The Definition of Atheism According To...

[WinePusher]

The definition of atheism according to an internet debater:

Actually, EJ, the Atheist position (according to Atheists -- not Theists) is "I do not believe in gods" -- period -- full stop.

SOME Atheists (often referred to as Hard Atheists) deny the existence of "gods" but that is NOT required in Atheism -- which means "Without belief in gods."

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2&start=10

The definition of atheism according to Carl Sagan:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan#Social_concerns

The definition of atheism according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The definition of atheism according to Dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

Questions for debate:

1) What is the definition of atheism?

2) When considering the definition of atheism, should one rely on the opinions of an internet debater or the opinions of Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary?

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt.

3) Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary 'theists' and 'theistic sources?' Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary guilty of straw man attempts?

[NoisForm]

... 1) What is the definition of atheism? ...

I leave for this long, come back, and this is still being debated? Oh my. I made a page a while back to deal with this perennial favorite; Atheism Defined. That should clear up any confusion (but it likely won't - people believe what they want to, and nothing more).

Hell, even Conservapedia admits that this 'redefining' occurred some 138 years ago - despite them questioning the motive as somehow nefarious;

" Charles Bradlaugh, in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism." http://www.conservapedia.com/Attempts_t ... of_atheism

Just how long after a word's usage changes (if that's even the case, which I find dubious), do we start to accept the meaning? Words change, meanings change, language is fluid. Get with the times. When this definition was being discussed by Bradlaugh the telephone was just being invented. Seriously, move on people.

[wiploc]

Finally, the first personal attack of the thread.

It's good to hear that this is the first personal attack of the thread.

Winepusher wrote (in this thread):

Quote mining is a dishonest tactic,

Using the correct definition of a term is not a red herring, it's called being accurate and honest.

And please, I hope that you take the time to read what I wrote instead of ignoring it and continuing to level false accusations against me.

It must not be personal attack when you do it.

[WinePusher]

I disagree. I'll answer any question you have. Just ask.

I already did, and you ignored them.

First, I think you'd actually agree with me if we were on the same page about what 'lack of belief' means. As I've already said many times, if one merely 'lacks belief' they do not have any particular views or positions regarding the subject. This is why it's foolish to define atheism in this manner because atheists do have views, positions and beliefs regarding the subject of God's existence.

Second, produce one prominent NON-INTERNET self professed atheist that identifies with the 'lack belief' or present your own take on what 'lack belief' means.

BTW, this is not the first time you have tried to use against a person the fact they participate in the debate. This is irrelevant and I suggest an unfair and illogical debating tactic which in essence says, "If you reply you admit my argument is worth replying to. If you do not reply, you concede the point."

In any event this seems like a deflection from the point in question which is that you have the burden of proof to show your beliefs have merit; while those who lack belief have no burden.

What are you talking about? You constantly call this thread silly, pointless and a waste of time, and yet you keep coming back. I find this strange because I also think there are tons of threads on this forum that are silly, pointless and a waste of time but unlike you I avoid posting in them.

[dianaiad]

Moderator Comment

This thread is getting a bit heated, with too much 'tit for tat.' If you see a post that you believe violates forum guidelines for incivility, personal comments or anything else, please report it and let the moderating team handle it. There are many posts and posters here, and we depend upon your eyes to help keep the forum a pleasant and lively place to debate, without personal conflict.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 130 by NoisForm]

Well heck if words never change then christians are atheists too according to the Romans since they don't accept the Roman Pantheon....

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 132 by WinePusher]

People

James Randi
Sam Harris
Andrew Copson
Matt Dillahunty
JT Eberhard

Dictionaries
The Oxford English Dictionary
The Merriam Webster Dictionary

[WinePusher]

You miss the point entirely. People are presumed to be INNOCENT right off the bat which is why I mentioned the 'presumption of innocence' which you completely ignored.

Nobody concludes innocence in criminal cases. This presumption is not a statement of fact. But this is beside the point. The point is there's a category in addition to innocent and guilty, which makes it an apt analogy to agnostic soft atheism.

What you say is half right and half wrong. The part where you're right is when you say that a all a 'not guilty' verdict indicates the failure of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The part where you're wrong is where you dismiss the presumption of innocence because the defendants innocence is maintained up until guilt is proven.

I repeat: I do NOT see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same, so your point is invalid, and your malformed question unanswerable. I encourage you to look-up the definitions of both "knowledge" and "belief" in a dictionary.

Gosh, you can't even explain WHY you don't see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same? Maybe it's because if you actually explain why you'll expose the many deep seated flaws and contradictions in your position. And btw, you do realize that knowledge is a requirement of belief, right? Do you understand that in order to believe in something you must first have knowledge of it?

Even though there was no fallacy about this mentioned. Did you not follow the case that closely? All the public debate was centered around race, guns, self defense, etc AND all the participants in the case as well as outside commentators understood what 'guilty and not guilty meant.' On what basis did you make your claim in the first place?

You are incorrect again. I named the specific fallacy in that post twice: False dichotomy. eg. "An accused is found either guilty or innocent" or "A person either believes god exists, or he believes god doesn't." You are omitting an additional category.

I understand that you weren't posting in the thread since it began, but go read my posts from the beginning and you'll see how wrong your statement is. I never omit the 'additional category' you refer to.

And again, please provide evidence that there was confusion over 'guilty and innocence' in the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman was proven not guilty because the prosecution failed to argue their case beyond a reasonable doubt, AND Zimmerman's innocence has been presumed from day one and continues to be presumed because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 136 by WinePusher]
In the sense he means them (which is what's important if we're comparing them)

Soft atheism or weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the possibility of knowing the existence of gods.


It's the other way around as most philosophers see it - almost exclusively philosophers believe that knowledge is a subset of belief - for example, one philosopher defined knowledge as "justified true belief".

The difference: Some people used to believe the world was flat. But they didn't know it was flat.
This (and various other) definitions of knowledge require it to be true. The thing you are believing, however, does not have to be true.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 136 by WinePusher]

wine


please define this statement


"I don't believe in gods, however, I don't know that gods don't exist."

[JoeyKnothead]

From various comments within the thread:

So, we have one 'internet debater' opposed to a definition of another 'internet debater' , to such an extent he argues with another group of 'internet debaters'.

Both sides have presented their data, sources, and such that I can present the following conclusions for folks to ponderate in making their own...

Firstly, I find the term 'internet debater' either an attempt at character assassination, or a complete lack of self-awareness on the accuser's part. That one presents their data on the internet has no bearing on the validity of said data.

Were Zzyzx to present his data via airdrop into the jungle, jumps out of the plane and nosedives down so he can land first and catch it, so's he can ensure it survives the fall intact, does the data become more, or less compelling?

I sense one is upset that Zzyzx is not the kind of atheist (as I refer to him here) I am, and such a condition, from such a wise debater, is unacceptable to one who may declare God's up there.

What do?

Stop declaring he is, or start challenging atheists like myself, who declares that gods only exist as the product of concepated human beings seeking to affect the thoughts or actions of others.

I seem to be the only atheist here in the thread who declares there are no gods.

The rest of 'em seem to say, "Well that'n there, he don't talk for me."

That right there should be the only evidence we need to conclude that atheists hold their position by degrees of difference.

I propose if folks are upset about how to define the term, they might do best to show God exists, and we can end the debate about it right there.