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?

[WinePusher]

What I'm talking about is what you just repeated.

I have previously answered your questions, not ignored them.

You've certainly put a lot of conditions on who I may use as a source. Your restrictions come close to saying my source must be someone who agrees with you. You demand that he must:
1. be prominent
2. be "NON INTERNET" [Is one disqualified if he has ever used the internet?]
3. be a "self professed atheist"

The reason I brought up those criteria is that I want you to show an actual atheist outside of the internet who subscribes to the 'lack belief' definition. Also, I provided my take on what 'lack belief' entails, do you agree or disagree with it?

But, I can work within those restrictions:

'"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Harvey, Van A. "Agnosticism and Atheism", in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."

Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."'

_ from the Wikipedia entry on 'Atheism'
BTW, I have previously on this thread cited to Wikipedia on both the definitions of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism.'
The problem faced by anyone who tries to force a narrow definition on atheism is that virtually all sources disagree that there is but one narrow definition that does not overlap with forms of agnosticism. This has been pointed out on this thread and many previous threads on this forum many times previously, as Noisform has statedF

The definition I subscribe to is not the 'narrow' definition of atheist. According to your very own Wikipedia article, it is the most comprehensive definition. Also, you are left with two problems:

1. Dictionary.com and American Heritage do not agree with your Wikipedia definition.
2. Actual, prominent, non internet atheists do not identify with the 'lack belief' definition, as indicated by the Carl Sagan quote.

[WinePusher]

It is certain that knowledge is not equivalent to belief. The words have different meaning.

Doesn't address ANYTHING I said. I asked to you directly respond to this and you didn't, here's another chance:

Ok, so both deal with lack of belief according to you. Also, according to you, one deals with the possibility of knowing and the other does not. Do you understand that in order to believe in something you must first have knowledge of it? I must first have knowledge the thing in question, and after I've attained this knowledge I can then proceed to form beliefs about it. Please address this point directly.

The actual definition depends, but knowledge is almost always a subset of belief. Usually it's said to be a justified belief (justified true belief is itself unknowable), e.g. a belief held for good reasons that are indicative of what we think to be truth.

I already agreed with this. However, I went on to further explain my position on this and you ignored it. I'm not going to repeat myself. Notice that in my responses to you, I actually take each of your major points and respond to them directly. Please do the same.

Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief, it deals with knowledge.

I said it before and I'll say it again, repeating something does not make it true. You already stated that agnosticism deals with lack of belief, and I already explained why I don't think you're being totally inaccurate in your description of this. Please go back and respond to it.

[Jashwell]

It is certain that knowledge is not equivalent to belief. The words have different meaning.

Doesn't address ANYTHING I said. I asked to you directly respond to this and you didn't, here's another chance:

Ok, so both deal with lack of belief according to you. Also, according to you, one deals with the possibility of knowing and the other does not. Do you understand that in order to believe in something you must first have knowledge of it? I must first have knowledge the thing in question, and after I've attained this knowledge I can then proceed to form beliefs about it. Please address this point directly.

And according to the person who you're accusing of inconsistency. Whether or not it's the "correct definition" is of course moot with regards to consistency.

This is false equivalence.
Not only is knowledge not required at all - belief is satisfactory (belief can be personally perceived as knowledge in all scenarios) - but regardless - you do not have to know that a god does not exist in order to not believe in one. You also do not have to know that a god does exist in order to believe in one.

The actual definition depends, but knowledge is almost always a subset of belief. Usually it's said to be a justified belief (justified true belief is itself unknowable), e.g. a belief held for good reasons that are indicative of what we think to be truth.

I already agreed with this. However, I went on to further explain my position on this and you ignored it. I'm not going to repeat myself. Notice that in my responses to you, I actually take each of your major points and respond to them directly. Please do the same.

I addressed it all at once because I was tired of breaking up things into quotes at the time. I have a 1920x1080 resolution and the forum post box is incredibly small. Since I'm merely claiming that you haven't demonstrated that another user's definitions (which I in part [if not in full] agree with) aren't inconsistent, there isn't that much text needed to justify individual quotes (though I will try to do so in future)

I find it funny that you accuse me of ignoring - I'm not sure specifically what you refer to, but I have three or four posts that have literally no responses. One of which I know you read because you accuse me of not responding to a particular question in it. (which I missed and later answered, though if you had actually said this to me rather than to someone else that would have been a response in and of itself). I of course don't know whether or not you missed the others (this thread is gaining posts fast to be fair).

The single fact that knowledge is not literally equivalent to belief is more than enough to show that his definitions of agnostic and atheist are not in any way inconsistent.

Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief, it deals with knowledge.

I said it before and I'll say it again, repeating something does not make it true. You already stated that agnosticism deals with lack of belief, and I already explained why I don't think you're being totally inaccurate in your description of this. Please go back and respond to it.

