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?

[Jashwell]

Oxford English Dictionary:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'


The literal etymology is "without God", and the literal definition is "lack of belief in gods".
Even if this weren't the case, lack of belief in gods is the most general position for those who call themselves atheists. It covers weak and strong atheists. One wonders why "weak atheist" is a term if atheism excludes weak atheism by definition.

Incidentally, both context 2 of Dictionary dot com and the context of the Stanford Encyclopedia's definition allow for weak atheism, tacitly acknowledging lack of belief over antithetical belief in theism.

(Lack of belief being equivalent to denying the claim "there is a god" but not necessarily accepting the claim "there isn't a god")

1) Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods

2) The definition is of little importance; the debater's beliefs are; unless you are engaging in a semantic debate. Similar to discussing whether or not the person you are debating with is a Christian or not. The ideas are what is important, if everyone understands one another there is no issue.

3) No, but I believe that zzyzx likely meant "belief in the lack of gods" by denial, rather than "lack of belief in gods" (especially considering the definition he gave earlier). In this case, many theists do attempt to do this such as WLCraig whose opening statement almost always includes "there are no good reasons to think atheism is true", a shifting of the burden of proof based on such a definition.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

This Internet debater bases a definition of Atheism on multiple sources (including a religious site)

http://carm.org/what-is-atheism
The word atheism comes from the negative a which means ‘no,’ and theos which means ‘god.’  Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’  Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god.  By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that he is knowable and that he is involved in the world.  Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists but simply non-theists.

I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is.  Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult.  Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists.  Whichever definition you accept, atheism denies God.

"An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."
"An atheist lacks belief in a god."
"An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
"An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry."
"An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker--free from religion and its ideas."

There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak with variations in between.  Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists.  They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god.  Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs.  They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence.  They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no God.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

"Atheism" has many meanings, all of which are related to an absence of belief in the existence of a god, a goddess, gods, goddesses, or pantheons which are typically combinations of supernatural entities. (The word "pantheon" is related to the building with that name commissioned by Marcus Agrippa circa 30 BCE as a temple honoring all the deities of ancient Rome.)

The term "Atheism" is ambiguous by itself; it really requires a modifier -- as in "strong Atheist," "weak Atheist," "apathetic Atheist." etc. in order to accurately refer to a specific belief system.

Among the general population, the most common meaning of the word "Atheist" describes what many would call "a strong Atheist:" a person who definitely asserts that all the thousands or tens of thousands of god(s), goddess(es), ghosts, demons, Satans, angels, etc. recognized by humans in the present and past do not exist in reality but were all created by humans.

The most common meaning among Atheists themselves refers to a weak, negative, soft, or skeptical Atheist: one who simply lacks a belief in and knowledge of any supernatural entities whatsoever.

A common belief among conservative Christians is that a person chooses to be an Atheist for only one reason: if they were to believe in a God they would need to follow that God's moral code as he/she has revealed to humanity. That may be a true assessment for some Atheists, but I have never met any who would fit that description. Most are offended by the suggestion. All the Atheists that I have communicated with, including my spouse, assert that they have been forced to become Atheists on purely logical grounds. They see no evidence for such being(s) and they see many indicators that such beings do not exist. To be true to themselves, they cannot accept the existence of God, just as the average Christian cannot accept the existence of Thor, Venus, Baal, and countless other goddesses and gods of antiquity.


http://www.atheists.org/activism/resour ... is-atheism

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.:


http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheis ... Basics.htm

Atheism is the Absence of Belief in Gods: The broad, simple definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; atheism is not the absence of beliefs generally. Normally called "weak atheism," this definition is attested to in most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries, and specialized references. Disbelief in gods is not the not the same as a belief or as the denial of gods. The lack of a belief isn't the same as having a belief and not believing something is true isn't the same as believing it is not true.

This broad definition of atheism was used by early freethinkers and continues to be used by most contemporary atheist writers. It is also the definition of atheism used consistently throughout this site. Atheists use this broad definition not simply because it's what we find in dictionaries, but because the broad definition is superior. The broad definition helps describe a broader range of possible positions among both atheists and theists. It also underscores the fact that theists are the one making an initial claim. The narrow definition of atheism as denying the existence of gods or asserting that no gods exist is really only relevant in specialized contexts, like philosophical literature.

