I have had this discussion on other threads and I wanted to get your opinions on what most fellow Atheists consider an "Atheist".

I have always considered an "Atheist" as someone who does not believe in even the possibility of a God/Gods, an afterlife, reincarnation of any kind, energies "living on" or being "transferred to other forms" after death, ghosts/souls, and/or superstitious beliefs.

I have not considered Buddhists atheists as they still believe in "energies" and the sorts; and believe that people who say that they believe in the "possibility" of an afterlife as agnostics or the sorts - I have been an atheist for example since I was 15-16 and maybe an agnostic for a couple of years before then.

For example, I am sure that Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the likes all fit into the aforementioned definition of an "Atheist". So, what do you think?

Views: 799

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is not an argument from authority for two reasons one the individuals or groups that I mention are not without relevant expertise or knowledge. Two, I don't say that just because they are right my conclusion is true. You took my quote out of context, because my argument does not really solely on those references only for support for my argument.


Also, I believe that your above information is complete nonsense, it is not a fact only your opinion. You didn't reply to all of my argument only the part you felt like responding to, which gives you little credibility.


Also, it just my opinion, but, this thread was for stating peoples ideas about what atheism is, it's not really meant for a huge debate on what atheism is, so just state what you think regardless of whether it contradicts anyone and then move on, this really isn't the place for this kind of thing. Sassan just wanted to know what everybody else thought, so he could make a decision or just read the responses, so I really think this has gotten out of hand.



"You took my quote out of context, because my argument does not really solely on those references only for support for my argument."

That's not what quoting out of context (quote mining) means. Nothing I left out changes the meaning of what you're saying, so you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re describing cherry picking, not quote mining.

"You didn't reply to all of my argument only the part you felt like responding to, which gives you little credibility."

Demanding I reply to every point you made gives you no credibility. I’m addressing one post littered with faulty logic, and I don’t have to start from the beginning of your first post or every post in between to do that.

“supernatural events that are by their very name not natural, there has to be a cause and that cause "then is usually explained by the way of a god, spirits, angels, etc... So, if someone professes belief in a supernatural phenomena than they knowingly or un-knowingly, believe in a "god" defined as some sort of supernatural being or beings that control or create the phenomena, inversely if someone believes in a "god" they therefore knowingly or un-knowingly believe in the supernatural. That is why the lack of belief in a deity, implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena”

Again, this reasoning is affirming the consequent. You have to first demonstrate that the supernatural exclusively derive from a supreme being such as a god in order to state that all supernatural beliefs are intrinsically theistic.

Also, I’ll mention again that you’re describing Philosophical Naturalism, not Atheism.
So use that instead. You are a naturalist. Naturalism automatically assumes strong atheism.
Read Johannes assertion and reply to it, I want to see what you think about his response.

I suspect you have fallen prey to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and/or are making a fallacious appeal to authority (in this case AA or the US Justice system.)


It would seem that your opinion is also dressed as fact (I can quote mine too.) Also, in future, you may want to provide a reference for your assertion that  your definition is the "legal" definition (I presume in the USA) - I have searched around for it and come up empty.


Atheist Alliance International, not an insignificant organization, has adopted this definition: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.  In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." (from http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism)


No mention of the supernatural or materialism yet they are still atheists...


There isn't a common definition beyond the rejection of gods. If one person/group includes in their definition a rejection of all things supernatural they are expanding the definition for their own purposes. The base tenet, that atheists reject the notion of the existence of gods, is common across all definitions of atheism. The rejection of supernaturalism or inclusion of materialism is not common across definitions.


From your post - 

"So therefore you are not an atheist if you believe in the supernatural whatsoever  period, no matter how much you want it to be true it is not." 


It would appear you are (still) in error...


It would appear I was never in error.


That's AAI's opinion, not mine. (both opinions)


My argument was not ad populum, for reasons already mentioned.


My assertion about the US government has already been given a reference (you idiot. (ad hominem))


Your assertion about Atheist Alliance International as being not an insignificant organization is an opinion.


These definitions for atheism are all opinions since atheism apparently has no widely agreed upon definition, so that's about it.

This is a waste of my time so I will not be responding anymore.
"If you don't concur with the definition then I simply don't consider you an atheist, or any one else that seeks to call them self one, and also does not concur. Its my definition (as given by American Atheists), if you don't understand it I can't help you."

I hadn't seen this post before and subsequent ad hominem attacks. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered even engaging you, as you it is readily apparent that you aren't interested in anything but your own opinion and worldview.

BTW I searched through your posts, saw no reference to support your position re: the US government. Either I missed it (which would be my mistake) or it isn't there (which says a lot about you.)



He cited that here:



Apparently referencing a Supreme Court case where this definition is presented and accepted constitutes a consensus by the judicial system on it being the legal definition. -_-



An Atheist is a (living) person.

What's the difference between a dead Atheist and a dead Theist ?

The answer is none. There is no difference. It's the same thing.

Have a nice day.



No, I am not and I am right. If a picture speaks a thousand words then the interpretation will vary more. I must express myself as I see fit. Continual pandering of weak people causes censorship. That's boring, predictable and unnacceptable.

Did you consider what I wrote ? I think you just reacted. That's poor.

I was joking. :sarcasm:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service