[/quote]
I mean with reference to how he uses it; but this is also the standard OED definition. And the etymology. And the way that most people who use weak atheism define it.

Regardless, it is in common enough usage to justify adding as an additional context it to the dictionaries you use.

[Star]

[Replying to post 148 by Star]

Star, either go back and reply to my response or we're done here. I don't have a problem debating you, but I do have a problem if you're going to ignore everything I've written and proceed to mischaracterize my views.

Post 136. Reply to what I've written there, otherwise I have nothing further to say to you.

In post 136, you wrote: "Gosh, you can't even explain WHY you don't see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same?"

I explained several times why I don't see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same. A/theism is about belief, and a/gnosticism is about knowledge which have different meanings. I stated this clearly in my first post, and have repeated it many times since. How many times do I have to say it? Seriously?

This means all types of atheism and theism are about BELIEFS, or lack thereof.

And this means all types of agnosticism and gnosticism are about KNOWLEDGE, or lack thereof.

So to answer your question again, agnostic soft atheists don't positively incorporate deities into their belief system (soft atheism), but on the question of any deity's existence, they don't know, but are willing to consider evidence (agnosticism).

Likewise, agnostic theists believe in the existence of a deity, but don't know for sure, and aren't under the illusion they can or ought to convince others. My favorite types of Christians fall into this category.

Words have meanings, and stuff.

[Danmark]

What I'm talking about is what you just repeated.

I have previously answered your questions, not ignored them.

You've certainly put a lot of conditions on who I may use as a source. Your restrictions come close to saying my source must be someone who agrees with you. You demand that he must:
1. be prominent
2. be "NON INTERNET" [Is one disqualified if he has ever used the internet?]
3. be a "self professed atheist"

The reason I brought up those criteria is that I want you to show an actual atheist outside of the internet who subscribes to the 'lack belief' definition. Also, I provided my take on what 'lack belief' entails, do you agree or disagree with it?

But, I can work within those restrictions:

'"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Harvey, Van A. "Agnosticism and Atheism", in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."

Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."'

_ from the Wikipedia entry on 'Atheism'
BTW, I have previously on this thread cited to Wikipedia on both the definitions of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism.'
The problem faced by anyone who tries to force a narrow definition on atheism is that virtually all sources disagree that there is but one narrow definition that does not overlap with forms of agnosticism. This has been pointed out on this thread and many previous threads on this forum many times previously, as Noisform has statedF

The definition I subscribe to is not the 'narrow' definition of atheist. According to your very own Wikipedia article, it is the most comprehensive definition. Also, you are left with two problems:

1. Dictionary.com and American Heritage do not agree with your Wikipedia definition.
2. Actual, prominent, non internet atheists do not identify with the 'lack belief' definition, as indicated by the Carl Sagan quote.

I've given you definitive answers from multiple sources, despite your restrictions. I disagree with your assessment of what the American Heritage Dictionary says, but even if you are correct, the sources I gave are much more specific and more authoritative than a general dictionary. Plus they constitute a definitive answer to your questions despite your restrictions. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and Harvey's work which is devoted entirely to the issue are both much better sources than a general dictionary of English.

I've met your challenge, which was to name a single source. I named two in addition to those previously offered. I've answered your question on your own terms. Remember, your challenge did not deal with comparisons. You asked for just one suitable citation. You've been given many. Whether or not you concede the point is not a test of the point itself, but of . . . something more personal.

[WinePusher]

I've given you definitive answers from multiple sources, despite your restrictions.

The only source you seem to appeal to is Wikipedia, which is a testament to how weak your position is.

I disagree with your assessment of what the American Heritage Dictionary says, but even if you are correct, the sources I gave are much more specific and more authoritative than a general dictionary.

Wait, why should anybody believe you when you say that your sources are more 'authoritative' than 3 dictionaries? Are you a linguist? Have done substantial work in the field of semantics and semiotics? Can we just agree that this is an unsupported, base assertion?

And btw, do you have a subscription to the OED? The only way you can access the OED is if you have a subscription or if you are affiliated with an academic library. Luckily I do have access to the OED through my universities library, and whataya know:

Oxford English Dictionary:
-Atheist: 1) One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. 2) One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
-Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

You have no other way out other than to admit that you're wrong. It seems like you and many others relied heavily on the OED to support your inaccurate 'lack belief' and the OED DOES NOT support it AT ALL. I'm not even sure what to say, I should have actually accessed the OED earlier instead of just taking your (general term) word for it. It would have saved us a lot of pages of debate. Oh well, we all make mistakes so I'm not going to dwell on this.

I think we're done.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and Harvey's work which is devoted entirely to the issue are both much better sources than a general dictionary of English.