What it Takes to Be an Atheist: Not much — no faith, no commitments, no declarations. An atheist does need to be godless, though godlessness isn't quite the same as atheism. Not everyone recognizes that there are significant differences among atheists, not just in questions about religion and theism but also in political philosophies and all major political issues.

Why Don't Atheists Believe in God? There are lots of reasons why an atheist might not believe in any gods. There is no one reason for atheism and no one path to atheism. Broadly speaking, though, atheists just don't see any reason to bother believing in any gods.
 
What Atheism Is Not

Atheism is Not a Religion or Ideology: You can tell when people are getting this wrong because they incorrectly capitalize atheism and atheist in the middle of sentences, as if it were a proper noun like Christianity or Muslim. It's not! Atheism isn't any sort of belief, which means that it can't be a belief system, which in turn means it can't possibly be a religion on its own.

Atheism is Not an Absence of Religion: Some atheists make the opposite mistake, thinking that atheism is an absence of religion. As noted above, atheism is simply the absence of gods, not an absence of religion. Atheists can be religious and there are atheistic religions. This is because theism isn't the same as religion.
Atheism and Agnosticism are Not Mutually Exclusive: Many if not most atheists you encounter will also be agnostics; so are some theists. Atheism and agnosticism are about related by separate issues: belief and knowledge (specifically, the lack thereof).

There Is No Fundamentalist Atheism: Since atheism is just disbelief in gods, there is nothing for atheists to be "fundamentalist" about. So why has the label become popular?

Disbelief in Gods Isn't Another Belief: Many people have the mistaken idea that disbelief in gods is still just another belief. This misconception can be eliminated through a better understanding of the basic terms of debate: belief, knowledge, disbelief, faith, and denial.

Atheism is Not the Same as Communism: You can support communist or socialist politics while being a theist and you can be an atheist who is staunchly opposed to anything and everything even remotely socialistic, never mind communist.

Atheism is Not the Same as Nihilism or Cynicism: Atheists can hold many different philosophies (including nihilism) or attitudes (like cynicism) but they aren't required to hold either of those.

Atheism is Not a Choice or Act of Will: Christianity requires that beliefs be choices in order to treat disbelief as a sin and as deserving punishment, but voluntarism of beliefs makes little sense. It's more reasonable to view beliefs as forced conclusions from the evidence before us.

Atheism is Not the Cause of Millions of Deaths: The extreme death and destruction caused by theistic religion has led some believers to try to argue that atheism is worse, but while some atheistic philosophies can inspire violence, atheism itself has never done so.
 
Myths About Atheism

There Are Atheists in Foxholes: Not only is it false that life-threatening experiences magically transform atheists into theists, it's easy to find examples of where such experiences cause theists to become atheists.

Atheism Does Not Require Faith: You don't need any sort of "faith" to disbelieve in gods, just as you don't need faith to disbelieve in elves or Darth Vader.

Atheism Does Not Require Omniscience: You don't need to search the contents of the entire universe to have good reason to disbelieve in or even deny the existence of gods

Atheism is Not Incompatible with Morality: There is nothing about morality and ethics which requires the existence of or belief in gods. Secular atheists have no more trouble behaving morally than do religious theists.

Atheists Can Have Meaningful, Loving Lives: No matter how important belief in a god or following a religion may be to believers, secular atheists have no problem living good, meaningful lives without any of that.

Atheism is Not a "Bad Bet": Pascal's Wager is one of the most popular arguments offered by believers, but it's also one of the worst ones they could possibly choose.



Many who attempt to defend Theism in debate attempt to define Atheism as "Denial of gods" as a straw man "argument" in lieu of actually attempting to defend their claims of knowledge about "gods."

[WinePusher]

Oxford English Dictionary:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

Yes, those definitions are correct. What I took objection to is how the internet debater falsely said that, "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt." Obviously, it isn't just theists who assert that atheism is the 'denial of gods.'

Even if this weren't the case, lack of belief in gods is the most general position for those who call themselves atheists.

