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?

[wiploc]

If you lack belief in God, meaning that you don't know whether God exists or not and refrain from believing one way or the other, then you're an agnostic. [Emphasis added.]

Lets have three categories about belief, and two about knowledge:

A: Believes gods exist.
B: Doesn't believe either way.
C: Believes gods do not exist.

X: Knows whether gods exist.
Y: Doesn't know whether gods exist.

According to the most popular system of nomenclature, the one you prefer, both B and Y are called "agnosticism." That causes endless confusion, as we can see above, where you two-step between the two meanings in a single sentence.

Our understanding of what an atheist is is clearly different,

Yours is. Ours isn't.

Awhile back, there was a long thread over at freeratio.org where atheists were asked to say what we mean by the word "atheist." Not one of us even mentioned your definition.

especially due to the rise of evangelical atheism. Clearly, prominent individuals who actually call themselves atheists deny God's existence.

The fact that I'm from Kansas doesn't mean that I'm not from the United states. The fact that I'm over six foot doesn't mean that I'm not over five foot. And the fact that I'm a strong atheist doesn't mean that I'm not an atheist. An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist. Many people who aren't theists believe that gods do not exist. There is nothing confusing or contradictory about being an atheist who believes that gods don't exist.

They do not believe God exists, and such people would include Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Christopher Hitchens, etc.

Here, you're using litotes again, and it muddles the conversation.

We use litotes a lot, understatement for effect. When we say, "He's not the sharpest pencil in the box," it means he's really really dull. But not all statements are figures of speech. Many are intended literally. Thus, if I said, "I don't have very much money on me today," it wouldn't necessarily mean I had no money. It could mean I just don't have very much. We have to judge by context.

In the above sentence, "they do not believe," could be read either way. I judge by context that your intended meaning is that these people believe gods do not exist. But it's pointlessly confusing---in a discussion of this type---to use a phrase that can be read either way.

[Clownboat]

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.

Just two posts up you said:

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

Then you say the bold?

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.

Was Z on to something:

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]

[Replying to post 51 by Clownboat]

Did you have something you wanted to contribute to this thread, or did you just want to repost my arguments without actually explaining anything? If you think I'm being contradictory can you speak up and say so, that way we can actually have a debate. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic, and posting up quotes WITHOUT providing any explanation or clarification is not productive.

And clearly, this quote is just wrong: "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt."

Carl Sagan, The Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary are not 'theists or theistic sources.' So the internet debater who made that statement needs to retract it. When a theist defines atheism as the denial of 'gods' they using the appropriate definition.

[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.

No, I never said that 'I think people cannot simply lack belief.' You've misunderstood my entire argument if that's what you think my position is. People certainly can lack belief and withhold from believing, my point is that people who choose to abstain from believing should not be called atheists. If someone abstains from believing they're called agnostic, not atheist.

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

If you lack belief in something then yes, you should be eloquent enough to articulate your reasons behind your position. If I were an agnostic and lacked belief in God, then I should be able to explain it by saying something along the lines of, "well, I see value in the arguments for and against Gods existence, however, I think that we lack the adequate knowledge to prove any of these arguments to be 100% true therefore, I choose to not believe one way or the other."

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?

Of course it does. We have a handful of internet atheists trying to argue that atheism means X and we have reputable sources and intellectuals claiming that atheists means Y. I choose to accept the reputable sources and intellectuals over the internet atheists.

[WinePusher]

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.

Fair enough. However, when theists define atheism as 'the denial of God' they are not guilty of 'straw man attempts' and they are not guilty of misunderstanding atheism. The internet debater in the OP attempted to falsely characterize theists, and the characterization was wrong, plain and simple.

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.

Yes, atheists can have varying degrees of doubt just as theists can. However, do you think it's appropriate to call a person like Bart Ehrman an atheist? Ehrman has publicly said in his debates that he chooses to identify as an agnostic because he is open to the possibility of the existence of 'God.' An atheist possesses a higher degree of certainty than an agnostic does in this respect.

[Jashwell]

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.

No, I never said that 'I think people cannot simply lack belief.' You've misunderstood my entire argument if that's what you think my position is. People certainly can lack belief and withhold from believing, my point is that people who choose to abstain from believing should not be called atheists. If someone abstains from believing they're called agnostic, not atheist.

