semanticsIf it is “the” definition, I would argue we need to stop using the term, “Cuz it ain’t right”.
If it is NOT a good definition, why not?
If you believe this is a good definition, where did you come by your knowledge of the term?
No it isn’t. And its not roughly equivalent to any of the words you mention.
Its simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
“Science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it’d stop.” — Dara O’Briain
We can only define something when we can definitively define its absence. “X” only starts where “not-X” ends. Since the universe is so bloody big as to be effectively un-measurable in its entirety by us, we cannot say that we know there are no deities. What we can say is that we know there is no evidence to date of any deity or deities.
And I for one do not believe it’s a political term. It may be used as a conversation-stopping insult in a charged political conversation, but “atheist” is defined as “without god(s)” (a+theos) and so is neutral. In contrast, “bigot” is by definition an insult. It’s a negative term.
I am proud to call myself an atheist, as I am proud to call myself a liberal. I would look askance at anyone proudly labelling him/herself a racist.
No. No one “knows” there is no god: it’s a huge universe, there could be a giant bearded jew hiding behind a star somewhere. We can strongly suspect it. We can strongly believe it. But we can’t “know” it.
It is not “the” definition (at least, among atheists themselves), nor is it a “good” definition. Some atheists claim that they know there is no God, but I think that claim is indefensible in the old “you can’t prove a negative” sense.
The most inclusive definition is someone who simply doesn’t believe in God.
No. Everyone gets to pick one from each of these categories:
KNOWLEDGE:
Gnostic = “KNOWS” whether or not there is a god
Agnostic = doesn’t claim to “KNOW”
BELIEF:
Theist = believes in a god
Atheist = otherwise
You can be a Gnostic Atheist (though I’ve never heard of one). You can be an Agnostic Theist (probably common, but rarely self-identified that way).
I think that “An atheist knows there’s no need in God” is possible.
No it’s not a good way to define it, but it being used like that is partially our fault. What you’re talking about is the same reason I’m so adamant about using the term agnostic correctly.
When people use agnostic to refer to an agnostic atheist, they push everyone that self identifies as atheist into the position of a gnostic atheist, which isn’t accurate at all. So many people use the term agnostic this way because they think they’re open minded or intellectual. The fact is, they’re using the term wrong. It gets transmitted to religious people that talk to an ‘agnostic’ or do a cursory google search and there you have it.
You’re asking a question that deals with two separate issues.
The above “definition” is not the most appropriate for an atheist, which instead should be “Someone who does not place any intellectual or emotional investment in the theistic god concept.”
“Knowing” there is no god (unless we are devolving to the deistic version for a backdoor) is pretty damn simple, actually, as the issue really devolves into a question of superpowers and prerequisites for subservience. Shermer’s Last Law disintegrates the concept of a deity from its very roots.
There is no god. There either is or isn’t a sentient being that you may forfeit your life and worship to.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.