This is clearly false. Those people who lack belief are known as agnostics, not atheists. An atheist is a person who does have a belief, and the belief specifically is that God doesn't exist. See the definition you and I provided.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 4 by WinePusher]

Agnostic etymologically is entirely unrelated to whether or not you are a theist or atheist.
Agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) - gnosis (knowledge)
An agnostic does not claim to be able to know whether or not a god exists, while a gnostic does.
One can be a gnostic atheist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
One cannot be neither theist nor atheist, as atheist literally means "not theist".

I said the most general definition for the use of the word atheism was a lack of belief in a god or gods. This is clearly correct. It includes those who use the correct definition (lack of belief) as well as the specific example (a subset of the definition) of strong atheists or antitheists.
Similarly, it would be a poor definition of Christian to say "those who believe in the divinity of Jesus and the unitarity of the trinity". A broader, more general definition would simply be "those who believe in or support many of the claims or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth"

That quote is not a false statement either, it is true if even a small number of theists (such as William Lane Craig, among others) do use a poor definition of atheist in order to put such a red herring as a false burden of proof into the minds of the audience.
There are theists who do this, therefore it is true. His quote does not suggest that only theists do this, nor that all theists do this, nor that the main reason this is done is in support of theism via straw-manning, merely that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

[WinePusher]

I said the most general definition for the use of the word atheism was a lack of belief in a god or gods. This is clearly correct.

I disagree, but I do appreciate the research you've done regarding the etymology of the terms in question. It sheds some much needed light on this topic. Personally speaking, I think Carl Sagan's definition of atheism was the most coherent and understandable definition since he was a prominent intellectual who dealt with this issue. An atheist by definition does not lack a belief, an atheist is actually a person who subscribes to a belief, and the belief is that God doesn't exist.

And I do think that these definitions matter very much, especially when people try to erroneously redefine terms. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they're not free to make up new definitions for terms.

Similarly, it would be a poor definition of Christian to say "those who believe in the divinity of Jesus and the unitarity of the trinity". A broader, more general definition would simply be "those who believe in or support many of the claims or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

Excuse me? On what basis do you make this claim? How can one be a Christian without affirming Jesus as Christ?

That quote is not a false statement either, it is true if even a small number of theists (such as William Lane Craig, among others) do use a poor definition of atheist in order to put such a red herring as a false burden of proof into the minds of the audience.

William Lane Craig is just using the appropriate definition of the term, as Carl Sagan used. Using the correct definition of a term is not a red herring, it's called being accurate and honest.

[higgy1911]

I think the labeling thing is given too much emphasis and distracts from the topics at hand.

I don't believe that it is reasonable to suppose that God exists, although I do not deny that it is possible that he exists. I am no more agnostic about God than I am the tree in my yard. But I do not deny it is possible he exists, or that my tree doesn’t. I just don't have reason enough to suppose either of those claims is true. What am I?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

1) It likely only matters to those who claim to be atheist. AKA what others say/claim it to be is irrelevant to them
2) If not stated explicitly, it should be assumed. Which is why it's best to state it prior
3) It depends on whom is asking and whom's being asked.

[Jashwell]

I said the most general definition for the use of the word atheism was a lack of belief in a god or gods. This is clearly correct.

I disagree, but I do appreciate the research you've done regarding the etymology of the terms in question. It sheds some much needed light on this topic. Personally speaking, I think Carl Sagan's definition of atheism was the most coherent and understandable definition since he was a prominent intellectual who dealt with this issue. An atheist by definition does not lack a belief, an atheist is actually a person who subscribes to a belief, and the belief is that God doesn't exist.

And I do think that these definitions matter very much, especially when people try to erroneously redefine terms. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they're not free to make up new definitions for terms.

How do you even get that first paragraph from any of the definitions given?
The one thing in the OP that endorses your statement is Carl Sagan. All other sources, as well as the Oxford English Dictionary, the official English dictionary, disagree with you. (or are defined in such a way as to accept weak atheism)
Carl Sagan is not a respected dictionary, Carl Sagan is not the voice for the majority of those who use the word atheist, and Carl Sagan is one person.

When you say "I think it's more coherent and understandable" you are doing little more than bluffing. You mean to say it fits your preconception better, as indicated by all the questions targeting the weak atheism side, and the reference to quotes that you claim to be pro-strong atheism. When it turns out two thirds are in favour of weak atheism, you drop the quotes.
In what way is "I do not believe in a god" less "coherent or understandable" than "I believe a god does not exist"?

