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

[WinePusher]

If you look very closely, you'll see that De Maria isn't telling you or others what they believe, she is citing sources by dictionaries and encyclopedias that state what the definition of atheism. She isn't telling you what you believe.

She is then applying those sources to those on the forum who are not theists or deists.[/quote]

I don't see that. We're talking about what atheism is, and if an atheist is the converse of a theist (one who believes in God) then its definition should be one who does not believe in God.

She also just flat out states what our position is:.........-"Atheists deny the existence of God."

This one is right. Like I said, there is a distinction between atheism and agnosticism for a reason. If they both meant the same thing then why do we still need the term agnostic?

[LiamOS]

I don't see that. We're talking about what atheism is, and if an atheist is the converse of a theist (one who believes in God) then its definition should be one who does not believe in God.

I see it as clearly visible implicitly, especially in the dichotomies presented.
Questions like "Do you believe that God exists or not?" when coupled with the definitions given and the inferences made imply that atheism, theism and agnosticism are the only options which exist.

This one is right. Like I said, there is a distinction between atheism and agnosticism for a reason. If they both meant the same thing then why do we still need the term agnostic?

Well, if we're being pedantic about it then do we really need both 'Theist' and 'Deist'? They're both similar.

The reason we have both is that they convey levels of this belief as well as possible subtle differences. For example, an agnostic might believe that such matters are unknowable, or an atheist may well be a strong-atheist.

[d.thomas]

.





So what if there is or isn't a distinction to be made between atheism and agnosticism, what of it?


Either way atheists and agnostics don't share in the beliefs of the theist.



.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit post out, I'll be back...

[Lux]

If you look very closely, you'll see that De Maria isn't telling you or others what they believe, she is citing sources by dictionaries and encyclopedias that state what the definition of atheism. She isn't telling you what you believe.

If you look even closer, for example at Mc's post, you'll see that De Maria neglected an important part of a definition she posted and that other sources cited by others define atheism in the way the 8 people you mention have been trying to explain.

Furthermore, this

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

is by all means telling us that we believe something in particular.

I'm honestly surprised to see this coming from Christians. There are so many different beliefs among Christians, why is it so hard to accept that not all atheists fit under the same description, either?

Some questions:

1) Define agnosticism. Your definition of atheism seems to be one in the same as agnosticism therefore it makes having two terms which describe the same thing redundent. By your reasoning, shouldn't we just get rid of the "Agnostic" usergroup since your definition of atheism basically means the same thing?

I already did earlier in this thread. The huge problem here seems to be that people think agnosticism is incompatible with atheism, which it isn't. One may be an agnostic and an atheist, or an agnostic and a theist. Pure agnosticism is not the only type.

The term agnostic merely means that a person doesn't claim to know whether or not there is one or more gods.

2) If your beliefs don't conform the definition of atheism as set forth by scholars, linguists and encyclopedias why don't you just pick a different title? I've heard Bart Ehrman, along with Christopher Hitchens, say many times that atheism is a positive rejecetion of God. If you don't reject God then you are not an atheist by definiton, the term agnostic suits your beliefs appropriately.

The term agnostic atheist suits my beliefs appropriately. If you read the link I posted earlier, or the definitions Mc provided, you'll see why. I also explained earlier why I consider myself an agnostic atheist rather than a pure agnostic, if you're interested feel free to read my previous posts.

Why should we accept your wikipedia definition if you reject the definitions by philosophical encyclopedias and other dictionaries? I like wikipedia, but I don't think it's more authoritative then philosophical dictionaries like Stanford.

Alright, let's try a few more: Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford, Dictionary.com.


I understand where you're coming from, and I accept that you have a reputable encyclopedia denying my definition. However, I have reputable sources confirming it, too. What's more, I might just be able to find people or sources discrediting the idea that certain members of this forum are Christians, although they have defined themselves as such, but that wouldn't qualify me to proclaim they aren't actually Christians, would it?

I have defined myself as an atheist, not based on a tantrum or a definition I made up, but based on research of my views and the views of others. There is not a single label that fits me when it comes to most gods other than "agnostic atheist." I'm not a pure agnostic. How do you propose I should define my beliefs?

[realthinker]

Definitions of atheist on the Web:


What say you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Why so worried about a label? And the same goes for the argument over "true" Christians. If you're concerned about a label you're likely looking for an opportunity to attack what you want it to mean or the person for not measuring up to what you think it should mean. Either is reprehensible, in my opinion.

I personally say that I am non-religious. That being the case, I've no use for the idea of god. The idea plays no part in my daily life other than when someone else refers to it. I would deny that I believe in a god, so I AM atheist. But I don't say that I am AN atheist.

That label, like most social labels, is generally something others would like to use to justify an opinion of me based on presumption. I generally don't appreciate being labeled. I'd rather be taken at face value, evaluated for how I behave, not subject to someone else's standard of social measure so that I can be put into one category or another and dealt with without personal regard. That pisses me off. Deal with me, not in a preconceived notion of how to deal with people like me. No labels.

[d.thomas]

.





How much faith is required to believe that leprechauns don't exist? Not much.




How much faith is required to believe that leprechauns do exist? A lot.





Now, moving on to invisible gods, how much faith...?





.

[De Maria]

FYI,

I'm a man, father of four, married to the one woman for 25 years.

The ID "De Maria" comes from a famous Catholic saying:
De Maria numquam satis

[De Maria]

.How much faith is required to believe that leprechauns don't exist? Not much.

How much faith is required to believe that leprechauns do exist? A lot.

Now, moving on to invisible gods, how much faith...?

.

Sounds like good material for another thread. The questions being discussed here are:
1. What is atheism?
2. Do you deny the existence of God?

[De Maria]

Why so worried about a label?

I'm not. But atheism is a word in the English dictionary. It has a meaning. Now, suddenly, that meaning is being watered down and confused with another word's meaning. Specifically, agnosticism.

Two different words with two different meanings.

And the same goes for the argument over "true" Christians.

When you see someone arguing over true Christians, you can bring up your objection.

If you're concerned about a label you're likely looking for an opportunity to attack what you want it to mean or the person for not measuring up to what you think it should mean. Either is reprehensible, in my opinion.

Nope. Look at the OP. This discussion began because FT:
In a debate with FT, the exchange went as follows:

Quote:

Filthy Tugboat wrote:
What beliefs are you referring to?


De Maria wrote:
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.


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

So, I want to clarify, what is an atheist? According to Webster:
Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

I personally say that I am non-religious. That being the case, I've no use for the idea of god. The idea plays no part in my daily life other than when someone else refers to it. I would deny that I believe in a god, so I AM atheist. But I don't say that I am AN atheist.

So you use the adjective and eschew the noun. No problem. But you understand what the word means.

That label, like most social labels, is generally something others would like to use to justify an opinion of me based on presumption. I generally don't appreciate being labeled. I'd rather be taken at face value, evaluated for how I behave, not subject to someone else's standard of social measure so that I can be put into one category or another and dealt with without personal regard. That pisses me off. Deal with me, not in a preconceived notion of how to deal with people like me. No labels.

Nope. As I said before. In the discussion noted above, the person identified himself as an atheist and when confronted, he denied the meaning of the word as it is defined in the dictionary.