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]

If you were to ask an atheist if they believe God exists do you think they'd respond by saying, 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue?'

I'm an atheist, and I don't know if a god or gods exist. But I do have some beliefs on the matter. I believe there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusions about the origin of life and the universe. However, I believe there's enough evidence to believe that religions were invented by men, and that a "personal" god which interacts with our lives is highly unlikely.

[Star]

[Replying to post 68 by Zzyzx]

So, let us define 'Christian:'
One who believes the Earth and the universe was created out of nothing in six days about 6000 years ago and believes the Bible is the actual word of God, is literally true; that the Garden of Eden story and that of Noah and the Tower of Babel and all the other stories happened exactly like the Bible says.

Yes, I like to understand what my opponent actually believes, and debate their actual argument, rather than creating my own character of them, and arguing against my false preconceptions. It's lazy and appears foolish to those who know better.

My brother and his fiance, as well as her bigoted family, conflate Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism and refuse to accept any correction. Instead of trying to understand the difference, they launch into complaints about how much they don't like them. According to her and her mother, the Hindu and Sikh truck drivers in BC are the Taliban, even though they're not from Afghanistan, and of course, not Muslim. According to my brother, all immigrants from India are Hindus, even though a majority of them here are actually Sikh. They don't understand why it makes a difference to me since I don't believe in any of them.

Why don't people want to know what they're criticizing before criticizing? They don't need to agree with it, but they need to understand it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why don't people want to know what they're criticizing before criticizing? They don't need to agree with it, but they need to understand it.

It appears as though people don't want to know or understand what they are bigoted against because bigotry is threatened by knowledge and understanding. If (since) they are intent upon maintaining their bigotry they must avoid learning that it is unwarranted.

Many hide behind their religion and some religions promote bigotry (with "us vs. them" or "defeat the infidel" teachings).

Of course it is common for Christians to recognize bigotry -- in Muslims (or any non-Caucasians) or when it is directed against them and their religion.

[WinePusher]

So, let us define 'Christian:'

Wait, why should anybody accept your personal definition of what a Christian is? Can you at least provide sources to substantiate your definition as I've done? Sadly, your inaccurate definition conflicts with two dictionary definitions of what a Christian is:

Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian?s=t

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search ... =christian

As you can see your definition is not found anywhere in the dictionary. Why would one feel compelled to make up an inaccurate definition in the first place?

[WinePusher]

It appears as though people don't want to know or understand what they are bigoted against because bigotry is threatened by knowledge and understanding. If (since) they are intent upon maintaining their bigotry they must avoid learning that it is unwarranted.

I agree somewhat, but I would also add that those who call other people bigots are probably bigots themselves. It is essentially a type of psychological projection, wherein the person projects his or her shortcomings onto others. A person may attempt to demean others as being bigots because that person is actually a bigot himself/herself.

[Star]

So, let us define 'Christian:'

Wait, why should anybody accept your personal definition of what a Christian is? Can you at least provide sources to substantiate your definition as I've done? Sadly, your inaccurate definition conflicts with two dictionary definitions of what a Christian is:

Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian?s=t

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search ... =christian

As you can see your definition is not found anywhere in the dictionary. Why would one feel compelled to make up an inaccurate definition in the first place?

You seem to have missed the point that we shouldn't define broad groups people based on what some subgroups are perceived to believe. Saying there's only one kind of atheist is akin to saying there's only one kind of Christian.

[WinePusher]

You seem to have missed the point that we shouldn't define broad groups people based on what some subgroups are perceived to believe. Saying there's only one kind of atheist is akin to saying there's only one kind of Christian.

First, this isn't really a discussion about atheism vs. Christianity, rather it's about atheism vs theism, Christianity is merely a particular type of theism.

Second, I've never said that there can't be different types of atheists. I accept the fact that there are many different varieties of atheists as there are many different varieties of theists, but in order to be considered a theist/atheist you must first subscribe to a baseline belief. In this case, the baseline belief for a theist is belief in an intervening deity and the baseline belief for an atheist is the belief that an intervening deity does not exist. For example, if I believed in a non-intervening God I'd be considered a deist, not a theist.

Third, I must stress the fact that I did not make up my definition of atheism UNLIKE Danmark. I provided 3 sources that support my claim, Danmark provided none. He just made up some definition that he failed to provide evidence for.

[Jashwell]

Could I have a response to post 59?

You seemed to think the mere fact that I missed one of your questions (see post 65 for response) indicates that the entire post was worth skipping.

I give multiple sources, references to other terms that are based around the definitions in the OED/the definitions that are based on the etymology of the terms (hence the link to agnostic theism), a reference to a scenario which appears to make the general term more reasonable, multiple questions which lead into the definition of the word are asked, etc.

But if you don't feel like reading that:
Do you accept that agnosticism comes from a-gnosis meaning without knowledge?
Do you accept that atheism comes from a-theism meaning without theism?
Do you accept the negation of theism is non-theism, or not being a theist?

If so, from the first - there's no reason to assume immediate relevance to the theism issue (one can be an agnostic with respect to other scenarios)

From the second and third - those that you call agnostics (weak atheists) are without theism. Doesn't this make them atheists?

[Danmark]

So, let us define 'Christian:'

Wait, why should anybody accept your personal definition of what a Christian is? Can you at least provide sources to substantiate your definition as I've done? Sadly, your inaccurate definition conflicts with two dictionary definitions of what a Christian is:

Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian?s=t

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search ... =christian

As you can see your definition is not found anywhere in the dictionary. Why would one feel compelled to make up an inaccurate definition in the first place?

You missed the point by a mile. The POINT is that your insistence on debating YOUR definition of atheism is like a non theist defining what "Christian" means and then going off on it.

Just accept that atheists and non theists don't believe in God. It's really that simple. By demanding more specificity you are demanding inaccuracy. If you can't argue against "we don't believe in God," then accept the idea you can't argue against the proposition.

Admittedly, one of the huge advantages the non theist has is that he takes the opposing argument against any specific claim in a God of traditional orthodox theism. This puts the burden on the one who asserts such a position. Accept it, or bow out gracefully. The burden is always on he who makes the assertion. Wm. Lane Craig and others know they will lose the debate if it is kept on these proper terms; thus they wiggle and squirm and try to change the definitions. Sorry, but I'm not playing. You are stuck with the Roman Catholic definition of God. Defend it, or change your position.

[Star]

It appears as though people don't want to know or understand what they are bigoted against because bigotry is threatened by knowledge and understanding. If (since) they are intent upon maintaining their bigotry they must avoid learning that it is unwarranted.

I agree somewhat, but I would also add that those who call other people bigots are probably bigots themselves. It is essentially a type of psychological projection, wherein the person projects his or her shortcomings onto others. A person may attempt to demean others as being bigots because that person is actually a bigot himself/herself.

I'm familiar with projection. So what you're insinuating is, I'm probably bigoted myself, and have a psychological problem.

Funny, since they readily admit they're racist, and don't want other cultures, languages, and religions coming into their town. The men admit to holding sexist views. The daughters weren't allowed non-white friends over. They think it's bad enough they have to put up with the natives and the non-Christian religions in the area.

There's a restaurant in a neighboring small town they're boycotting because the owners are immigrants from India. My brother ranted about how they don't want temples and pink houses, and how if they come here, they should dress like us.

But sure, I'm probably bigoted myself for taking note of this. Another "spot-on" observation from WinePusher! Thank you.