Am I a True Atheist? Honestly? I’m beginning to wonder ….

I’ve been in a recent raging battle with an online friend and atheist on my debating group. (Yes, when the Christians and other theists go on vacation, the remaining atheists argue with each other ;-D).

Hey, what else are we going to do!

Anyway, the topic of our raging battle (and I mean that literally not metaphorically) is, are atheists inherently rational, that is, do atheists become atheists through reason, or, are atheists simply atheists by virtue of the fact that we are not theists.

At least that’s how it started ….

Then it moved to the question of can we rationally claim and argue that god does not exist or should we even bother to make statements about existence in relation to gods since the concept is irrational, absurd and/or meaningless (at best) in the first place.

Then the semantic game playing started. Is there a difference between lacking a belief and having a disbelief?


So … Let me explain where I stand and you can tell me whether I’m a True Atheist or not (do I smell porridge? Is there a No True Scotsman lurking in the wings somewhere? I think there might be.)

First of all, the only definition that I accept for atheism is that it is merely a descriptor of those who “lack a belief in gods”.

We are atheists if we are not theists. 

IMO, that is the one and only requirement for anyone to be an atheist. There is no other unless you believe that atheism is a belief system or doctrine and it requires reason to become an atheist.

Okay then how does one get to the point where they lack a belief in gods?

Does every single person who is an atheist become one through reason?

No. People reject theism through reason and when they reject theism, the side-effect of doing that is to become an atheist because they are no longer a theist.

Then there are some, like me, who never believed because we were never indoctrinated. We were never theists and never rejected theism. We never believed and therefore can’t disbelieve. We lack a belief in gods.

I cannot disbelieve in gods anymore than I can disbelieve in fairies. It’s a non-issue for me because I don’t and have never accepted the belief in the first place. The concept is absurd, unnecessary, and irrational. I guess I’m also an apatheist in that I don’t even care. I’ll care when there’s evidence.

One day in the near or distant future I may be proven wrong and a fairy or god might pop up in someone’s garden or the sky, but until that day I will be perfectly content with ignoring any extremely remote, potential existence of a currently absurd concept for which no evidence exists.

I’m not omniscient. I don’t know what knowledge our future will bring us and I don’t believe that the knowledge we have today is absolute truth. It isn’t. We have much to learn about our universe and I’m not about to make presumptions about anything.

So, unless one considers ancient or modern mythologies about fairies or gods evidence, or, one considers those mythologies evidence of lack of existence, no evidence exists to support such claims and it is as absurd to say that gods do not exist as it is to say that gods do exist.

If something is written in a myth or fiction is it necessarily untrue anymore than it’s necessarily true? Of course not. There are true things written in fiction and mythologies as well as untrue things. The point is that the fiction or mythology cannot be evidence of either, simply because any truth that may or may not be in fiction or mythology is unreliable. So to claim that gods do not exist because they’re only written about in mythology and fiction doesn’t wash anymore than claiming that they do exist because they’re written in an ancient fairy tale which daddy says is true.

That’s not to say that there aren’t good, solid arguments which exist to falsify the Abrahamic God. There are. Not only that but in my opinion it’s perfectly reasonable to state that the Abrahamic God does not exist based on those solid arguments which falsify that particular god quite successfully.

The claim that’s absurd is the generic, “gods do not exist” claim. This is a claim of knowledge and one that is insupportable unless one has evaluated and falsified all of the thousands of past and currently claimed gods as well as all possible future potentially claimed gods.

An impossible task.

And try falsifying the Deist God. I dare you.

The fact is that the Deist God is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless for all intents and purposes. So why would any reasonable, rational person even try to falsify it? Why bother? I don’t even care if someone wants to believe in such an irrelevant and useless god. The Deist God doesn’t come with a doctrine that anyone is going to impose on me so they can feel free. Personally, I think such a belief is irrational but it’s really no skin off my nose if someone wants to have that particular superstition. Those who believe in the Deist God are still theists but they’re the least harmful of the bunch.

One can legitimately state, that it's highly unlikely that such a thing as gods exist and there are many rational arguments to support that claim but to make an absolute statement of knowledge regarding the existence of gods isn't legitimate and isn't applying sound reason and logic.

At one point, Dawkins was quoted and I found it necessary to point out that Dawkins doesn't say "gods do not exist". His chapter on the topic is called, Why do gods almost certainly not exist? Dawkins is a scientist and an atheist and doesn't make such an obvious error in reasoning and logic.

On the other hand, can one be an atheist and still have superstitious beliefs? Are all atheists rational and come through atheism through reason and sound logic?

Of course not. Reality strongly indicates otherwise.

There are many atheists who lack a belief in gods but hold other superstitious beliefs. One example would be those Buddhists who believe in reincarnation but believe that Buddha was a man, not a god, or my Wiccan friend who holds many traditional superstitious beliefs based on Wicca but doesn’t believe in gods or goddesses. And then there are the New Agers who have screwball beliefs coming out of their asses but don’t believe in gods. They're "spiritual". Lol.