Merriam Webster Dictionary:
-Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
-Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of a deity/the doctrine that there is no deity

American Heritage Dictionary:
-Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary.com
-Atheist: A person who disbelieves or denies the existence of supreme beings
-Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God/Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Stanford Encyclopedia
-Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Please, go ahead and continue to argue with these 5 sources. Just know that whether or not you concede the point is not a test of the point itself, but of . . . something more personal.

[Zzyzx]

.

I think we're done.

Reasonable conclusion for one whose five dictionary citations ALL include in their definition of Atheism disbelief (with some including OR denial). Thus, the definitions you supply do NOT support the position that Atheism equals denial.

Oxford English Dictionary:
-Atheist: 1) One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. 2) One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
-Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

Merriam Webster Dictionary:
-Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
-Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of a deity/the doctrine that there is no deity

American Heritage Dictionary:
-Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary.com
-Atheist: A person who disbelieves or denies the existence of supreme beings
-Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God/Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Stanford Encyclopedia
-Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Hoist with one's own petard: to be harmed or disadvantaged by an action of one's own which was meant to harm someone else. (From a line in Shakespeare's Hamlet.)

[Danmark]

I've given you definitive answers from multiple sources, despite your restrictions.

Winepusher:

Oxford English Dictionary:
-Atheist: 1) One who ... disbelieves the existence of a God.
....
-Atheism: Disbelief in ... the existence of a God.
....Merriam Webster Dictionary:
-Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of a deity

American Heritage Dictionary:
-Atheism: Disbelief in ... the existence of God or gods.

Your own quotes demonstrate you are wrong and persist in the error you have made all along. You continue to make this error by failing to acknowledge the use of the disjunctive. In my edit of your quotes above, I have removed the alternate definition, leaving the one you disagree with; to wit, that atheism may be defined as the "disbelief" in god or gods, as opposed to the denial of god or gods.

We can resort to several dictionaries for the definition of "disbelief," including the OED:
"Lack of faith in something."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /disbelief

This is in accord with my print copy of the Shorter OED
Fifth Edition [2002]:
"disbelieve: ... 2. Be a sceptic; have no faith or belief in."

This is also in accord with the definition given for "atheist:"
"1. a person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods."
[emphasis applied]
It is time to reflect upon your own phrase:

You have no other way out other than to admit that you're wrong.

[WinePusher]

Reasonable conclusion for one whose five dictionary citations ALL include in their definition of Atheism disbelief (with some including OR denial). Thus, the definitions you supply do NOT support the position that Atheism equals denial.

Here are a few of my statements that you probably missed, reading them will help you understand why everything you wrote is erroneous:

'I don't really have any problem with the five OED definitions you gave, I think they're all accurate but I personally see the 'denying God' one as the most accurate as it describes what modern atheists actually say and do. But, that doesn't make the other 4 definitions any less credible. The one definition I reject is the 'lack belief' one.'

'If you define atheism as 'lack of belief' then you're inaccurate, it's as simple as that. If you define atheism as rejection of belief in God, or disbelief in God, or denial of God, or any one of those definitions then you would be accurate.'

...

Hoist with one's own petard: to be harmed or disadvantaged by an action of one's own which was meant to harm someone else. (From a line in Shakespeare's Hamlet.)

'I find the irony absolutely delightful.' (Kudos to dianaiad for this quote)

[WinePusher]

Your own quotes demonstrate you are wrong and persist in the error you have made all along. You continue to make this error by failing to acknowledge the use of the disjunctive. In my edit of your quotes above, I have removed the alternate definition, leaving the one you disagree with; to wit, that atheism may be defined as the "disbelief" in god or gods, as opposed to the denial of god or gods.

Danmark, I'd like to know if you if you understand where I'm coming from. Your side in this debate has been saying that the OED supports the 'lack belief' definition of atheism, and I accepted this for the past 16 pages because I trusted what you (general term) were saying.

Unfortunately, I shouldn't have trusted you and I should've checked for myself because it turns out that your claim about the OED is not correct. The actual OED website doesn't include the 'lack belief' definition. Will you admit that this is just a huge blunder on your sides part?

We can resort to several dictionaries for the definition of "disbelief," including the OED:

Why would we need to do that? Are you also uncertain about what the definition of 'disbelief' is? Taken from post 60: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Do you see the word 'or?' Do you know what the word 'or' means in this case? Disbelief OR lack of belief implies that the two are not the same and mean different things.

There, now that we've cleared that up can we get back to the egregious mistake about the OED. I believe you said it best with this little gem: Whether or not you concede the point is not a test of the point itself, but of . . . something more personal.

Let me ask, when one refuses to concede a point what does it indicate about them personally? I'd like to know because it appears that many nontheists in this thread will not concede the point, and according to you this tells us something personal about them? Please elaborate.