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?

[Aaron Ford]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

I am a self-described atheist, and my position is this - I start from the neutral point of view, and without any presuppositions, examine every religious claim. Religions generally have their core God, of course, but prop the existence and proof of him through dogma, stories, and teachings. Based upon examination of those, specifically the way they do not conform to my understanding of reality, I reject them, not due to fear or negative emotion, but that they require the acceptance of things I cannot accept, - miracles and such.
Hard lined atheists, or anti-theists, I believe, don't ''hate'' God, or ''love sin,''
rather they dislike the position of non-membership leading to eternal torture.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 350 by Aaron Ford]

Could I provide alternative view to this as a christian that tries to be reasonable?

Being an atheist you affirm that no God exists, agnostic you don't know, haven't made up your mind and are open, and theist you say there is a God. If you read these posts you will see people will often bring up, which God are you talking about? But that's a secondary issue, all religions teach a single ultimate God, even the greeks so atheism vs theism, the debate would have to focus on the possibility or impossibility of a god existing. Others had tried to include miracles as well as mythical or supernatural beings or phenomena to be included in atheism but standard definition of atheism is really just on the existence of God as the creator of everything. On the other hand materialism, naturalism or even scientism could be more properly suited for the disprove of stuff of the supernatural. I don't shy away from any of those debates/topics/main ideas but I do assume standard definitions on all these topics, if not specified.

As for rejecting the existence of God based on the possibility and impossibility of miracles first of all you would have to properly define miracles. Second of all for example in the bible, miracles aren't miracles in the sense that God caused actions, so they aren't just magic, or are they (cause and effect instead of something from nothing with no logical cause)? You would be in a heavy burden to try and disprove miracles. On the other hand, if you just say that "we don't know if they ever happen thus they never happened and I know this" wouldn't be a really logical justification.

About eternal hell damnation and conscious suffering, I would really like to suggest you look into "annihilationism" a consistent view with the bible that claims that the lost will just vanish along with sin and evil instead of existing eternally, to suffer. Its a really strong position that I hope you could learn about

And welcome to the forums, you'll find a lot of different views and logics here

[Bust Nak]

What you are espousing is not Atheism but rather verificationism (which has been dead in the academic circles sense the 60s)...its inner workings and philosophy makes it self contradictory...

Given verificationism is so easily falsified, that should be all the clue you need to know that isn't remotely what I am suggesting. Come on, give your opponents more credit.

About weak and strong atheism, those are non standard terms and again atheism by default not only is it supposed to refute the existence of God, but also build it's own case as to why that is the world that we live in and why would the existence of God would be not only logically impossible but also ontollogically proven to not exist definitively.

There you go again, trying to shift the burden of proof. Atheists don't have to do anything other than poke holes in your thesis.

Atheism is not a default position, going by standard definitions (and if we are talking about worldviews and if we are trying to compete worldviews as well).

It is the default position going by some other standard definitions. I can find at least one commonly used dictionary with definition that encompass "weak atheism." Besides, if atheism was actually supposed to disprove gods, then "weak atheists" would simply be relabelled as agnostic and theists would STILL the ones who have to build their case for their opponents to knock down. A label doesn't change which side has the burden of proof.

I haven't seen any reason why I should believe santa or akjflorujslfk exist or don't exist, so I have no say in the matter (I have no proofs on either end to defend really). So my say in the matter is that I don't know. Simple and I hope you understand at least this point.

What made you think I didn't understand at least that much? All I am pointing out is that it doesn't tell me whether you believe in akjflorujslfk or not. What exactly is it that you don't know? Are you trying to tell me you don't know what you believe?

[Aaron Ford]

[Replying to shushi_boi]

Thank you.
My definition of a miracle is - a phenomenon clearly not possible based on the laws of physics.
''Something from nothing'' would qualify.
As far as our certainty about cause and effect and order of events, these things are not concrete,- in certain conditions, it is impossible to know what the order of events actually are, there is always some uncertainty in any measurement, and nature plays some very strange games with reality when large speeds are introduced. If a ''miracle'' is observed, there is the possibility of it coming from ''outside the universe,'' from a spiritual realm, OR it could be a new part of nature we have uncovered.

You said ''miracles aren't miracles in the sense that God caused actions,''
Am I correct in saying miracles in the Bible were performed to demonstrate God's power to us. With that accomplished, they have happened only once, and never again. 1 Flood, 1 Resurrection, 1 Burning Bush, etc. These type of miracles, the ones directly from God, are the ones we should hope to see, - the Old Testament variety. With respect, I believe the miracles of Jesus were nothing that Penn and Teller, or any other skilled magician could accomplish, so to me these do not quality as miracles.
I'm on the lookout for physics breaking stuff.

I would not try to disprove miracles, I'd love to see one actually, that would be quite the experience. Surely many people would convert. I would, only if that miracle gave an indication of the particular deity at work.

Is there a distinction between miracle and magic? Does the term ''miracle'' have a religious connotation to it, and every other explainable event ''magic?''

I believe death will be the same as our state was before birth. The only way around that is if we do have a soul that lives on. In the same way we cannot necessarily disprove miracles, we cannot prove the existence of a soul.