What is atheism?

[De Maria]

Definitions of atheist on the Web:

someone who denies the existence of god
related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

One who rejects or is ignorant of theism.
www.jabcreations.com/philosophy/philoso ... itions.php

As used by most self-claimed atheists in means lack of belief in an organized religion. In the dictionary, an atheist is someone who do not believe in a God. ...
stobie.home.sprynet.com/work/oxymorons.htm

An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove.
jewishscientist.wordpress.com/definitions/

atheism - A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm


In a debate with FT, the exchange went as follows:

Filthy Tugboat wrote:


What beliefs are you referring to?

You call yourself an atheist.
Definitions of atheist on the Web:

someone who denies the existence of god
related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Atheist is defined as someone who denies the existence of God.

That is an anti-theist, not an atheist. An atheist is someone who says that there is insufficient evidence for a god.

Apparently atheists have become aware that there is no way they can prove their belief with objective evidence, so they have decided to blur the line between atheism and agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

What say you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[sarabellum]

...The idea of God seems possible, but I am not sure the question is meaningful....

[De Maria]

Check your sources:

[row][url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism]Princeton WordNet[/url]: Atheism Noun[list][*]S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)[*]S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) [/list]Note that De Maria ignored the second definition.

What's the difference between the two?
If you believe that there is no god it is the same thing as lacking a belief in the existence of God or gods.

....
a·the·ism    [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

[/list]

De Maria asks, "Do you deny the existence of God? Yes or no?"

The people who claim that there is a god, have not provided sufficient evidence or convincing reasons to support such a claim, therefore, I provisionally conclude that there does not exist a god. However, I am open to argument and reason and will revise my view when such are provided.

In other words, you will deny that God exists by claiming that their is no proof of His existence when someone provides evidence.

Furthermore, it is my view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. If such a definition is unfalsifiable, then the question of the existence of God is, to me, meaningless.

But when asked to provide proof that God does not exist, you will retreat to an agnostic position.

Classic! Thanks.

[LiamOS]

What's the difference between the two?
If you believe that there is no god it is the same thing as lacking a belief in the existence of God or gods.

Stating that there are no gods is a positive claim; stating that you do not believe in the existence of Gods is just stating that you see no evidence in favour of the hypothesis.

In other words, you will deny that God exists by claiming that their is no proof of His existence when someone provides evidence.

Most people who aren't theists won't deny the existence of God, but will not accept it.
Also, the second statement is loaded; evidence is rarely provided, and near-conclusive evidence is never provided.

But when asked to provide proof that God does not exist, you will retreat to an agnostic position.

That's kind of what Atheism is, actually...

That you believe otherwise at this stage shows either an unwillingness or and incapability to grasp the rather basic concept that is Atheism. Further, that you believe it to be so hopeless a worldview is clearly due to your basing your ideas on a massive straw-man.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

I think De Maria seeks to "confront" a "strong atheist", and I'll be glad to oblige...

This strong atheist declares there are no gods. There is no evidence that gods are anything beyond the product of humans, and this I contend is because god belief is strictly a product of being human. Lacking any conflicting evidence, there is no other conclusion available.

Yes, I deny the existence of gods. I do so in the knowledge that it's not necessary to search the entire universe, specifically because the best, most logical, most reasonable, and most evidenced position is that god belief is a human endeavor.

[TheParticlePerson]

De Maria, there is a difference between lacking belief and believing that there are no gods. It's the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Somebody who has never heard of the Christian god obviously won't believe he exists, but he won't believe that he doesn't exist either.

As for providing proof for the non-existence of a god: gods are slippery, tricky, nebulous things. They're completely non-corporeal, can't be detected with any of the five senses or with any technological instrument, and best of all, they only directly affect the world using natural phenomena that would occur anyway with or without a god's facilitation. How would you go about disproving such a thing?

[McCulloch]

De Maria can be forgiven for being confused about the varying definitions of atheism. The difference is subtle. The stronger definition is when someone does not believe that a god exists. It is like saying, "There is no god. I have a belief that no god exists." The weaker definition, still within the range of what we call atheism, is lacking a belief in a god. It is like saying, "I don't have a belief in a god. "

I have long ago given up on the expectation that any theist will provide proof for their assertions. However, I am still open to evidence and reason. Provide what evidence there is that favors the notion that a god exists. Make whatever reasoned arguments that may be favorable to the case that god exists. I will hear them. I will hammer at them skeptically, like any new idea, and if they survive, I will believe. I do not ask for proof.

I do not retreat to an agnostic position. There are those who call my position ignostic. I quite frankly admit that I do not know what you mean by the word god. Unless you can provide a coherent definition of of what you mean by God, further discussion about the existence of such a thing is meaningless. If you provide a definition like "God is the ground of all existence" then even I am a theist.

Do you deny the existence of Vonk? Yes or No!

[scourge99]

As used by most self-claimed atheists in means lack of belief in an organized religion. In the dictionary, an atheist is someone who do not believe in a God. ...
stobie.home.sprynet.com/work/oxymorons.htm

An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove.
jewishscientist.wordpress.com/definitions/

atheism - A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

"Atheist/atheism" is an almost entirely useless word. Its as useless as non-astrologer or a-fairyist. It tells nothing about the beliefs of another.

