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?
"a·the·ist /ey-thee-ist /
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
So, what if there really are extra-terrestrial "beings" that are "supremely powerful" compared to us having developed such advanced technologies that allow them to do things that we currently consider to be sci-fi? These "aliens" would easily be looked upon as "gods" by man...especially primitive man. Does this definition limit the "Atheist" from believing that this is a possibility?
I'd just like to say the worst thing about not being a believer is this hang-up on definitions.
on the subject of theism, I am an atheist
on the subject of belief, I am a humanist
on the subject of the paranormal, I am a skeptic
on the subject of creation, I am a materialist
on the subject of 10D String theory verses 11D M-theory, I am agnostic
I beleive someone could believe in an afterlife and claim to be an atheist if they wanted to. I wouldn't argue with them on that (I'd have a pop at the belief in afterlife mind) but I don't know anyone like that. I do know someone who doesn't believe in god but does believe humans originated from alien invaders. I think of him as a credulous atheist
I think the best way to define what it means to be an atheist today is to read the god delusion. The reaons Sassan does not accept I am an atheist is because I leave room for doubt which is a rational viewpoint. To say I am in no doubt there is no god crosses the line into a faith-based position. InTGD Richard Dawkins refers to an athesitic scale of 1-7 1-definitely is god, 7-definitely isn't and puts himself as a 6.5
this has attracted criticism from people saying he can't be a real atheist but he is simply pointing out that in order to be a scientist you must always leave room for doubt even if you don't actualy harbour any doubt. Sassan's definition of atheism is dogmatic rather than rational. his assertion that Cristopher Hitchens would agree with him rather than me is one of ego-centricity which is in itself a risk that comes with dogmatic belief
I never claimed that I held it plausible. I claimed I have yet to be given an adequate definition of god.
once again I must insist you do not respect my position. if you did you would take time to understand it.