# So tell me, what defines a True Atheist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222 "2017-03-02T18:07:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/101 "2017-03-04T06:05:39Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > Actually, as is occasionally the case, you and Wikipedia are wrong. > > Look up the meaning of the prefix “a” in Latin, and you will find, as I said, that it means “not.” > > This is why “atheist” translates directly to “not a theist.” > > Then look up Gnostic, and you will see what that once meant. > > The Wiki entry you quoted is the modern bolixed meaning which I described, and the one I described as " what it used to mean," is what it used to mean. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I realize that Wikipedia is not infallible. If you can provide a better cite showing that “agnostic” has _ever_ been used to mean “not a Gnostic,” I would like to see it. > > I know who the Gnostics were, but (IIUC) the term is a relatively modern term; it’s not what the ancient members of that sect/belief system called themselves. The Greek word “gnosis” that the term is based on means “knowledge”; and it is that small-g word that forms the root of the word “agnostic.” **igor** , your confusion is showing. The word you’re insisting on is actually aGnostic. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/102 "2017-03-04T07:07:00Z")
What describes a “true atheist?” If I could manage to give a shit I might care. I don’t and don’t, and the theist assumption that we care as much as they is almost cute. Adorable ;). ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/103 "2017-03-04T13:36:58Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Why? Atheist means not believing in God or gods. Why should the same word be applied to people who don’t believe in “spirits” or “energies” or other new-age woo? Because an atheist is a non-theist, whatever the nature of the latter may be. Contexts differ around the world, and internationally speaking being an atheist involves holding no religious creed and believing in no transcendental/metaphysical/supernatural force, energy and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/104 "2017-03-04T13:54:06Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Because an atheist is a non-theist, whatever the nature of the latter may be. Contexts differ around the world, and internationally speaking being an atheist involves holding no religious creed and believing in no transcendental/metaphysical/supernatural force, energy and the like. Drawing the line is gonna be difficult, though. If someone believes in UFO abductions, can they be atheist? What if they believe in homeopathy? What if they believe in chiropracty? What if they believe in chakras? What if they believe in acupuncture? What if they believe in Hollow Earth theory? Phlogiston? And does scientific progress itself change the meaning of the word? Someone who believed in chakras five hundred years ago might have been on the cutting edge of science; could the same belief set 500 years ago have been labeled “atheist” but not labeled “atheist” today? I get where you’re going, but I think using the word “materialist” to refer to belief in modern scientific principles and evidence, and “atheist” to refer to a considered rejection of arguments in favor of deities, keeps things clear. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/105 "2017-03-04T15:23:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Absolutely. Do you, for example, believe in Kathabirala? What about Matsakan’ya? > > At this point, you almost certainly don’t. > > Once I tell you that that the first is the Bangla word for “squirrel,” does that change your belief? > > Once I tell you that the second is the Bangla word for “mermaid,” does that change your belief? The first case is irrelevant because I only talked about the nature of “disbelief” changing. In that first case a real-world phenomenon is defined and accepted. No belief needed. A concept is introduced, definition and evidence is supplied and we move from “non-belief” to “belief” (although that term is not helpful as I believe in a squirrel to the same degree that I believe in the desk in front of me) In the second case…no the nature and quantity of my non-belief has not changed. not least because you haven’t suitably defined what a mermaid is. I am not aware that any such creature exists (unlike a squirrel). Keep giving me evidence and a definition and I’ll be sure tell when (or if) the nature of my “non-belief” changes. > [@](#): > > For me, the change is dramatic. In the first case, I don’t believe because I don’t have enough information to draw a conclusion. In the second case, I gain enough information to draw a conclusion. Finding out what Matsakan’ya means changes me from agnostic to atheist. No, it changes you from an agnostic atheist to an atheist. You didn’t have a belief before (atheist) you still have no belief (atheist). You are, of course free to append lots of other descriptors on to that base state and if the above helps you in some way then fine. I think what you are doing is as a courtesy to those with deeply held beliefs. You somehow think that their nonsensical ideas about deities deserve some sort of special consideration. If I asked you whether you believed in Spangle the magic dragon who is invisible, lives and breathes and has a home in the downpipe of my gutter and dispenses tictacs when you write the word “tosser” on his head with magic marker I suspect your disbelief would not change no matter how much additional info I gave you. > [@](#): > > The fish doesn’t recognize the water it swims in; you don’t seem to realize the epistemology you think in. What is that supposed to mean? There is no evidence for the supernatural world, hence no meaningful conversation to be had. I’m not trapped by a worldview, those asserting the supernatural are limited by the need to bring forward evidence and definitions. That has yet to happen. