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?

[Strider324]

dianaiad scribed:

I believe that Mary had nothing to do with that garden (I can prove that she didn't or that someone else did.)

These 2 are not equivalent. To be equivalent, either the first would logically say "I know" instead of the weaker position of "I believe", or the second would say "I think I can prove" instead of the absolute you used.

I mean, if we're gonna reduce ourselves to parsing terms ad infinitum in this thread, let's get it on......

[WinePusher]

Saying that she finds the thread topic 'amusing' definitely seems to be trivializing the topic. If I were to say that I found your posts very 'amusing' wouldn't you agree that I would essentially be trivializing what you write?

No. Just the opposite. I would take it as a compliment:

Well, maybe if I was writing something with the intention of being amusing then sure, I'd take it as a compliment as well. Unfortunately, simply calling another persons writing amusing can be misconstrued as condescending, as in saying that what you wrote is comical, laughable, etc. Such words do not carry around positive connotations, especially in debate. You'd think that moderators would understand this.

On the one hand you are calling for precision in language. On the other you equate "amusing" with "trivializing."

Why are you 'stuffing words' in my mouth? I never equated 'amusing' with 'trivializing.' I never said the two words were synonymous with one another. I said that by simply calling a topic 'amusing' without any additional clarification you are simply trivializing the topic.

Many great writers are both amusing and profound. If you refer to one of my posts as 'amusing,' I would thank you . . . or would have until your declaration that you intend something other than its ordinary meaning when you use the word.

That's a good point. Perhaps dianaiad should clarify what she meant. When she said that the topic was amusing, did she mean that the topic was profound or silly? If she meant the former, then I do thank her. If she mean the latter, which is what I expect she meant, then I would say that I expect a moderator to know better than to characterize another person's work as silly or laughable.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 38 by WinePusher]
I'm surprised by your answer, but nonetheless:

You can't say neither because you think that not believing it is odd means you believe it is even.. and vice versa. You think you must believe one way or another, and cannot simply lack belief.

So which do you believe? Even or odd?
Why?

But this isn't really relevant to the topic. I suppose my main point is that if you identify yourself as an atheist, it is inappropriate for you to simply say that you lack belief and refrain from speculating about God's existence. I'm sure that many internet atheists would prefer the 'lack belief' definition because it makes debate easier for them but the famous, more prominent atheists in society would disagree vehemently.

Are you actually prepared to defend the position that we should give evidence for things we lack belief in?

I mean, do you know any prominent atheists that claim to simply 'lack belief' or is it just the internet atheists who identity with this definition?

Not many, does it matter?

[Haven]

Sorry I'm late to the party.

1) What is the definition of atheism?

Atheism, a-theism, is the lack of theistic belief. The absence of theism, "a" meaning without. This absence of theism can be a mere lack of belief in gods or a stronger assertion that gods do not exist.

Both of these positions are forms of atheism, and both are positions that lack theistic belief. That is the only definition of atheism, the absence of theism.

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?

Appeal to authority logical fallacy

[wiploc]

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.

... But I do object to saying that there can be two competing definitions for atheism, and that both of those definitions are equally valid.

Many words have more than one definition. Dictionary.com, your chosen source, gives two different definitions for the word "atheism."

According to what you wrote, atheism means lack of belief AND it can mean belief that God does not exist. The problem is, we already have a word reserved for people who simply lack belief in God. [Emphasis added.]

Your use of the word "already" is suggestive. It's as if you think definition #2 ...

- 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

... is a change, a new upstart definition. But I'll bet it is hundreds of years old, though I do believe it has been gaining in popularity over the past few decades, and may one day be listed as the first definition.

In any case, it is not a recent innovation, not some change we are working for. Of the two standard definitions, this is the one that we prefer.

You prefer the other one, and that's okay. It's not okay to tell people that our preferred definition doesn't exist or is wrong.

[Divine Insight]

I am not defining what an atheist is. I am using definitions provided by authoritative sources. If you haven't noticed, my conception of atheism comes from the dictionary, the encyclopedia and actual atheists themselves.

Atheists themselves have different ideas of what atheism means.

Just as theists have different ideas of what theism should mean.

Arguing with someone who calls themselves an atheist over the definition of the term is a futile arguments. In fact, it clearly is an argument of semantics to be sure.

Instead why not just ask them what they mean by the term and go with that? After all they are the one who is claiming to identify with the label so they should know what it is they are claiming to identify with.

There are atheists who are totally convinced that there is no God. They are more than just doubtful that a God might exist, they have very strong reasons to believe that there is no God. But not all atheists feel that way.

Many atheists use the term precisely as the root of the word means (a-theist), without a belief in a theism.

That's really all that is required to satisfy the term. They don't need to assert that there cannot be a God. But then again they could assert that for other reasons as well. There is nothing preventing an atheist from also believing that there is strong evidence that there is no God.

[McCulloch]

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?

Appeal to authority logical fallacy

Did you read how Wikipedia defined the fallacy of an appeal to authority? It outlined several ways that an appeal to authority might be fallacious. One example is appealing to an authority in a logical argument, when sound reasoning or evidence is called for. Another example is the appeal to when the authority can be shown not to be authoritative. However, none of these fit the argument in question. It is not a fallacy to argue the following:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

The Stanford Encyclopedia and dictionaries are authorities on the correct use of terms used in philosophy.
The Stanford Encyclopedia and dictionaries say that the word atheism should be defined and used a certain way.
The Stanford Encyclopedia and dictionaries are probably correct.

I, for one, have no trouble defining atheist as one who disbelieves the existence of God; the antithesis of theist. A theist is one who with varying degrees of certainty believes that there is a God. An atheist is one who with varying degrees of certainty believes that there is no God.

Those with no belief either way should be described as agnostic. According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

[Zzyzx]

.

I, for one, have no trouble defining atheist as one who disbelieves the existence of God; the antithesis of theist. A theist is one who with varying degrees of certainty believes that there is a God. An atheist is one who with varying degrees of certainty believes that there is no God.

Those with no belief either way should be described as agnostic. According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

I agree, however:

An Ignostic (not Agnostic) position may be most appropriate -- saying something to the effect, "We cannot intelligently discuss the 'god' you claim to know about until you can define, identify and describe the 'god' (and cite a credible source of your claimed knowledge)."

[Zzyzx]

.

Appeal to authority logical fallacy

Is there ANY theistic argument that is not an appeal to authority (the bible, or "God". or preachers) OR unverifiable testimonials?

[wiploc]

.

Appeal to authority logical fallacy

Is there ANY theistic argument that is not an appeal to authority (the bible, or "God". or preachers) OR unverifiable testimonials?

Ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral, Pascal's wager, etc.