# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/141 "2017-03-07T16:38:16Z")
> [@sear](#): > > Reductio ad absurdum: > How can a (dis)believer reject ALL notions of ALL gods, without a definition that covers them all? > > If humans were created by a big bang, and evolution, and god is our creator, then wouldn’t our creator be a big bang, and evolution? > If so, how could we deny our creator / god; unless our definition is specific enough to designate that? Essentially what you are saying is we can fiddle around with the definition of “god” long enough to eventually arrive at a point where we cannot reasonably deny it exists? Well - I guess you could do that with any term. I’d like to point out though that any term or designation that is not sufficiently well-defined to even allow for a reasonable debate over it’s object’s existence would be entirely meaningless. > [@sear](#): > > You’re contesting the distinction. Au contraire. I am _pointing out_ the distinction! You were the one to bring deism into the debate. I just noted that so far you have not made it clear how it is relevant to a debate that is about theism/atheism. > [@sear](#): > > I don’t think distinguishing between religion and god is immaterial over 130 posts into this topic. > But if you do you’re welcome to ignore it. You think brow-beating me will unring the bell? I do not think it is immaterial either and I am by no means ignoring it. Theism is about god, not religion. The distinction is vital, because not every religion requires a god. Thus you can be a religious atheist. > [@sear](#): > > There is no burden of disproof. Let’s wait until the first shred of evidence appears. So far, nada. > > I understand the concept of the Jim Cary / The Truman Show scale of conspiracy. > I believe one would need an EXCEEDINGLY inflated self-assessment to believe that an entire planet, over 7 billion humans would tailor their lives to conspire against them for no obvious gain. My point exactly. We cannot entirely rule out the idea that the existence of Antarctica is all a big hoax but there is no shred of evidence that points in that direction. So we do not take that idea for a fact. With gods it’s the same thing. I cannot entirely rule out their existence but I see no compelling evidence for it whatsoever and thus I do not take it for a fact. Why would I? ---
**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 7, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/142 "2017-03-07T16:48:39Z")
There’s a rabbithole that may not be worth jumping down, but here it is anyway: I require evidence before I draw a conclusion (or at least that’s how I think of myself; let’s stipulate that it’s true). Question: how did I decide that was the best way of reaching a conclusion? If I cite evidence that this is a productive way of drawing conclusions, I’m begging the question: I’m citing evidence to support my conclusion that I should cite evidence to support a conclusion. If I don’t cite evidence that this is the best way to reach a conclusion, am I suggesting that I adopted this epistemology without evidence–in other words, that I’ve adopted it on faith? I know I’ve been throwing “epistemology” around like it’s on my word-of-the-day calendar, and I apologize for that; but I think it’s a useful word, inasmuch as it allows us to examine this question without resorting to describing materialism as a religion. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/143 "2017-03-07T17:05:25Z")
QS #115 Me too. Here’s a reprise: > [@](#): > > “Astrology is I think the most feeble minded of the superstitions, and sinister only in the sense that it’s the most solipsistic, just as the religious fool believes that he is the object of Gods creation, that he is so loved and created for a purpose, and even supervised at all times, that’s how much he counts. By the way this is what’s known as modesty among Christians, I don’t understand it.” Christopher Hitchens '98 CSPAN > > “To ‘choose’ dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.” Christopher Hitchens > > A fundamental Christian premise: > Created sick, and commanded to be well. Christopher Hitchens xv #139 > [@](#): > > “We are discussing your claim that “theism rather more addresses religion than god.”” No need to snarl yourself into a pretzel about it. It’s a simple observation based upon the linguistic rules I quoted. If you dispute it, your dispute is with American Heritage. > [@](#): > > “And no, our “creator” would not be a big bang and evolution.” xv #139 I welcome your opinion. But you can no more define MY concept of god than I can define yours. I live in a tower in the forest out of spiritual conviction. I have reverence for the Nature at work here. You define god (or not) your way. I’ll define god my way. There may be nearly as many definitions of “god” as there are adult humans living on Earth. > [@](#): > > “… no man shall be blamed for reasoning in the maintenance of his own religion.” Thomas More (1478 - July 6, 1535 @ age 57) NOTE: Canonized by the Roman Catholic church 1935; Saint More? > > “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 10 Aug. 1787 adding: > [@](#): > > “Atheists generally don’t claim that humans were “created” by evolution or the Big Bang.” Right! And therefore you may logically deduce that either I’m a fool, or I have a reason for doing so that you have not identified. > [@](#): > > “In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” > Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph It’s prophylaxis. It’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And in any case, “THEY” do not diminish MY appreciation for the miracles of creation. I’d never seen a hummingbird moth until I started seeing them on my own land. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/144 "2017-03-07T17:05:27Z")
