# The Definition of Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Religion\ **Created:** [April 9, 2026, 3:37pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630 "2026-04-09T15:37:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:16pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/109 "2026-04-16T20:16:13Z")
You are not as clever as you like to think you are. ---
**Author:** ![JosephHugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@JosephHugh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/JosephHugh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/110 "2026-04-16T20:21:30Z")
> [@Jasper30](#): > > I have stated the definition of an atheist and theist josephHugh…You are going to have to prove that God exists or doesn’t exist to prove me wrong. I’m just repeating myself here. This isn’t just about me or you and what we think about the opposing positions. It’s about the whole field of discussion that revolves around this, and classifying the positions people have, what they believe to be true, and how they describe their position. Not how it’s described by their adversary. It’s obvious I’m not both an atheist and a theist simultaneously, i can agree with one or neither of them, and still represent their position definitionally, AND THEN engage with its soundness. Just constantly reasserting that you’re an agnostic and anyone who disagrees with you is just a “hopeful agnostic” is just putting the cart before the horse. Theists and atheists all have differing reasons about why they are theists or atheists. They may or may not be justified in that position. You currently being agnostic is not a proof that they are too. That’s just absurd. ---
**Author:** ![questioner](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/questioner/32/50_2.png) [@questioner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/questioner)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:24pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/111 "2026-04-16T20:24:53Z")
> [@AmadeusD](#): > > it strikes me as decidedly atheist I suppose how we come to our own understanding of spirituality depends largely on our own personal experiences. I do not consider myself an atheist. I believe in the divine. I find it difficult to accept the dogma of organized religion, but I am in perpetual awe and wonder at creation. It suits my particular perspective to consider that everything that exists everywhere is indeed sacred. I have found a good home for my spirituality in the Catholic Church. When I say the Lord’s prayer, it aligns quite well with pantheistic beliefs. And the Hail Mary recognizes the divine feminine - _Holy Mary, Mother of God…_ ---
**Author:** ![JosephHugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@JosephHugh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/JosephHugh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/113 "2026-04-16T20:31:34Z")
What’s the point of this? You’re clearly not reading my posts or engaging with what I’m saying. Watch I can do the same… “The theist and atheist are not hopeful, you’re just hopeless” See. Doesn’t go anwhere. Doesn’t engage with a single thing I’ve said. And completely ignores the point of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![AmadeusD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@AmadeusD](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/AmadeusD)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/114 "2026-04-16T20:31:44Z")
Fair enough - nothing wrong with that, but I think if you truly believe in “the divine” then yes, you cannot be an atheist. I just don’t think that’s at all what scientific pantheism is about. Suffice to say Catholicism is cartoonish to me 😛 I very much hope it brings you comfort though. ---
**Author:** ![JosephHugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@JosephHugh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/JosephHugh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/116 "2026-04-16T20:45:44Z")
The definition of a hard agnostic is someone hopeless about everyones ability to know something with certainty, and despite not having engaged with everyone’s different arguments, just holds the unjustified assumption that it can’t be possible apriori before making the effort to engage and prove that all the positions in favour of atheism and theism are unjustified. Instead he just asserts everyone is just a hopeful agnostic without proof, and just says “trust me bro - no one knows.” See how that works? You have no clue whether or not every single person on the planet is justified or not because you haven’t engaged with all of them. You want to call everyone a “hopeful agnostic”? I’ll hit back and say you’re a “hopeless soft agnostic” (check definitions ij the OP). The reality is you can only say **YOU** dont know, and maybe (at most) the handful of people you’ve engaged with that have failed to prove God does or doesn’t exist to you. But you are certainly not justified in any way to then globalise your own inability. You have not proved that no one can know. You haven’t proved your perception of theists and atheists to be true. You’re just asserting it without proof. That’s dogmatism. ---