That was what you seemed to imply when you said you saw little difference between lacking belief and believing the contrary.
Agnostic doesn't mean that. Agnostic comes from a-gnosis, meaning without knowledge. Agnostics (with respect to theism) don't hold the belief that you can know whether or not a god exists.

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

If you lack belief in something then yes, you should be eloquent enough to articulate your reasons behind your position. If I were an agnostic and lacked belief in God, then I should be able to explain it by saying something along the lines of, "well, I see value in the arguments for and against Gods existence, however, I think that we lack the adequate knowledge to prove any of these arguments to be 100% true therefore, I choose to not believe one way or the other."

No reason needs to be given for weak atheism; simple lack of belief.
Unless you think people are unreasonable up until the point that they are confronted with new ideas, because they will lack belief in those too.

I'm not sure if we just disagree with what a reason is.
I don't think "I haven't been presented with any good reasons for believing" is a reason - and at the very least, it certainly doesn't need to be said.

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?

Of course it does. We have a handful of internet atheists trying to argue that atheism means X and we have reputable sources and intellectuals claiming that atheists means Y. I choose to accept the reputable sources and intellectuals over the internet atheists.

"Reputable sources and intellectuals vs internet atheists"
That's funny, I was under the impression it was "Some popular antitheists and Carl Sagan" vs "Many of the dictionaries (including the official dictionary for the English language), Wikipedia, the fact that it covers both categories, AND internet debaters"

Are you suggesting that the Oxford English Dictionary, and dictionary.com (a source you gave) are not reputable sources?

Are you suggesting that the etymology of the word - the fact that A-Theist literally means without theism (or not a theist) is not a reputable source?

As previously mentioned, whether or not atheism means without theism or without theism and with a belief in the non existence of God, the label itself isn't important. What is important are the beliefs of the person you are addressing. You shouldn't try to pigeon-hole a self-professed atheist into fitting you, some famous anti-theists and Christian apologists' definitions. If they don't believe in the non existence of God, but they still call themselves an atheist, that's perfectly fine. Attacking their label is not attacking their position, and attacking their label is seemingly not a C&A matter.

[WinePusher]

Agnostics (with respect to theism) don't hold the belief that you can know whether or not a god exists.

Our debate isn't going anywhere because you keep attributing statements to me that I never said. I never said an agnostic holds the belief that you CAN know whether or not God exists. I explicitly said an agnostic is someone who abstains from believing, for whatever reason. If you were to ask an agnostic if they believe God exists, they would likely respond by saying 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue.' 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?'

No reason needs to be given for weak atheism; simple lack of belief.

A person who feels like they don't need to provide reasons for the position should not be debating.

Unless you think people are unreasonable up until the point that they are confronted with new ideas, because they will lack belief in those too.

I'm not sure if we just disagree with what a reason is.

I lack belief about many things. For example, I lack belief in whether Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2016. I do not subscribe to the belief that she will run and I don't subscribe to the belief that she will not run. I can also provide reasons for my position: 1) there is no good evidence supporting either contention, 2) whether or not Hillary Clinton runs is of no consequence to me personally.

If you lack belief in God, meaning that you do not subscribe to the belief that God exists and you don't subscribe to the belief that God doesn't exist, then you should be able to explain why in a debate, as I've just done.

"Reputable sources and intellectuals vs internet atheists"
That's funny, I was under the impression it was "Some popular antitheists and Carl Sagan" vs "Many of the dictionaries (including the official dictionary for the English language), Wikipedia, the fact that it covers both categories, AND internet debaters"

Wait, are you seriously citing Wikipedia to support your case? Have you ever used Wikipedia as a source when writing an academic paper? Were your professors ok with using Wikipedia?

Are you suggesting that the Oxford English Dictionary, and dictionary.com (a source you gave) are not reputable sources?

No, I agree that the OED is a good dictionary and I've relied on it many times. The OED is commonly used in the field of linguistics. However, the American Heritage Dictionary offers this definition:

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Lack of belief is not mentioned here, because lack of belief doesn't not accurate describe the atheist position.

Are you suggesting that the etymology of the word - the fact that A-Theist literally means without theism (or not a theist) is not a reputable source?

Theism: Belief
Atheism: Disbelief
Agnosticism: Lack of Belief

Will you ever concede this point or will you continue searching for whatever source you can find to back up your unsupported claims?

