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?
You only start with "maximum ignorance" which would indeed be half yea/ half nay, if you do not have any prior knowledge whatsoever.
Knowledge about the laws of nature however does count as knowledge.
A claim of a teapot in orbit around Jupiter for example does rise the question of how the teapot would have come there and does too come into conflict with prior knowledge, either the laws of nature: of teapots spontaneously coming into existence in space or of our prior knowledge about history, and suggests we can look for space programs of a heavy tea drinking, space faring ancestor species that somehow escaped our attention.
As I understand it, a-gnosia (no knowledge) is something that we don't know or think we cannot know, whereas a- theism (no god) is a supernatural entity that we don't believe exists or think we cannot believe exists.
That makes me an agnostic atheist, like most atheists I know.
I not know everything so I can never know that there is nothing that someone who has lived would consider to be a god that I might consider a god also, if I had good evidence of its existence. OTOH, the more I learn and understand about logic and science the less reason I have for believing in any of the "evidence" so far put forward by religious people for the existence of their particular version of the supernatural. The Christian religion gets sillier the more I look into it and there is no other religion that I am aware of that believes in a god that has any more credible proof of existing. This is coupled with the fact that all religious fanatics believe that they have the one and only truth and everyone else is deluded or wrong. They can't all be right but they can all be arrogantly ignorant and wrong. Most of the things that gods were traditionally invoked to explain have been well explained or better explained by science, including the theories about the as-yet-unknown phenomena. Since there is essentially no difference between the way the world looks with or without the existence of a god it is expedient to believe that no god exists. In spite of the fact that I can never be 100 percent certain that no god exists I choose to believe that one does not exist because it is so improbable that one could exist that it would be stupid to behave as if one did.
I would come to the same conclusion about anything that science supports or fails to support over and over again. I would be stupid not to. I am not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but I would be stupid if I behaved as if it would not without some convincing proof that it might not. I could never be 100 percent certain that Camping had it wrong and the end of the world was not coming when he said it would but that there was a lot of convincing evidence that he had it wrong again, and that he was in the good company of the dozens (or even hundreds) of other end-of-world predictors who have been proved wrong over the centuries. So I choose to believe that he was foolishly mistaken, which turned out to be justified, unless you believe his ingenious face-saving but rationally weak re-interpretation of the event as "spiritual" rather than physical.
In other words, I am an agnostic atheist because there are very few things that I can be absolutely certain about unless they consensually agreed upon definitions of something or self-evident constants and yet the concept of any version of a god existing is so highly improbable that I choose to believe that one does not, in fact, exist. As with any scientifically expressed hypothesis, I will change my mind if new evidence is presented that is more persuasive. So far no theist has come up with anything new or compelling in this regard.
The whole thing is complicated by the fact that theists choose to give the words a different meaning than the ones generally used by those who accept the terms as descriptions of themselves. According to evangelic brand theists, an a-theist is one who has "rejected god", "turned their back on god" "rejected god's morality" all of which are logical impossibilities for someone who does not believe that such an entity is more than remotely possible.
It is also complicated by the fact that some people describe themselves as "atheists" when they have little or no interest in religion and know nothing other one other than what the surrounding culture has taught them about the most prominent gods worshiped in the region. They have no carefully thought out "reason" for their lack of belief. These are the "atheists" who "convert" to Christianity.
Try this for a definition from Mano Singham which, I think, covers all positions:
Atheist: One for whom god is an unnecessary concept.
He goes on to suggest: This definition leaves little room for agnostics because they will have to answer the question as to whether they think God is necessary as an explanatory concept for anything. If they say “no”, they are in the same camp as atheists. If they say “yes”, they are effectively religious and would be required to show where the necessity arises.
(See: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-redefinition-o... Jerry Coyne's blog)
In my definition of "athesim," the atheist sees no convincing evidence for the god that you name.
"Every humanist is an atheist"
Not immediately sure about that one. Most "religious" people are only culturally religious, i.e. they marry in churches and baptise their children. However, besides not labelling themselves atheists, and some even actually strongly believe in a God, this only applies to them personally.
Secular humanists are usually atheists, but it is not a requirement.
(When I was confirmed humanist at age 14 there were still a limited few of us which still believed in God.)
Its funny that you call my response silly after just a few words. You obviously didnt fully understand what I meant. Look around, there are people everywhere that are trying to force people in certain religions. I wasn't referring to atheism so make sure you understand before you use your patronizing adjectives.
What I was trying to get at, was the argument over words and where we fit in. Similar to what you have been saying, I've read in these discussions that there are many definitions for these words so that means the authors even couldn't decide on a final definition, why should we have to label everyone in permanent marker. Being agnostic or atheism should be a path to free thinking for those who have been held down by the teachings of their upbringing and society. You are just being like them if you are trying debate people about what they are. At the end of the day, who really cares. Lets divert the majority of attention into understanding ourselves and worry about others less.
Also a tip, space out your paragraphs. So people would be more willing to read your comments.
Mark its apparent that you are trying to read more into my statements that is actually there. You have developed this crusade over words, and are trying to have a debate with me when there is nothing to debate over. I don't know why it took you three paragraphs to explain your point. When did I make claims over these words? I never did. I just gave my opninon on the matter. I felt and still feel that having such a deep debate over these issues is futile.
You would be better off if you stop making assumptions about strangers and what they really believe. Because you are going to be wrong everytime. Its just funny that you think I'm trying to define something. I just gave an opinion that these definitions are not that important. It would probably be beneficial to get rid of the words and offer up a statement as to what we identify with as indiviudals.
Of course you are going to read into what I'm saying tenfold and make vast assumptions and become furious at claims you believe I'm making. If so don't bother responding, I won't read it.