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?

[Danmark]

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.

Your error here is demonstrably false. I cited specific sources for the definitions I gave. I'm not going to repeat my posts every time you make an assertion based on failing to read them.

[Danmark]

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.

By claiming 'projection' without other evidence, is to suggest that any criticism a person makes is without merit and means he is 'probably' guilty of the same fault he is accusing others of. This is a gross misstatement of 'projection' and a stupendous over simplification.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that "those who call other people bigots are probably bigots themselves?"

[Star]

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.

You're doing it again. You're defining all atheism as a decision to believe there is no god. This is only true for hard/positive atheists who are explicit in their beliefs, but it's not true for soft/negative atheists. Furthermore, implicit atheists don't even make.

Believing something doesn't exist is NOT the same as a lack of belief.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

[WinePusher]

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.

Wow, apparently you didn't even read the OP of the thread you're participating in. Do you understand that the definition I use is not MY definition, its the STANDARD definition of atheism provided by 3 sources. I could do what you did and make up an inaccurate definition of atheism but that wouldn't be productive.

Just accept that atheists and non theists don't believe in God.

I do accept that. What I don't accept is that atheism is can be defined as merely 'lack of belief' as in to say atheists have no views pertaining to God's existence.

This puts the burden on the one who asserts such a position.

Duh. No one said otherwise so why are you bringing this up?

Accept it, or bow out gracefully.

I already accept that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

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.

What are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with the topic. Yes, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim and yes, I must defend the Catholic view of God. Now that we've established this, did you want to retract and/or provide evidence for your clearly inaccurate definition of what a Christian is? Also, do you want to retract your statement that I'm using a personal, made up definition of atheism? Please go read the OP. I didn't make up the definition I'm using.

[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.

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.

I actually didn't even read or reply to your post, I replied to someone else's post. I don't know anything about you or your family, all I said was that someone who calls someone else a bigot is probably a bigot themselves. Unfortunately, the 'you're a bigot' response is commonly used among many people on this forum, and it reflects poorly on the person making the accusation.

And btw, this thread has nothing to do with bigots or bigotry. You brought it up, Zzyzx made a comment on it and I made a comment on his comment. Name calling is immature, whether it be calling someone a bigot or an 'idiot' and it reflects poorly on the name caller.

[WinePusher]

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.

Your error here is demonstrably false. I cited specific sources for the definitions I gave. I'm not going to repeat my posts every time you make an assertion based on failing to read them.

In post 69, Danmark wrote:

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.

No links, no sources, no references to dictionaries or encyclopedias. You can either go back an edit your post to include evidence, present evidence right now, retract your definition or 'bow out gracefully' if you can't.

[Star]

[Replying to post 84 by WinePusher]

So that was the second post you jumped on in the last couple hours where you didn't bother to read the previous comment in order to get the proper context. Context is very important, as Danmark has demonstrated for you.

Bigotry is a legitimate descriptive term, as is immaturity. What's important is the truth value.

Back to the topic, please read post 63.

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

[Star]

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.

Your error here is demonstrably false. I cited specific sources for the definitions I gave. I'm not going to repeat my posts every time you make an assertion based on failing to read them.

In post 69, Danmark wrote:

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.

No links, no sources, no references to dictionaries or encyclopedias. You can either go back an edit your post to include evidence, present evidence right now, retract your definition or 'bow out gracefully' if you can't.

Wow, really WinePusher? You keep missing the point. Of course that wasn't the definition of all Christians. Danmark doesn't need sources or references for that post, because he was demonstrating what it would look like if we generalized Christians as you do atheists.

[Danmark]

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.

Your error here is demonstrably false. I cited specific sources for the definitions I gave. I'm not going to repeat my posts every time you make an assertion based on failing to read them.

In post 69, Danmark wrote:

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.

No links, no sources, no references to dictionaries or encyclopedias. You can either go back an edit your post to include evidence, present evidence right now, retract your definition or 'bow out gracefully' if you can't.

You've ignored the fact that I agreed my definition of 'Christian' was rhetorical.
Star set this out economically in his last.

Please review post #15 where I cited references that your definition of 'atheist' was wrong, when you claimed another's was false:

"No, it is not "clearly" false. It is not even false.
There is some overlap in the words. Words after all, are mere symbols. Particularly when we are dealing with symbols like 'atheist' and 'agnostic, words are approximations of what the user holds in is mind.

As Jashwell said, the word "Christian" means many things to many people. Some of the arch conservative 'Christians' on this forum are considered 'non Christian' or even 'anti Christian' by some; just as liberal 'Christians' are not considered 'Christian' if don't meet certain criteria set by others. My own view is that 'atheist' should be reserved for those who do not necessarily disbelieve in a THEISTIC god; that is, a god with a personality.

Wikipedia's description is as good as any:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims"are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

In my opinion an agnostic more truly fits this part of that paragraph:
"... the truth values of certain claims"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims"are unknown or unknowable."

An atheist may believe the possibility of a theistic god is extremely unlikely, less than a 1 percent chance, whereas an agnostic has no opinion or believes no opinion is possible. Is the atheist actually agnostic, because he grants there is some possibility he is wrong? Where is the tipping point? 49.9999%? .000000000001%?
Ultimately the question may be as pointless as the purpose for this thread. What does it matter, and to whom, whether there is absolute agreement on the range of thought that encompasses the label 'atheist?'"

[WinePusher]

So that was the second post you jumped on in the last couple hours where you didn't bother to read the previous comment in order to get the proper context. Context is very important, as Danmark has demonstrated for you.

You said that I insinuated you were a bigot and that couldn't be further from the truth BECAUSE my comments were not directed at you. I understand that you think your brother and his family or whatever are bigoted, but that is a personal matter that you need to work out with him. Rambling about it on a debate forum isn't productive, which is why I chose to ignore that specific post. My comments were directed at another user who was making general comments about bigotry, and I offered my perspective on it as well. Do you have a problem with that?

Bigotry is a legitimate descriptive term, as is immaturity. What's important is the truth value.

Unfortunately your brother and his family or whatever aren't here to defend themselves. And please please please do not misunderstand me, I have no interest in any aspect of your personal life. My comment was about people who call others bigots. It's a form of namecalling, which is immature (as you said) and it reflects poorly on the person doing the name calling. It's also a form of psychological projection.