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/106 "2017-03-04T16:50:44Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > “Agnosticism” seems to have originated from a speech by Thomas Huxley in the mid-19[sup]th[/sup] century. One dictionary source says that it derives directly from αγνοτος, which google translates as “ignorance”. So, no, it was never used in direct reference to the ancient Gnostics. Huxley also “coined” the term “[physicism](https://books.google.com/books?id=jxWDxjwpvAIC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=physicism+huxley&source=bl&ots=ZMz4A-umSj&sig=lhY3jXxyGlbywpeZErDP7J9AeEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTxZXzpb3SAhXB7CYKHXa4C3gQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=physicism%20huxley&f=false)”. > [@Thomas Huxley](#): > > Anthropomorphism grows into theology, while physicism (if I may so call it) develops into science. I say “coined” with the quotes, because it didn’t seem to catch on. In fact, this post will probably be a much higher rank on google search if anyone goes looking for this word in the future, as I don’t think it’s been used between his use in that book, and when I independently came up with it a few years back for a story I was working on, only to google and find it wasn’t entirely original. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/107 "2017-03-04T16:52:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Drawing the line is gonna be difficult, though. If someone believes in UFO abductions, can they be atheist? What if they believe in homeopathy? What if they believe in chiropracty? What if they believe in chakras? What if they believe in acupuncture? What if they believe in Hollow Earth theory? Phlogiston? . . . All of these things can have a non-theistic basis. Where is the “god” in phlogiston or chiropractic? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/108 "2017-03-04T16:55:55Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No, it changes you from an agnostic atheist to an atheist. You didn’t have a belief before (atheist) you still have no belief (atheist). You are, of course free to append lots of other descriptors on to that base state and if the above helps you in some way then fine. I think what you are doing is as a courtesy to those with deeply held beliefs. You somehow think that their nonsensical ideas about deities deserve some sort of special consideration. The word “belief” is loaded; the word “conclusion” may be more useful. There are some things about which I’ve drawn no conclusion. Is there a red-headed woman living in Poughkeepsie whose first name is Lenora? I have drawn no conclusion about this. Is there a red-headed woman living in Poughkeepsie who can ignite cars with the power of her mind? Based on my understanding of the cosmos, I conclude [edit: with a high, but not absolute, degree of certainty] that nobody can do this, and she’s a subset of “nobody,” so she doesn’t exist. My relationship to the concept of these two different women is very different. > [@](#): > > If I asked you whether you believed in Spangle the magic dragon who is invisible, lives and breathes and has a home in the downpipe of my gutter and dispenses tictacs when you write the word “tosser” on his head with magic marker I suspect your disbelief would not change no matter how much additional info I gave you. The change in my belief changed between “Spangles” and “The magic dragon.” > [@](#): > > What is that supposed to mean? There is no evidence for the supernatural world, hence no meaningful conversation to be had. …right, because your epistemology requires evidence before having a meaningful discussion. Other epistemologies rely more heavily on faith. Do you deny that other epistemologies exist? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/109 "2017-03-04T17:02:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Drawing the line is gonna be difficult, though. If someone believes in UFO abductions, can they be atheist? What if they believe in homeopathy? What if they believe in chiropracty? What if they believe in chakras? What if they believe in acupuncture? What if they believe in Hollow Earth theory? Phlogiston? > > And does scientific progress itself change the meaning of the word? Someone who believed in chakras five hundred years ago might have been on the cutting edge of science; could the same belief set 500 years ago have been labeled “atheist” but not labeled “atheist” today? > > I get where you’re going, but I think using the word “materialist” to refer to belief in modern scientific principles and evidence, and “atheist” to refer to a considered rejection of arguments in favor of deities, keeps things clear. > [@Trinopus](#): > > All of these things can have a non-theistic basis. Where is the “god” in phlogiston or chiropractic? Agree. The answer to “If someone believes in UFO abductions, can they be atheist?” is “Of course they can. Why not?” They can even be materialist (“the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”). ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/110 "2017-03-04T17:10:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > your epistemology requires evidence before having a meaningful discussion. Other epistemologies rely more heavily on faith. Do you deny that other epistemologies exist? People are free to believe what they want but I can and will dismiss it as piffle unless given reason not to. I’ll happily stick by Hitchen’s razor. “What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/111 "2017-03-04T17:14:20Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > People are free to believe what they want but I can and will dismiss it as piffle unless given reason not to. Nobody says otherwise. This may be a semantic issue: you said, “There is not even a conversation to be had until there is any evidence for a supernatural world.” If you meant, “There’s no conversation THAT I AM WILLING TO HAVE,” I misunderstood you; I thought you were saying that, objectively, there was no conversation to be had. The latter formulation is incorrect, since whether there’s a conversation to be had depends on the conversers’ epistemology. Edit: FWIW, I agree with you about the necessity for evidence before I enter the conversation. I just want to be clear on the fact that this is a specific decision on my part, not some sort of universal rule. