as a word prior to the word "theism" how can that reference under "Linguistic structure" make any sense whatsoever?

Because of the root words. The original word was atheos. A- being without, or in absence of and -theos being god. A word was created to describe those who the collective majority deemed were different. When you have something that others are without, you only need to drop the a- prefix. Like the term amoral. Amoral is without morals, not immoral(opposed to or against morality) those who are "with" morals are just moral. Dropping the a- as they are not "without".

Oh well, enough time wasted on this. I will fall back to and early statement you made:



Yes, lets.. And being that I am apparently a part of that group, then you should accept my definition. lol

I'VE BEEN FOILED!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Maddhattter]

your*

Fixed!

because English,dolt.

That does not demonstrate your statement. The intangible is demonstrated all the time.

Like radiation. You can't touch it, but it can be demonstrated. Evolution is intangible. You can't touch it, it is immaterial, and it is still demonstrated.

[Cooter]

a baby isn't an atheist because a baby doesn't BELIEVE anything...

that is the core term of the definition of atheist that you're conveniently overlooking.

Webster's defines atheist as: one who believes that there is no deity

if you have no belief either way, you are not an atheist

if you are a person who only only believes in scientific evidence, and you have no proof that god exists and no proof that god doesn't exist, you don't believe in either

to accept that there may or may not be a creator does NOT MAKE YOU AN ATHEIST

[Baron Von Crowder]

a baby isn't an atheist because a baby doesn't BELIEVE anything...

that is the core term of the definition of atheist that you're conveniently overlooking.

Webster's defines atheist as: one who believes that there is no deity

if you have no belief either way, you are not an atheist

if you are a person who only only believes in scientific evidence, and you have no proof that god exists and no proof that god doesn't exist, you don't believe in either

to accept that there may or may not be a creator does NOT MAKE YOU AN ATHEIST

No way man, there is no room for riding the fence here, you have to choose one or the other. Grey areas do not exist.

[mustang_revival]

Beyond Websters, etc..

urban dictionary.

1.

Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.

While neither definition of atheism entails any personality traits of atheists or of those who do believe in a god or gods (sometimes referred to as 'theists'), both atheists and theists tend to believe that certain traits apply to all atheists/theists. Common myths about atheists include: all atheists are arrogant, immoral, rebellious, and/or intolerant; all atheists really believe in (the Christian) God and are simply in denial; all atheists are depressed and believe life is meaningless. Common myths about theists include: all theists are naive and/or intolerant; all theists don't really believe in their god(s) and just pretend to because they're afraid that if people realised that no god exists, there will be complete chaos; all theists are weak and look to their god(s) for comfort. It hardly needs to be said that while these myths apply to a select few individuals in each group, the claim that they apply to every atheist or every theist is false.

Negative atheists justify their lack of belief in god(s) by pointing out that no evidence exists for the existence of god(s), and justify their lack of disbelief by pointing out that no evidence exists for the nonexistence thereof. Positive atheists often assert that while no evidence for god(s) exists, it should be by default assumed that they do not, until evidence is found. Some also try to use logic to prove that God does not exist, but this is often attached by theists and weak atheists as being mere wordplay. Some theists and weak atheists also assert that logic is superficial and meaningless (which is an easily refutable claim), and that only one's inner feelings can lead them to truth. Some positive atheists (and deists), however, are led to their stance through their feelings. Some feel that because the world is filled with evil and malice, and all-loving, benevolent god cannot exist. Those who are led to their stance through this feeling, however, cannot justify their disbelief in a malevolent god in the same way. Some reject the idea of the Christian God because the Bible states that non-Christians are condemned to Hell, and reject the idea as being too disturbing. While the same argument can also be made against the gods of various other religions, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, it cannot be made against every god (in Judaism, for example, Hell does not exist).
"Do you believe in God?"
"No, I don't."
"Then you're an atheist?"
"I suppose. I don't believe God doesn't exist, so I could probably be called an agnostic instead. Some atheists may consider me a 'negative atheist', though."
"Don't you think atheists.. er, would I call them 'positive atheists'? Don't you think they're intolerant?"
"Yes, you'd call them 'positive atheists', and no, I wouldn't say they're all intolerant. While some may come off as arrogant, they're just unable to understand how you can believe in God; you probably come off as arrogant to them, also, because you're unable to understand how they can disbelieve in God. People on both sides really need to make an effort to be more tolerant, and to discuss their stance on religion without using childish, immature insults."

[Cooter]

lol, let's go to the hood and axe Jamal what HIS definition is!