**Author:** ![JosephHugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@JosephHugh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/JosephHugh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 8:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/118 "2026-04-16T20:53:26Z")
> [@Jasper30](#): > > Unless a single person on the planet provides the proof that God exists or doesn’t exist then all they have is a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist Do you know such a person doesn’t exist? Have you engaged with every variation of atheist and theist? Have you spoke to every single person who claims to know and analysed their reasons? ---
**Author:** ![JosephHugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@JosephHugh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/JosephHugh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:01pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/120 "2026-04-16T21:01:07Z")
You’re not engaging at all. ---
**Author:** ![JosephHugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@JosephHugh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/JosephHugh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/122 "2026-04-16T21:03:42Z")
That is literally not engaging at all. “You’re just hopeless. You’ve only ever been hopeless.” ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/124 "2026-04-16T21:10:59Z")
If we consider atheism as a _second order_ term (in contrast to _first order_ theism), then it makes more sense to say atheism means ‘not theism’ or ‘without theism’. Thus, **an atheist is one who rejects theism** _because theism_ – consisting of ‘claims’ about the empty name “God” (i.e. it lacks a non-subjective referent) – _is not true_ **with respect to reality.** IMO, atheism addresses _the truth-value_ of theism, not the ontological status of “God”. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/126 "2026-04-16T21:21:17Z")
I guess you “hope” you’re making sense. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/128 "2026-04-16T21:28:14Z")
Explain what _you_ mean by “exists” and why that is _relevant_ to defining theism / atheism. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:39pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/130 "2026-04-16T21:39:13Z")
So you’re incapable of directly answering the straight-forward question I asked about _your_ usage of “exists”. Okay, Jasper. Keep on hoping … ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 9:58pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/132 "2026-04-16T21:58:05Z")
Your definition seems inadequate. I’ve met many atheists who really wish and hope there is a God but just can’t manage to believe it. Conversely I’ve known quite a few theists who wish there wasn’t a God, but can’t help believing. It may be out of our control, we are primed by our dispositions, culture and upbringing. I’ve often said that theism is a bit like sexual preference: you can’t help what you’re attracted to. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2026, 10:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/133 "2026-04-16T22:18:22Z")
The logic in this thread seems to be that one can dispose of such issues by choosing some suitable definition. That isn’t going to work. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2026, 12:22am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/135 "2026-04-17T00:22:44Z")
> [@Jasper30](#): > > theistic/atheistic debate Strawman. No one is debating on this thread about “God” or “Self”. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2026, 12:28am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/137 "2026-04-17T00:28:44Z")
You seem to think that replacing “believes” with “hopes” helps. Not seeing it. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2026, 12:34am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/139 "2026-04-17T00:34:11Z")
The notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being appears to be incompatible with the way the world is. So one might well conclude that the theistic god is inconsistent with the world. That’s only one reason amongst many to believe that God, as mooted, is incoherent and so does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2026, 12:53am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/141 "2026-04-17T00:53:37Z")
If the notion of god is incoherent, or inconsistent, then there is good reason to believe that the being so described does not exist. There is an inconstancy in a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being in a world in which bad things happen. Bad things happen. There are various ad hoc and post hoc arguments agains this. Those who are not convinced by these have good reason to think god does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2026, 12:59am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630/143 "2026-04-17T00:59:48Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > So, as far as philosophy of religion is concerned — and it should be a concern, on a philosophy forum — perhaps the first stop is to analyse what the subject of the debate is, before declaring whether one does or does not believe in it. Yes it really is helpful to at least try to define what it is that one is claiming to “believe” or “not believe in” i.e. which conception of the divine, the holy, the numinous, the sacred. There are so many different conceptions of “god” mystical, eastern, western, philosophical, etc. that merely defining atheism as lack of belief in “god” or “God” is a rather meaningless proposition or proposal. Everyone talking past each other or at the very least not really talking about the same conception. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630.md?page=5) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-definition-of-atheism/630.md?page=7)