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: 175

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Unless I'm much mistaken, Dawkins admitted a little ambiguity in "The God Delusion". And note: he prefers the phrase "there probably is no god". He's said so publicly.
I'm sorry I did not clarify my statement. I believe there is the possiblity of an after-life with no God involved or needed. Although I agree an after-life is very improbable, I 100% believe there is no God, in terms of how humans generally understand the concept of God (all knowing, intelligent morals and justice decider, etc.).

Hmmmm, I've never thought about an afterlife WITHOUT God in it.  I guess that means no angels either, right?  Is this afterlife eternal or are there stages to it?  Is it a blissful place or is there some sort of conflict possible?  If it's eternal, I hope membership is optional or that there's some sort of conflict available.  Just the thought of an eternity of bliss really creeps me out. :-)
@Nathan Hevenstone,

I think Dawkins, as a scientist, is simply avoiding certainty and maintaining objectivity.
All the guests were pretty humorous but Hitchens really stole the show, as usual.  As likeable as the other guests were, Hitchens didn't pull any punches.  You gotta love it.

I have heard Dawkins stand on the subject and he states that because we don't know so there is a small (very small) possibility, no mater how unlikely.

There is a difference between being agnostic (not knowing) and atheist (not believing) so for intellectual honesty the position of agnostic/atheist maybe more accurate for many.


But Dawkins does say there is the "possibility" of anything since we can't prove it false. That was the way he was phrasing/expressing it.
LOL thanks for clarifying that.
I've heard several accomplished scientists state that if there were something new that suggested God or the supernatural exists, they would have to address it the same as any other evidence and that if that evidence held up to scrutiny, they would have to revise their thinking accordingly.

As it stands, there is no evidence or valid argument (a priori or a posteriori) for God or the supernatural.  Therefore, the question of God or the supernatural is not within scientific purview.

I think you're confused. Atheism and agnosticism answer two different questions. Atheism is the opposite of deism, which is whether or not you believe in a god. Agnosticism is the opposite of gnostic, which has to do with knowledge.


An agnostic atheist, which is what I consider myself, claims that there is no god but we can never know for certain. A gnostic atheist claims that they do not believe in a god and knows this for certain.


I think you're defining atheist as a gnostic atheist, but agnostic atheists are also atheist.

I think i dont care what anyone else believes when i am forming my belief system dawkins, hitchens, etc included.


I think the dictionary defines this pretty perfectly.


I think we had this discussion for the past few days in another thread.


I think atheist covers one thing uncertainty about the existence of god.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service