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/112 "2017-03-04T17:21:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nobody says otherwise. This may be a semantic issue: you said, “There is not even a conversation to be had until there is any evidence for a supernatural world.” If you meant, “There’s no conversation THAT I AM WILLING TO HAVE,” I misunderstood you; I thought you were saying that, objectively, there was no conversation to be had. The latter formulation is incorrect, since whether there’s a conversation to be had depends on the conversers’ epistemology. > > Edit: FWIW, I agree with you about the necessity for evidence before I enter the conversation. I just want to be clear on the fact that this is a specific decision on my part, not some sort of universal rule. I think you interpret correctly. Over the years I’ve become far more strict getting into discussions for which there can be no end point and no illumination and that is a personal choice. Let others with more patience have a go if they like but for me it is just a dead end if we don’t start from a position of clarity, reason and evidence. For was it not Maimonides who said “I’m too old for this shit” ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/113 "2017-03-04T17:24:32Z")
Seriously, now. I was referring to religious beliefs. If an atheist ardently believes in himself, does that make him a theist? Religious beliefs of any nature make one a theist just as lack of religious beliefs makes one an atheist. In this context, the next big question could be: “What defines real religious beliefs?” Now that’s a REAL scary thought. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/114 "2017-03-04T17:51:10Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Seriously, now. I was referring to religious beliefs. If an atheist ardently believes in himself, does that make him a theist? > > Religious beliefs of any nature make one a theist just as lack of religious beliefs makes one an atheist. > > In this context, the next big question could be: “What defines real religious beliefs?” Now that’s a REAL scary thought. 🙂 Heh–scary thought, but I think it’s central to the question. I’ve had arguments here with people who claim they believe nothing. I find that claim difficult to parse–my use of “conclude” instead of “believe” came out of an effort to avoid a semantic quibble. Such folks seem to believe–er, conclude–er, think–er, posit–that any belief at all must have an element of faith to it. As far as I’m concerned, my definition (to be atheist is to have considered and have found wanting arguments and evidence offered in favor of the existence of deities) captures everything I want to capture about my own atheism. Others approach it slightly differently. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/115 "2017-03-04T18:07:39Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’ll happily stick by Hitchen’s razor. > “What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” I miss that guy. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/116 "2017-03-04T19:02:32Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Religious beliefs of any nature make one a theist just as lack of religious beliefs makes one an atheist. No. “Atheist” derives from the word “άθεος”, which literally means “godless”. Buddhists have mystical, religious beliefs, but they are atheists. The same can be said of Taoists. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/117 "2017-03-04T19:33:44Z")
> **[Are Buddhists Also Atheists?](https://www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-devotion-in-buddhism-449718)** > > Investigate the complex issue of atheism in Buddhism and learn how to understand it from the unique perspectives of Buddhist philosophy. > [@](#): > > God is unnecessary in Buddhism, as this is a practical religion and philosophy that emphasizes practical results over faith in beliefs or deities. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic rather than atheistic. There it is again, nontheism. Are nontheists true atheists? From their point of view, I suppose it doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/118 "2017-03-04T19:38:13Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > No. > > “Atheist” derives from the word “άθεος”, which literally means “godless”. Buddhists have mystical, religious beliefs, but they are atheists. The same can be said of Taoists. Many Religious scholars and Buddhists disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/119 "2017-03-04T19:38:47Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > No. > > “Atheist” derives from the word “άθεος”, which literally means “godless”. Buddhists have mystical, religious beliefs, but they are atheists. The same can be said of Taoists. I don’t think this is correct. There are plenty of Buddhists who are polytheists, for example. It’s a bit like saying that, because soccer has little to say about gods (insert Pele joke here), soccer players are atheists. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/120 "2017-03-04T21:46:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The word “belief” is loaded; the word “conclusion” may be more useful. I really, really like that. I said earlier that it’s hard to discuss belief in god without first agreeing on what you mean by “god,” but it’s just as true that you have to agree on a definition of “belief,” which may be even more difficult. And with that in mind, if we change the definition of a hard atheist to “someone who has _concluded_ that there is no god,” then the proportion of hard to soft atheists greatly increases, and I withdraw my accusation of shoddy thinking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222.md?page=7)