If they don't believe in the non existence of God, but they still call themselves an atheist, that's perfectly fine. Attacking their label is not attacking their position, and attacking their label is seemingly not a C&A matter.

Like I said, people can call themselves whatever they like. What make syou think that I care about what you call yourself? I care about the meaning of words, and how some are attempting to redefine words. I also think it's not honorable to make false accusations against theists as the internet debater did in the OP.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 51 by Clownboat]

Did you have something you wanted to contribute to this thread, or did you just want to repost my arguments without actually explaining anything? If you think I'm being contradictory can you speak up and say so, that way we can actually have a debate. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic, and posting up quotes WITHOUT providing any explanation or clarification is not productive.

And clearly, this quote is just wrong: "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt."

Carl Sagan, The Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary are not 'theists or theistic sources.' So the internet debater who made that statement needs to retract it. When a theist defines atheism as the denial of 'gods' they using the appropriate definition.

And here I thought my contribution was apparent.
IMO, you appear to be doing exactly what Z claimed theists often do. You take issue with his observation, but that does not seem to stop you from continuing.

The readers are free to agree or disagree if you are actually doing what you take issue with. Clearly you are IMO and I would like to bring it to the attention of the readers to determine if they agree or not as a matter of your credibility on this subject. Who would find someone credible that said, "don't do X, when they see said person doing X? Do you understand my point yet? Never mind, it really doesn't matter.

If you are not doing what you seem to be doing, I would have expected you to deal with the brake down of the words that have been presented many times in this thread alone.
- Without Theism = A thiest
- Without Knowledge = A gnostic

Do read the bold above again though? Will you continue to argue that you are not doing what you seem to be doing?
This is a rhetorical question and is why I bring it to the attention of the readers. I would hate for it to go unnoticed.

[WinePusher]

And here I thought my contribution was apparent.

I'm sure you did. Unfortunately, no one here has the power to read your mind. In order for a debate to be productive you should try to explain yourself as thoroughly as possible rather than quote mining.

IMO, you appear to be doing exactly what Z claimed theists often do. You take issue with his observation, but that does not seem to stop you from continuing.

Yes, I define atheism as the denial of God's existence because that is how prominent atheists define themselves, and that is how the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary defines it.

And I've also defended/debated many of my Christian beliefs. If you haven't noticed, his thread in particular has to do with atheism so getting into a debate about something like the resurrection of the Bible would be off topic.

The readers are free to agree or disagree if you are actually doing what you take issue with.

I don't take issue with the claim that theists (including myself) define atheism as the denial of God. I do take issue with the false claim that when theists do this, it is a straw man attempt. Do you know what a straw man is? Do you realize that theists are not engaging in straw man arguments by defining atheism in this particular way? Why continue to defend a clearly false statement?

If you are not doing what you seem to be doing, I would have expected you to deal with the brake down of the words that have been presented many times in this thread alone.
- Without Theism = A theist

I don't have any issue with this. Do read the OP again though: Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Will you continue to argue that you are not doing what you seem to be doing?

I will continue to define atheism as the denial of God's existence because that is how nontheistic sources define it. And yes, I will continue to argue against the position that it is a strawman attempt for theists to define atheism this way. That is clearly a false statement.

And please, I hope that you take the time to read what I wrote instead of ignoring it and continuing to level false accusations against me. Why not focus on the actual substance of the debate instead of making it personal?

[Jashwell]

Agnostics (with respect to theism) don't hold the belief that you can know whether or not a god exists.

Our debate isn't going anywhere because you keep attributing statements to me that I never said. I never said an agnostic holds the belief that you CAN know whether or not God exists. I explicitly said an agnostic is someone who abstains from believing, for whatever reason. If you were to ask an agnostic if they believe God exists, they would likely respond by saying 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue.' 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?'

Your definition of agnostic doesn't match the Oxford English Dictionary, and multiple other dictionaries. It also doesn't match the etymology of the word agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

No reason needs to be given for weak atheism; simple lack of belief.

A person who feels like they don't need to provide reasons for the position should not be debating.

Again, not the best point to split it up. Weak atheism is the default position. We come out of the womb not believing in God.

When your justification is "I don't know what you're talking about" (e.g. having heard about god) or "I don't have any reasons to believe", you don't need a reason.

