GameOver22 said:
I also do not think that all definitions need to be absolute, but you can definitely name the characteristics something needs to have in order to fall into a category. The one obvious characteristic of atheists, at least good ones, is they must claim to have the knowledge that God does not exist. Without this, they just have a belief with no justification, and atheists are not going to want to rely on belief for their argument. The most popular form of argumentation would be arguing that the characteristics of God are incompatible with observations of the universe (eg. Richard Dawkins). Someone could also say we cannot know if God exists, but this is an agnostic and not an atheist. How does someone deny the existence of something without proof? Without proof, its just an empty statement. There needs to be some form of argumentation. I don't really think this is a question of philosophical v. common meaning. I think most atheists will maintain that belief is not enough to be an atheist. It is necessary, but this belief also needs to be true and justified, and hence, knowledge. Also, atheism is not concerned with religion but God. There can be people who believe in God but are not religious, such as deists, but they are not atheists. |
Ok not trying to be a dick, but saying you can not deny something without proof could also mean you can not prove that I am not god. Can you really prove the existence of anything because I don't think the statement "I think therefore, I am," is enough. In philiosophical thinking, you could prove or unprove the existance of anything.
A deist is a theist as well, so of course the are not an atheist; monotheism and polytheism are equals as religions even if polytheism is not as popular.
Actually I tell people I am an agnostic, but I truly believe that it is just one type of atheism.