Furthermore, things become even more hectic and confusing because there are so many different lines of thought regarding what it means to "believe" or "know" (in a god or anything else). Philosophy on this matter runs the gamut from intuition, to justification, to affirmation, to absolute certainty... to name a few.

I propose that instead of trying to pigeonhole others with such a dysfunctional word, you simply ask them about their beliefs, knowledge, intuition, etc. You'll find yourself in a far more productive conversation/debate if you do.

Apparently atheists have become aware that there is no way they can prove their belief with objective evidence, so they have decided to blur the line between atheism and agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

What say you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Atheists are not a cohesive group. They share nothing in common but a lack of belief in god(s) (assuming they even agree on what a lack of belief is). And that lack of belief entails NOTHING else in common. Thus, your attempt to chastise atheists as having some type of collective purpose or agenda is in error.

[De Maria]

"Atheist/atheism" is an almost entirely useless word. Its as useless as non-astrologer or a-fairyist. It tells nothing about the beliefs of another.

Its only addressing one belief. The belief that God does not exist. In that respect, it is perfect.
atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

Furthermore, things become even more hectic and confusing because there are so many different lines of thought regarding what it means to "believe" or "know" (in a god or anything else). Philosophy on this matter runs the gamut from intuition, to justification, to affirmation, to absolute certainty... to name a few.

I propose that instead of trying to pigeonhole others with such a dysfunctional word, you simply ask them about their beliefs, knowledge, intuition, etc. You'll find yourself in a far more productive conversation/debate if you do.

You're joking right?

The only atheists I've met on this forum like to sit back and snipe at the beliefs of Christians and other believers. They hide behind the "I don't have any beliefs" line and shoot down any attempt at intelligent conversation.

Thanks be to God that I was once an atheist. I recognized the strategy which I once used immediately. That is why I set up this thread. To put us on equal footing. I can be just as skeptical about atheism as atheists are about Christianity.

And also, because I was once an atheist, I recognize that all that atheists have is SUBJECTIVE. They can prove nothing with objective evidence. Because they have no objective evidence.

Atheists are not a cohesive group.

Don't I know it.

They share nothing in common but a lack of belief in god(s) (assuming they even agree on what a lack of belief is). And that lack of belief entails NOTHING else in common. Thus, your attempt to chastise atheists as having some type of collective purpose or agenda is in error.

They may not be a cohesive group. But they are a group. And they congregate and form clubs and other memberships which have agendas and missions to spread their "religion". Here's an example of organized atheism:
http://www.atheists.org/

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Lux]

He called himself an atheist. I quoted his words.

I didn't characterize Filthy Tugboat as an atheist. He did so himself. I accepted his testimony. Now I want to know who agrees whether atheists deny the existence of God or not?

I'm not saying that you qualified Filthy as an atheist, which I know he calls himself, I'm saying you're telling atheists what we believe - furthermore, you're telling me among other members of this site that we're not actually atheists when in fact we are, and I don't think that's good manners. You could have simply asked why we consider ourselves atheists if we don't deny the existence of god and some of us would have explained happily.

Well, yeah. That is precisely what that means. You don't believe there is enough evidence to prove that God exists, therefore you deny that God exists.

Simple as that.

This is incorrect. If you read the Wikipedia article I cited you probably saw the distinction I mentioned between strong atheism and agnostic atheism. If they are the same thing, why is a distinction made and widely accepted?

There is a difference, an important one. It's not the same to say I don't believe in aliens than to say I believe aliens doesn't exist.

I'll give you a personal "for instance" that might even make you happy:

I'm an agnostic atheist when it comes to most forms of gods. I don't know if there's an uninvolved deity around somewhere, or if the Universe is part of a being we might call God (panentheism). I consider myself an agnostic regarding these gods because I don't see how I could ever disprove them or how could someone disprove them to me, and an atheist because I don't believe in them (which is not to say I believe they don't exist.)

However, in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, I'm more of a strong atheist. I wouldn't say I'm completely positive it's not there, but I believe Yahweh is a human construct and does not exist.

Do you see the difference?

That seems to prove me correct. These atheist are blurring the line between agnosticism and atheism because they know they can't prove their belief.

They deny the existence of God based upon what they deem to be the evidence and then retreat to agnosticism when confronted to prove their position.

We don't "retreat" to agnosticism. It would be nice of you to respect the positions of others.

I'm an agnostic atheist when it comes to some gods. It's not something I chose because it was convenient, it is the only option that makes sense to me. If someone convinces me that my lack of belief is nonsensical, I'll be quick to change my point of view.

By capitalizing God, do you mean to signify the Judeo Christian God? Because any theist who believes in another type of god is simply a theist. Not an agnostic. A person who calls himself a theist believes in the existence of a god no matter which god that might be.

Yes, that's what I meant. Christians who believe in Yahweh but wouldn't say that they know for sure that he exists might call themselves agnostic theists. That is the case for some users of this site. Darias comes to mind.

There are a lot of different points of view when it comes to gods. "There is no god" and "Yes there is!" are not the only two options.

[sarabellum]

I hesitate to speak for you De Maria but if I recall you seem to be a christian...
Does that mean that you are an atheist to all other type of God systems...
polytheism?
pantheism?

Do you believe there is a Vishnu?

If you are an atheist to those beliefs do you fall in to the logical quagmire that you are suggesting the full blown atheist must fall into?

It seems to me that everyone holds the atheistic world view about some subjects....