**LHOD** , I like your line of approach to this question! ETA: post #142 May I humbly suggest (as a person who does _not_ identify as “atheist”) that a relevant factor here is whether or not one concludes without finality — that is, the question may be reopened at any point if new evidence appears — as opposed to holding the attitude that the question has been dealt with and the truth in this matter is known? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/145 "2017-03-07T17:06:15Z")
This “disbelief in Antarctica” comparison is rather insulting. I’ve already said I would examine any verifiable evidence for any “god” someone proposes…it’s just that no evidence for any “god” has been brought forward. Compare this to any ridiculous “disbelief” in Antarctica: There are eyewitness accounts that support each other in specific details. There are photographs. There are movies. For the right amount of money you can even visit it personally, _then come back and show off your own photographs and/or movies._ Some people seem to get annoyed when I compare a disbelief in gods to a disbelief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, my reasoning being that there are equal amounts of evidence for the existence of each, but this comparison of the existence of gods to the existence of Antarctica is much more insulting to our intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/146 "2017-03-07T17:17:20Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [Two percent of Church of England (Anglican/Episcopalian) priests are atheists, and sixteen percent are agnostic.](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/survey-finds-2-of-anglican-priests-are-not-believers-9821899.html) Well-known enough to be a joke in _Yes Minister_ 30 years ago: Prime Minister: One of the candidates for Bishop is a Modernist. Prime Minister’s Wife: Does that mean he’s an atheist, or a communist? ---
**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 7, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/147 "2017-03-07T17:18:16Z")
There are literally billions of people who talk about God as though God exists. Why do you think they’re doing that? What helped you reach that conclusion? There are literally billions of people who talk about Antarctica as though Antarctica exists. Why do you think they’re doing that? What helped you reach that conclusion? As an atheist, I find the comparison illuminating: I’ve drawn very different conclusions, based on very different evidence sets. ---
**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 7, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/148 "2017-03-07T17:23:11Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > **LHOD** , I like your line of approach to this question! ETA: post #142 > > May I humbly suggest (as a person who does _not_ identify as “atheist”) that a relevant factor here is whether or not one concludes without finality — that is, the question may be reopened at any point if new evidence appears — as opposed to holding the attitude that the question has been dealt with and the truth in this matter is known? Well…sure. I’m not holding my breath for new evidence. We also run into a problem with new evidence: the claim is so big, literally the largest claim a person can make about the cosmos, that it’s hard to think of evidence that wouldn’t support a humbler conclusion. If I suddenly look up in the sky to see stars spelling out, “DUDE, I AM GOD SENDING YOU A MESSAGE,” which is likelier: that I’m hallucinating, or that God has decided now of all times to reveal its presence? If everyone on earth suddenly grows octopus tentacles, which is likelier: Nyarolathotep the Crawling Chaos is pranking us, or the simulation we live in is glitching? This seems like a dilemma, of course, but happily the claim provides a way out of the dilemma: if there truly is an omniscient and omnipotent God who wants to persuade me it exists, it knows how to do so and can do so. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/149 "2017-03-07T17:25:57Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > There are literally billions of people who talk about God as though God exists. And again I see the assumption. Are all these billions of people talking about the same “God”? ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/150 "2017-03-07T17:27:22Z")
> [@](#): > > “Essentially what you are saying is we can fiddle around with the definition of “god” long enough to eventually arrive at a point where we cannot reasonably deny it exists?” H #141 If you’re accusing me of being on that bandwagon, I plead guilty. If you’re accusing me of either owning or driving that bandwagon; I’ll have to pass. You think sear is the one that started this ?! - Zeus - Vishnu - Neptune - Diva - Loki - Allah - Thor - JC - Shiva - it’s a very, very long list. THEY define their god. I define mine. Case closed! > [@](#): > > “Well - I guess you could do that with any term. I’d like to point out though that any term or designation that is not sufficiently well-defined to even allow for a reasonable debate over it’s object’s existence would be entirely meaningless.” But do it with an NFL football, and there are specs. that must be met. The fabulous luxury of defining god, is anyone can call it anything: - the man in the moon - the spirits in the ocean mist - the guy that saved me 20% on car insurance. god is whatever YOU say it is. Not so with footballs. > [@](#): > > “Theism is about god, not religion.” But then if god does not exist, then theism doesn’t exist. We have zero proof of god. We have 100% proof of religion. So your assertion is on the absolute most tenuous of ground. There is not one shred of evidence that god exists. But evidence of religion can be found everywhere. > [@](#): > > “My point exactly. We cannot entirely rule out the idea that the existence of Antarctica” I had friends that worked for Lamont-Dougherty, including one engineer that used to over-winter at McMurdo Station in Antarctica. I found his stories persuasive, and even saw him on TV briefly, when they were doing a story / news item from there. > [@](#): > > " is all a big hoax but there is no shred of evidence that points in that direction. So we do not take that idea for a fact." Ockham’s Razor ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/151 "2017-03-07T17:27:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So tell me, what defines a True Atheist? You have poisoned the well by asking what defines a true atheist, rather than simply asking what is an atheist. The USA is remarkable for the fervency of Christianity throughout it, in which one true believer sect calls out another true believer sect for not being true believers, and within sects, one true believer calls out another true believer for not being a true believer, and true believers are born again and again as they repeatedly affirm how truly they truly believe. It is absurd, but it is what it is, and it is a [bigly-yuge](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/) part of why the USA has become what it is. Your question is not applicable to atheists, for it implies that there is internecine dispute between atheists the way there is between Christian-American true believers, when in fact atheism is a big tent concept in which no one other than an occasional nutter gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut over the slight overlap between atheism and agnosticism concerning the evidentiary burden. People who do not believe in gods (or if you want to get pedantic about it, people who who do not affirm the proposition “at least one god exists”) – let’s call those people atheists – simply are not interested in trying to fit their lack of belief in gods into the Christian-American “I’m truly truer that you” mind-set. Saint Aquinas’ privation v. negation? Priest Donne’s no thing v. nothing? Evangelical’s fussing over hypocrisy v. true belief? Your “what defines a True Atheist?” _Meh_. So how about going back and asking a clean question, rather than a loaded one. ---
