WinePusher wrote:
I'm not sure where you got any of this from. My position has been that atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God because, as my sources point out, atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
Your sources are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), and dictionary.com.
The definitions don't agree with you or each other.
Sagan's definition is eccentric. It doesn't have the support of either dictionaries or common usage. Or you. You say that atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist. Sagan says that if you believe god doesn't exist, then you still aren't an atheist unless you are certain, have compelling evidence. It looks like he's trying to define "atheism" so that people will quit using the word.
SEP gives two definitions. "The negation of theism," sounds like everybody who isn't a theist is an atheist, which is what Jashwell says. And, "the denial of the existence of god," is just silly. Peter denied Jesus, did that make him an atheist? As you yourself say, atheism has to do with what you believe, not what you say.
There's a comma between SEP's two definitions, suggesting that they may be intended as a single definition rephrased. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that SEP is trying to say what you want it to be saying, that atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist. Does this define what "atheism" means in general usage? No. Because SEP isn't trying to do that. SEP is being academic, establishing what SEP means by "atheism"
for the purposes of this particular article. Thus, according the very next sentence, SEP wouldn't count disbelief in an
unsophisticated god as atheism.
Then there's dictionary.com. Dictionary.com is talking about general usage, about what people mean when they use the word atheist. It's your only relevant source, but it doesn't support you. Dictionary.com gives two definitions. The first one is yours; the second one is ours. According to dictionary.com, both definitions are good. That is, dictionary.com says you are wrong to say that people who don't believe either way aren't atheists. Here are the definitions:
- 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
- 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
You may be about to argue that "disbelief" means "believing the opposite." Some people seem to use it that way. But let's look at what dictionary.com (the source that you yourself provided as authoritative) says about disbelief:
- 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
- 2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
The second one is off topic. The first one is on point: If you don't believe in god because you are unable to believe in a god who is both totally just and totally merciful, omnipotent but unable to defeat iron chariots, able to be seen but not able to be seen, omnipresent but needing a pillar of fire to get down from Heaven, omniscient but unable to locate the kids in the garden, one god but three gods, or any of the multitude of contradictions and absurdities associated with sophisticated monotheism, then you are, according to dictionary.com an atheist.
The only defense I've seen offered to this point is the claim that dictionary.com was authoritative when they defined "atheism," but they were clumsy and awkward when they defined "disbelief." Because, you know, dictionary.com just isn't that good with words.
Also, 'disbelief in God' and 'belief that God doesn't exist' are essentially expressing the same point. Are you really objecting to this?
Yes, your own source objects to that.
Jashwell wrote: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.
Carl Sagan appears to be a very respectable intellectual among atheists and his definition is consistent with the other sources I provided.
He is respected as a person. That doesn't mean his definition isn't unique to him. If you ask atheists what they mean by "atheism," you might be ask thousand without finding someone who agrees with Sagan on this point.
Jashwell wrote:In what way is "I do not believe in a god" less "coherent or understandable" than "I believe a god does not exist"?
[/quote]
"I do not believe in god," can be read as litotes, as an understatement meaning "I believe a god does not exist." Thus, "I do not believe in a god" is inherently ambiguous. This phrasing should be avoided in discussions of this type. Consider preferring "I don't have a belief in god."
As I said, both of those statements express the same point.
Not necessarily. "I do not believe in a god" is often intended literally rather than as a figure of speech. In that case, it covers every non-theist.
... What I take issue with is how people like you attempt to redefine what atheism means.
We're consistent with dictionaries and common usage.
If you wanted to say that your preferred usage is also consistent with dictionaries and common usage, then you would have a case.
But when you claim that our usage is wrong (inconsistent with dictionaries and common usage) then you are guilty of what you accuse us of: You are attempting to redefine what "atheism" means.
Atheism does not mean lack of a belief,
Yes it does. Clearly it does.
atheism is itself a belief that God does not exist.
That's a legitimate meaning too (supported by dictionaries and common usage) but it is not the only legitimate meaning.
