If someone has given their label (atheist, christian, whatever) and then defined exactly what that means ...?

Question

...to them, does it make any sense to then answer them according to your own definition of the word?

I have said that I am an atheist that what I mean is that I don't believe in any gods. I think the universe and all around us has a natural explaination. This is how I describe my view all the time. Then someone comes on and says 'no you're redefining the term! If you say your an atheist it means (and I quote)
"Atheism says God doesn't exist. Prove it. Don't try to redefine atheism to say "it's a lack of belief in God" That's agnosticism. Atheism is the active belief that God doesn't exist."

And therefore since (according to him not me) since I 'actively believe' that god doesn't exist I should prove it.

Does this make any sense? Or is this guy just being absolutely arrogant to think he knows what is in my mind?

Jen-ee-fur--
Our standards for proof are obviously different. (Though like the the other guy that answers I prefer evidence). I need evidence before I'll believe something (though I may give it the 'benefit of the doubt' with no evidence). I don't need evidence to NOT believe something.

And your definitions of the word atheist are still your own--and have *nothing* to do with what I think. Whatever I may call myself.

marbledog--
I have defined myself as a strong atheist before, regarding the god of the Bible and of (religiously) conservative Christianity. The philosopical arguments as well as my own experiences of the lack of the 'presence of god' are pretty strong I think.

Now regarding gods in general--well, there are far too many things that people mean by the word 'god' so I'm not even going there.

I like how marbledog put it. I am an atheist as in 'without belief in G(g)od(s).'

Answer 1

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically include only those who assert the nonexistence of gods, excluding non-believing agnostics and other non-theists.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the value of certain claims as truth—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life.

Atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one. Not all theists claim to know there is a God, only that they believe it to be so. Some theists, many who come to this board, claim to know for certain many things for which they offer no testable proof. They are in fact mis-stating themselves. They do not know what they cannot prove. They simply believe it and offer no sound reason for you to simply believe it too, other than the comfort they might gain by being reinforced in their delusion by you agreeing with them.

Are you claiming to know there is no god? If you claim to have certain knowledge there is no god, then a demand that you offer proof is legitimate. If a theist claims to know that the universe was made by Jesus then they must offer testable proof or their claims are simply assertion which we rightly ignore as irrelevant to life.

However, certain claims of religion are not constructed so they cannot be tested. For instance, we can test the claim of Biblical infallibility and inerrancy and prove the claim false via internal examination of the document itself. We cannot prove Moses did not speak to a burning bush, but we need not accept that a burning bush has ever spoken because this is an extraordinary and singular claim. No other instance of talking bushes has ever been recorded, nor are any talking bushes available to be interviewed under controlled conditions. We could as well assert that the stars and planets are the excretia of giant space squirrels and that assertion would be as extraordinary, incoherent and worthy of being ignored.

So my answer to someone who claims they know extraordinary and untestable things to be true, and demand I prove they are not is always the same. When I did an internship at the state mental hospital I did not spend time proving to a patient that martians were not disguising their spaceships as footballs, and the claims of a delusional mental patient are no more extraordinary and incoherent than the claims of theism.

Claims of extraordinary and supernatural occurences that can be tested never prove out. Either natural explanations are found or fraud is uncovered. Claims of the extraordinary that cannot be tested are simply claims offered without proof, and therefor not worthy of consideration any more than other claims offered without proof. The claim of Jesus' resurrection is no more worthy of consideration than claims that all life on earth was seeded here by star-spanning aliens. Believing one or the other without proof is simply a matter of unwarranted and usually culturally and socially conditioned preference for one particular fantasy over another. A Christian asking me to prove there is no god, particularly no god who sacrificed his son for our sins and wants us to accept Jesus into our hearts is no different than me asking a Christian to prove that the god is not a flying spaghetti monster who wants us all to dress like pirates and sing sea chanties in the bathtub.

I do not claim to know there is no god. I do claim to know that the extraordinary claims of theism are just claims for which no proof can be constructed and thus only assertions, that the claims of the various theisms conflict and contradict, and there is no valid reason to give credence to any one, or to favor one over the other, and these claims are not relevant to life.

Answer 2

Not only is he arrogant, he has a poor grasp of etymology. The prefix "a" simply means "without" not "against". An agnostic ("a" - without, "gnosis" - knowledge) doesn't know whether or not gods exist, and is a breed of atheist by definition.

Someone who actively denies the existence of gods should be termed an anti-theist. This usage has also been described as "strong atheism" or "positive atheism".

Answer 3

Some of the answers you have gotten show the point of your question. Atheism doesn't need proof of its beliefs - if you say that is what you believe then that is what you believe. Generally an Atheist does not believe in any supernatural or metaphysical beings. As far as belief labels - no religions needs proof. If someone is Catholic - they are Catholic, or Mormon, or Wiccan, etc. What is behind those beliefs may be debated.

Answer 4

I think this person is trying to be something and I am not sure what. It appears to me he is saying the same thing that you said just in a little different manner. Maybe some people want an argument eve if they have to start it. I think I would ignore the guy and not give him what he wants. Not that I agree with your beliefs.

Answer 5

My favourite is the guy - can't remember his name, if I find it I'll add it to an edit - who asserts sincerely that there is no such thing as an atheist, there are only people who can't choose which god to believe in, as it's impossible not to believe in a god. Either that, or they're (we're) scared of hearing the truth (apparently).

And as for the clowns who insist on standards of 'proof' (I only ever speak of 'evidence', which is a different thing) they would not possibly apply to their own beliefs... Arrogant, foolish, infantile - it's hard to pick.

EDIT - It's Terry S

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkWZI6i_2z07JL5A6CnOG4Xsy6IX?qid=20060830193600AAVvWV3

He answers this all the time. Wonderful.

Answer 6

Well, The "prove it' part of his definition is in error. So you can ignore it. Besides the "prove it" part is directed to the believers in God to prove God's existence to the Atheist.

Answer 7

It's all straw man tactics. Theists know they don't have a leg to stand on, so they nitpick and try to sidestep the argument with topics such as that. To be honest, I typically ignore those folks. Anyone with a brain can see that they've lost the argument the moment they resort to that sort of thing.

Answer 8

You're dealing with someone irrational who's objective is a debate 'win'. Just tell them you have faith in the nonexistence of god and cut the discussion off.

Answer 9

Excellent question about labels :-)

In my view, "atheist" = someone who doesn't believe in any religious nor spiritual concept.

But actually, I see here in yahooQA many people who claim to be "atheists" and I don't agree with their definition: "who believes God doesn't exist".

Their definition seems much more narrow-minded in my view.

---

That's why I get rid of all religious/non-religious labels, especially "atheist", and I label myself "non-believer".

"non-believer = someone who doesn't believe in any religious/spiritual concept."

I am a non-believerish fan of planetology (exact science that studies any kind of planets).

Answer 10

well, actually, the definition of an atheist as i understand it is that you think there is proof that god does not exist

an agnostic believes there is no proof either way, that a god exists or does not exist..

so you being an atheist means that you believe there is proof of no god.. so its not that outrageous for him to ask you what your proof is...