This is the burden of proof - on those that assert, not those that deny.
The same reason that no evidence is given in court for the innocence of an individual - innocence is assumed until demonstrated otherwise.

Unless you think people are unreasonable up until the point that they are confronted with new ideas, because they will lack belief in those too.

I'm not sure if we just disagree with what a reason is.

I lack belief about many things. For example, I lack belief in whether Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2016. I do not subscribe to the belief that she will run and I don't subscribe to the belief that she will not run. I can also provide reasons for my position: 1) there is no good evidence supporting either contention, 2) whether or not Hillary Clinton runs is of no consequence to me personally.

If you lack belief in God, meaning that you do not subscribe to the belief that God exists and you don't subscribe to the belief that God doesn't exist, then you should be able to explain why in a debate, as I've just done.

And when you came out of the womb and didn't believe in Hilary Clinton was it unjustified because you didn't have reasons?

"Reputable sources and intellectuals vs internet atheists"
That's funny, I was under the impression it was "Some popular antitheists and Carl Sagan" vs "Many of the dictionaries (including the official dictionary for the English language), Wikipedia, the fact that it covers both categories, AND internet debaters"

Wait, are you seriously citing Wikipedia to support your case? Have you ever used Wikipedia as a source when writing an academic paper? Were your professors ok with using Wikipedia?

Wikipedia uses the following sources:
1-4 - various books and papers
5 - Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008)
6 - onelook inquiry (compares 30ish, most professing lack of belief)
7 - Oxford Dictionaries - 2013
8 - Department of Religious Studies, Alabama University
9 - OED (again), 1989

Are you suggesting that the Oxford English Dictionary, and dictionary.com (a source you gave) are not reputable sources?

No, I agree that the OED is a good dictionary and I've relied on it many times. The OED is commonly used in the field of linguistics. However, the American Heritage Dictionary offers this definition:

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Lack of belief is not mentioned here, because lack of belief doesn't not accurate describe the atheist position.

We have to competing definitions. One from the more respected OED, one from the American Heritage Dictionary.

One definition - lack of belief - is broader, completely encircling the other.
So this definition covers the entire usage.

"Lack of belief doesn't describe the atheist position"
This would of course be begging the question, what you mean to say is
"Lack of belief doesn't describe this position"

Not to mention that many atheists, and the etymology, as well as multiple dictionaries, profess this as a better definition.

Since you clearly accept that various well respected dictionaries and many self professed atheists think lack of belief is atheism, at the very least you should think that the other dictionaries should change to suit the broader usage, by including it as a secondary definition.

As I said before - if you had two competing definitions of Christian, one including unitarity and the other not, which would be the better definition?

Are you suggesting that the etymology of the word - the fact that A-Theist literally means without theism (or not a theist) is not a reputable source?

Theism: Belief
Atheism: Disbelief
Agnosticism: Lack of Belief

Will you ever concede this point or will you continue searching for whatever source you can find to back up your unsupported claims?

Hang on while I just throw out the 9 other sources wikipedia lists, including 30 dictionaries, and the OED out my window.
And many atheists' views of the label they apply to themselves.
And the literal translation of the etymology of the word.
Yeah, totally unsupported.

Do you accept that agnosticism comes from a-gnosis meaning without knowledge?
Do you accept that atheism comes from a-theism meaning without theism? (What you call agnostics are without theism)

Do you accept that the etymology (given the prefix a- is a negation) suggests atheism is the negation of theism - which would encompass that which you call agnosticism?

Do you accept that many self-professed atheists and multiple dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary; the most well respected English dictionary; profess lack of belief rather than belief to the contrary?

I accept that some dictionaries and people, including Carl Sagan and a dictionary I've never heard of before (not that I know many), think atheists must believe in no God.

If they don't believe in the non existence of God, but they still call themselves an atheist, that's perfectly fine. Attacking their label is not attacking their position, and attacking their label is seemingly not a C&A matter.

Like I said, people can call themselves whatever they like. What make syou think that I care about what you call yourself? I care about the meaning of words, and how some are attempting to redefine words. I also think it's not honorable to make false accusations against theists as the internet debater did in the OP.

"Redefine words"?
The etymology (without theism) indicates what you call agnosticism is simply atheism. Agnosticism (with respect to theism) means "without knowledge", not addressing belief at all.

Or can we only redefine words once? Is that why the redefinition of atheism to strong atheism is allowed?