Are any of these people, more or less atheists than those of us who do apply sound reason and logic where our belief systems are concerned.

I'm a Freethinker. Does that make me more of a True Atheist than my friend the Wiccan?

No. The fact that I'm a Freethinker makes me:
  1. less superstitious, 
  2. more rational, 
  3. means that I am more inclined to follow beliefs based on sound reason and logic, 
  4. and means that I reject dogmatic belief systems of all kinds, 
But I am no more or less an atheist than she is.

While I agree that it is inherently irrational to hold god beliefs no matter what they are, including Deist beliefs, that doesn't mean that there is anything inherently rational about being an atheist.

Some of us are rational and some of us aren’t. That is a fact.

Unless one thinks that only a True Atheist follows atheism as a belief system which requires that one actively disbelieves in gods (as per certain dictionary definitions) and includes a doctrine which requires that it’s adherents follow reason and sound logic in order to convert to atheism.

According to that definition, I am not an atheist because I think the concept of gods is too irrational to bother to disbelieve in and I never went through the process of reason and sound logic in order to convert to atheism because I was never indoctrinated into theism.

When a theist makes a claim that their god exists, I want evidence from them to support their claim. If the evidence doesn’t stand up, I have no reason to believe them or their claims and will continue to lack a belief in gods.
I apply reason to their claims not to my continued lack of belief.

I am an atheist because I’m not a theist. Even if that doesn't make me a True Atheist.

End of story.


Views: 845

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Some dictionaries are descriptive, others are (or try to be!) prescriptive. A linguist told me this, and I suppose you have to be a linguist to know what dictionary is which.

Of course, a descriptive dictionary (or new editions of it) will pick up on new meanings and usages of words a lot faster than a prescriptive one.

Dictionaries are supposed to reflect actual usage and as a result can be wrong when actual usage is wrong.

Let's face it. We live in a theist world and theists can't think outside of their theist box.

To them, the existence of gods is a given and therefore atheists must be people who disbelieve in their favored gods rather than people who simply don't accept the concept without evidence in the first place.

It's up to atheists to establish the correct definition of the term.

That's why we have so many arguments about it. Lol.
Exactly and it makes no sense. What are we going to prove if we lack belief? We're not making any claims about gods, they are.

"Dictionaries are supposed to reflect actual usage...."


Descriptive, then.


Others refer to a dictionary to find a word's usage, and use the word in the same manner.


Thus, prescriptive too.


Ain't ambiguity just awful?


And annoying. Lol.
More on topic, atheists become atheists through ideological exposure. Some atheists are theists who encountered an issue in theism, possibly some sort of oppression, oppression of women, minorities, people who hold certain ideas out from the main stream. Maybe their mother died and they are selfish assholes who can't believe god would let that happen to them, of course when people everyone else loves die they have no problem with that because it doesn't affect them.  Some people are raised by people who don't believe in atheism, and are essentially taught atheism as the only option, much like christians hmm? sometimes children are taught to be freethinkers by theist parents and are exposed to circumstances where that causes them problems that it didn't cause their parents because the parents weren't exposed to a similar stimulus. a lot of christians merely rewrite their own faith however rather than give up the parts they like.
"atheists become atheists through ideological exposure."

I just pointed out that I didn't. I was not indoctrinated into any religion. My parents didn't indoctrinate me into "atheism".

Nor did my Wiccan friend. She just likes her god/godessless Wiccan superstition better than the god belief superstitions.

So according to your narrow definition, neither of us are atheists.

Please explain your atheist doctrine and belief system to me and tell me what is required for me to become a True Atheist.
Exactly! I didn't even think about gods until my friends kept telling me they had to go to church and I asked them what that was all about. And then I went to church for a while just to check it out when I was 9. Wasn't impressed. They would tell me that Jesus was there when everyone prayed so I used to sneak a peak when the praying started. Nope. There was no Jebus.

i'm not sure if you know what ideological exposure means. or indoctrination. or modeling or imprinting.


anyone who claims to be an atheist earnestly is an atheist. i dispute the why of their atheism, not its existence.


knowledge is power, and vocabulary is the knowledge of what words mean.

Feel free to explain if you can.

Just claiming that I "don't know" and implying that my argument is wrong because of that and without an explanation is an implied Ad Hominem.

"anyone who claims to be an atheist earnestly is an atheist."

This is not true. As I stated I am not "earnestly" an atheist. That is a fact.

And my Wiccan friend isn't earnestly an atheist. She's earnestly a Wiccan.

One can only by earnest about beliefs. So, unless you consider atheism a belief system, you can't be earnest about it.

Many atheists are earnest about Anti-Theism which is a belief and some atheists and most religious confuse this earnestness about the Anti-Theist belief with atheism.

Not all atheists are Anti-Theists.

Now, please answer my question.

"Please explain your atheist doctrine and belief system to me and tell me what is required for me to become a True Atheist."
Atheists become atheists, or people become atheists?
atheists became atheists. people who are atheists, shortened to atheists, became atheists because of the one of the experiences i outlined. my bad using the present form.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service