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?

[Star]

The arguments about the definition of 'atheism' were covered adequately in many earlier threads on this forum and once again in the first two pages, if not the first page of this one. The rest is surplusage.

Actually, at first blush that doesn't appear to be the case.

How would you know? You refuse to read the thread, by your own admission.

[enaidealukal]

How would you know? You refuse to read the thread, by your own admission.

Um, no. You asked me whether I read the entire thread. I did not. Obviously, that I didn't read the entire thread doesn't mean I didn't read the OP and the first 10 or so responses- I did.

[Star]

How would you know? You refuse to read the thread, by your own admission.

Um, no. You asked me whether I read the entire thread. I did not. Obviously, that I didn't read the entire thread doesn't mean I didn't read the OP and the first 10 or so responses- I did.

Yeah right. I asked if you "read the thread from the beginning."

You read only 10 or so responses out of nearly 300? This is less than 4%.

You don't have to read the entire thread, but stating that people are confused about which thread they're in, and nobody has adequately addressed the question yet, suggests you've read more than just "the OP and the first 10 or so responses."

[Star]

And this...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 047#668047

[DanieltheDragon]

The arguments about the definition of 'atheism' were covered adequately in many earlier threads on this forum and once again in the first two pages, if not the first page of this one. The rest is surplusage. It is long since time for this thread to die by inattention.

I CANT LET IT DIE!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though there needs to be a simple sticky explaining these things listed in easy to read bullet point format. I dare so much confusion new debaters might have with regard to these issues.

Now some of it is willful ignorance both intentionally and unintentionally just to one up an individual(s) in debate. No amount of correction can fix that.

[enaidealukal]

Yeah right. I asked if you "read the thread from the beginning."

You read only 10 or so responses out of nearly 300? This is less than 4%.

Your math looks sound. But did you have a point here?

No?

You don't have to read the entire thread, but stating that... nobody has adequately addressed the question yet, suggests you've read more than just "the OP and the first 10 or so responses.

That's not really what I said (I was disagreeing with Danmark's comment that everything else is "surplusage" in particular), I've explicitly stated that I hadn't read the entire thread, and I also explictly stated that my disagreement with Danmark's comment was based on a first impression.

[enaidealukal]

And this...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 047#668047

It's not that difficult. This has probably been posted already, but I'll take a stab at it...

The A prefix basically means "not" or "without."

A/gnosticism is about knowledge. A/theism is about belief.

Agnostics recognize they lack sufficient knowledge to be certain, while gnostics don't.

Atheists don't believe in any gods, while theists do.

These two terms can actually complement each other. Agnostic-atheists (such as myself) don't believe in any gods, but don't know for certain. A gnostic-theist, like most Christians, think they know their god exists, and of course, actively believe it, too.

There are other categories of atheist to take note of.

Implicit atheists aren't familiar with religion, and haven't had an opportunity to consider any claims, such as infants. Explicit atheists, such as every atheist here, have had the opportunity. For example, I'm familiar with dozens of religions, gods, creation claims, etc., but I don't believe any of them, for reasons I can articulate.

Positive/hard atheists believe god(s) don't exist. This is what many people think atheists are, including Carl Sagan as noted in the OP, and unfortunately some of my personal heroes, such Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Einstein, who both adamantly deny/denied being atheist for this reason.

Negative/soft atheists just don't believe. As an analogy, in a court of law, the accused is found either guilty or not guilty. He or she isn't found innocent. This is founded on the same logical principle as negative/soft atheism. They usually don't believe because they don't know due to lack of evidence, which is a good analogy to a/gnosticism.

Most religious people are atheistic towards religions other than their own. As I see it, the only difference between a atheist and an theist in this sense, is the atheist believes in one less religion.

Um. Ok. You've merely stated one set of definitions. Definitions which I've already acknowledged exist. What, exactly, am I supposed to do with that? There's certainly no argument here for preferring these definitions. Are you perhaps also misunderstanding this issue, in the sense that you think there is some matter of fact at issue here, i.e. what "atheism" *really* means? Otherwise, simply stating another set of definitions isn't really any argument one way or another.

[instantc]

Meaning of words depends on what meanings we wish to assign to them. 'Atheism' doesn't simply mean one thing that could be stated as some kind of an evident fact. Different definitions have been assumed by a number of authors in different literary contexts. Same goes for the prefix 'a', which clearly means different things in different contexts. In my view, the most useful, precise and unambiguos definitions of words should always be preferred, I'm not quite sure what that means for atheism though.

It means that atheism means "not belief, without belief" in the same way that agnosticism means "no(t) knowledge, without knowledge". Simply take a look at the definitions of prefixes in this link. http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm On the top you will find one box where a- is defined as "not, without"... Trying to define a- to mean the same as anti- is just ridiculous.

So, awake means "not wake, without wake" by your logic? Or could it be that the prefix a does not always have to mean the same thing in every context?

[Artie]

Exactly. And it is a simple fact that words frequently mean something other than their literal etymology- as we've seen (I do hope some people actually took the time to read the short About article, even if Artie didn't- it was good, informative, and mildly humorous). Thus, citing the literal etymology as an argument against a particular definition is non-sequitur, as noted.

a- = "not, without"
theism = "belief in the existence of gods"
atheism = "without belief in the existence of gods" (my definition)
atheism = "belief that gods don't exist" (your definition)

Me: "I am an atheist"
Him: "OK, a- means "not, without" and theist means "believer in the existence of gods" so logically you are saying that you are "without belief in the existence of gods".
Me: "No, actually you have to dispose of logic. A person calling himself enaidealukal says that atheist means "a person who believes that gods don't exist".
Him: "Oh... but that's just illogical and confusing..."
Me: "I know..."

[Artie]

Um. Ok. You've merely stated one set of definitions. Definitions which I've already acknowledged exist. What, exactly, am I supposed to do with that?

These definitions are logical, rational and widely used and there's nothing wrong with them so you are supposed to use them too and not use your home-made definitions instead. If you insisted on using your home-made definitions instead you would only cause confusion and discontent and you wouldn't want to do that, would you?