And why do you disagree that "lacking a belief in god" is more general a group than "belief in lack of a god"?
Do you not recognize the latter is a subset of the former?

Similarly, it would be a poor definition of Christian to say "those who believe in the divinity of Jesus and the unitarity of the trinity". A broader, more general definition would simply be "those who believe in or support many of the claims or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

Excuse me? On what basis do you make this claim? How can one be a Christian without affirming Jesus as Christ?

Firstly, you're implicitly accepting that a Christian must accept unitarity, and secondly, why must Jesus be divine to be followed?
There are Christian atheists and Christian deists who don't believe in more than half the stuff Jesus said. If they want to call themselves Christian, that's fine by me, and for me treating Christ like some sort of authority or figure to follow is all it takes for it to be a reasonable word to use. Belief in Jesus' divinity wasn't even the key point.

If there were two competing definitions, one being "Belief in xyz and unitarity" and one being "belief in xyz", where xyz is following Jesus or whatever (however you currently define Christian), would the former be a better definition?
The addition of something that only divides the group and does not strictly follow from the etymology of the word?
What if most Christians thought that Unitarity wasn't necessary to be a Christian, and if it's largely non-Christians that do?
What if Carl Sagan said Christians believe in Unitarity?

That quote is not a false statement either, it is true if even a small number of theists (such as William Lane Craig, among others) do use a poor definition of atheist in order to put such a red herring as a false burden of proof into the minds of the audience.

William Lane Craig is just using the appropriate definition of the term, as Carl Sagan used. Using the correct definition of a term is not a red herring, it's called being accurate and honest.

No, WLC is not using the appropriate definition. He is using the incorrect definition. The one in disagreement with:
A) The people who want the label applied to themselves
B) The official dictionary, as well as other dictionaries (such as other sources given by you)
C) Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia
D) The origin of the term

[Divine Insight]

1) What is the definition of atheism?

Atheism is a word. And as with all other human inventions it's not carved in stone or absolute. The word means different things to different people, as most words do, especially words that are describing abstract concept as this word is doing.

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?

It is my position that it is futile and unproductive to argue semantics with anyone. Words are meant to be used to communicate ideas and concepts. If two people have a different view of what concept a word should represent then in the interest of communication they should try to understand how each other is using the term rather than arguing that the term can only be used to mean one thing.

I personally use the term atheism in the same way Carl Sagan does. For me it means that I am certain that a particular God or theology is false. If I don't want to express that about a particular God or religion I used the term agnostic instead and clarify that this simply means 'a-gnostic' (i.e. without sufficient knowledge to resolve the question). It does not mean that I'm confused about. It simply means that I see no way to resolve the question.

Having said this I can see why some people use the term atheism to simply mean 'a-theism" (i.e. without theism). In other words, they are simply saying that they don't personally believe in a God, not that they are convinced that no Gods exist.

When speaking with atheists it's good to ask them how they are using the term if you are unsure. Then instead of arguing over the semantics of the term just go with how they are using it to serve better communication.

This is especially true when conversing with a large group of atheists who claim to belong to a unified group (such as American Atheists). In that case, simply ask the group spokesperson or read the official "mission statement" of the group to see how they are defining themselves. Then go by this since this is how they are defining the term.

Richard Dawkins has often said, "If you're agnostic then your really an atheists". But again, Dawkins must be using the term atheism to simply mean without theism. This would then make sense that agnostics are also atheist since they simply don't believe in any atheism.

I think there are disagreements in precisely how these terms should be used even by people who identify with these terms.

So, like I say, the best way to approach semantic differences is to simply ask the other person what they mean by a term and then go by that.

Or, if you are referring to a group that goes by that title then you can point to their definition as being representative of how they are defining the term.

For myself personally I'm agnostic with respect to the abstract question of whether or not there exists any God at all. And by that I simply mean that I do not possess sufficient information to make a final determination one way or the other.

But if we are are going to talk about the Abrahamic religions and the God character portrayed by them I hold that I am a very strong atheist (in the way that Carl Sagan used the term). I'm totally convinced that the God of Abraham is nothing more than a man-made myth and there is no God behind it. Especially not a God defined verbatim by these Abrahamic texts.