**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 7, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/152 "2017-03-07T17:31:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And again I see the assumption. > Are all these billions of people talking about the same “God”? No assumption at all–indeed, part of my skepticism stems from the vast differences in the entity they’re talking about. Compare that to conversations about Antarctica, which by and large are describing the same thing every time. Move anticipated and countered! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/153 "2017-03-07T17:32:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No assumption at all–indeed, part of my skepticism stems from the vast differences in the entity they’re talking about. Compare that to conversations about Antarctica, which by and large are describing the same thing every time. > > Move anticipated and countered! 🙂 I’ll concede check, but not checkmate. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/154 "2017-03-07T17:33:17Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > Did they? I don’t know, and I don’t see how this is relevant here. The deist philosophy states that god(s) do not interfere with our world. This is not the concept we are debating here. > > That depends on how you define belief. An example: > I have no way of knowing with 100% certainty whether Antarctica exists. But the evidence available to me leads me to conclude that it does. > Also I have no way of knowing with 100% certainty whether gods do exist. But the evidence available to me leads me to conclude that they don’t. > Since in both cases I cannot be 100% sure, you may call my conclusions a “belief”. But I would disagree with you. Because the people, who \*believe \*in god(s) usually do not simply interpret the evidence differently, coming to a different conclusion. Instead they explicitly do not require evidence in the first place. Such is the nature of faith, and that is why I disagree when people claim that atheism was simply a different kind of faith. +1 ior QFT. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/155 "2017-03-07T17:34:35Z")
> [@sear](#): > > How can a (dis)believer reject ALL notions of ALL gods, without a definition that covers them all? I think my cat thinks that I am a god, but that does not prove that my belief that I am not a god. > [@sear](#): > > But I’m not overly alarmed to climb into my comfortable modern car, and careen to the store in it at 15 MPH over the posted speed limit. Your argument is invalid because I was alarmed when my cat steered for the birds on the wire when she was driving. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/156 "2017-03-07T17:37:29Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > A concept is introduced, definition and evidence is supplied and we move from “non-belief” to “belief”. Knowledge and belief are intertwined, but one does not necessarily lead to another. For example, I am strongly Agnostic in that I believe it is literally _impossible_ for anyone to “know” about an absolute omniscient god, in the sense of scientific, philosophical, or evidence-based proof, as it raises too many contradictions about free will and so forth, and whatever “proof” is presented, one could always ask if there’s a higher truth beyond that one. On the other hand, I will confess that a Deist belief of continuance of some kind after death helps me sleep at night. ---
**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 7, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/157 "2017-03-07T17:38:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’ll concede check, but not checkmate. 😉 Fair enough! As I say, I think it’s very reasonable to draw different conclusions about the existence of God and the existence of Antarctica, even though billions of people believe in both, because the evidence for each (indeed, the very definition of each) has such massive differences. If someone asks why I believe in one but not the other, even though I’ve never directly encountered either, I’m totally ready to explain my reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/158 "2017-03-07T17:40:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Czarcasm > > “Are all these billions of people talking about the same “God”?” #152 Perhaps, from the monotheistic view. But hardly from the same religion. Thus my distinguishing the two. Not even Christians can get it together. - B’hai - Catholicism - Baptist - 7th Day Adventist - Pentecostalist - Jehovah’s Witness - etc. It’s the religionists that make the disbelievers and the non-believers look organized. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/159 "2017-03-07T17:41:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Fair enough! As I say, I think it’s very reasonable to draw different conclusions about the existence of God and the existence of Antarctica, even though billions of people believe in both, because the evidence for each (indeed, the very definition of each) has such massive differences. If someone asks why I believe in one but not the other, even though I’ve never directly encountered either, I’m totally ready to explain my reasoning. But can you answer your own question?: \*I require evidence before I draw a conclusion (or at least that’s how I think of myself; let’s stipulate that it’s true). Question: how did I decide that was the best way of reaching a conclusion?\* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222/160 "2017-03-07T17:42:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This “disbelief in Antarctica” comparison is rather insulting. I’ve already said I would examine any verifiable evidence for any “god” someone proposes…it’s just that no evidence for any “god” has been brought forward. Actually there is plenty of evidence- miracles. Even Manifestations. And the spread of some religions is amazing. So, it isnt that there is NO evidence, there is no evidence\* you accept. \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-tell-me-what-defines-a-true-atheist/781222.md?page=9)