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: 263

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm an athesit but I wouldn't say I do not believe in the possibility of gods.


The reason for this is because I have yet to hear an adequate definition of a god. if i had one i could argue against it but theists shrink into the gaps when pressed. there is a great deal of evidence for cosmic inflation that occured about 13.7bn years ago. before that there is only conjecture however conjecture based on observed and more importantly, measurable phenomena. If a theist wishes to argue their god started the big bang I will happily say I have no proof they're wrong but prefer to entertain theories put forward that have emerged from scientific study than crowbared into some tribal creation myth.


I can't say I don't believe in the possibility of gods as yet. However I am satisfied there is not one phenomena in the universe that relies on an outside conscious entity as any sort of explaination.

Then why not call yourself an agnostic as that is what I clearly see you to be?

well just look at your question. you have defined me as agnostic (which I am not) and use the argument that you think i am one as your rationalle. If I were to call myself an agnostic under those circumstances I would actually be someone who does as he's told.


An agnostic position is one of not being sure one way or another. I am a non-believer which is subtley different from someone who believes there are no gods. Belief requires faith which is a position held in lack of evidence. The way I define myself is the same way Richard Dawkins defines himself yet you say you are sure he is one. I think you are the one who needs to examine their position

I respect your opinion. I just think that is taking a "big leap" by what atheists generally consider atheists. I will wait to see what others think. This thread is about learning for me; not to be combative like some of my other threads.

Do you think someone like Christopher Hitchens would consider you to be a "fellow non-believer" or atheist?

I don't understand the question entirely so I'll answer it both ways:


1. yes he would

2. they are the same thing are they not? simply one who has no theism

I have heard him speak on matters such as this and I don't think he would. Irregardless, thanks for your opinion. :) I will wait to see what others say. I am interested on this topic.
Why? Because I have heard almost everything C. Hitchens has said and he would consider any belief in the possibility of such as irrational; but I respect your opinion and I really don't want to be combative on here. I want to see what other atheists think.

sorry but I don't accept that you respect my opinion and find your language combatitive in a passive/agressive manner.


firstly. no. you have not heard almost everything he has said. that is a preposterous assertion from the start. secondly if you're going to cite him provide a link rather than assert. the belief in the possibility may be irrational in his opinion however "belief in a possibility" is such a nebulous term that neither you nor I are in a position to judge if we mean the same thing by it.


Secondly. Argumentum ad Verecundiam.

I am not going to get combative on here. I respect your opinion and your ability to communicate your views just as I am able to communicate my views. And I am a huge Christopher Hitchens fan so I have heard almost all of his debates/interviews etc. and read almost his entire articles/books.

And yes, I respect your views. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't respect them.


What you describe as being an atheist is actually a description of a naturalist. Many atheists are both, but not all. I understand it as such that most atheists agree that an atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god(s). No more no less. Not even the claim that there are no god(s) or that they can't possibly exist is included in this understanding. Just the disbelief. I concur.

I would think, as I take it you do, that it is inconsistent to be an atheist but still believe in ghosts for example or reincarnation or other supernatural woo, or other things that are inconsistent with the laws of nature as for example pre-cognition. But that is more belonging to the realm of skepticism than atheism. Admittedly, there is a bit of a grey area in between the two.

There are even deists who consider themselves atheist as they are not theists and therefore a-theist. I don't see any problem with that either. I decline to be a purist and you can call me a theist or a pink elephant if it pleases you. I don't need to be a club member.

I think for the first time we are in harmony and overall agreement. :P


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service