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]

Since I just appear to be wasting time, this post will ONLY be sourced definitions. I've previously listed the sources wikipedia gives, but unfortunately notable articles (at least comparable to the stanford article), books, multiple copies of the OED and a comparison of 30 different sources are just random internet debaters.

Regardless, all I need to do is show a way in which lack of belief fits the definition of atheism. I don't need to show that the only meaning is someone who lacks belief.

It's also not in my interest to show that atheism includes implicit atheism - the difference is that implicit atheists are those who've never considered the God claim. (and obviously lack belief)

(dictionary.com)

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

disbelief
noun 1
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

refusal
noun 1
an act or instance of refusing.

refusing
-> refuse
verb
1. to decline to accept
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refusing?s=t

Are you willing to argue that "declining to accept" is accepting the opposite?

(stanford)

Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Now, I'm not going to bother arguing whether or not this source supports me - partly because I've already shown that the sources better support "lack of belief"; being that the OED and Dictionary.com are cumulatively a better source on the current definition of atheism than Carl Sagan and an article on Stanford University's philosophy Encyclopedia that was published 10 years ago.

But I am going to argue that this source doesn't support you clearly enough to be meaningfully relevant to the conversation.
The use of the words "negation" and "denial" allow for both possible definitions.

Negation could mean either the absence of or the opposite of. The former accepts the boundary, and also doesn't allow for commonplace pseudo-philosophy like "life is the opposite of death" which comes from the fact that opposite is itself poorly defined. (There are circumstances where the option is binary - in which case the negation is the opposite, but not all circumstances are like this)

If atheism is the absence of theism; then "lack of belief" is the definition it supports.
If atheism is the acceptance of the opposite of theism, then "belief in the non-existence of gods" is the definition it supports.

Denial itself is refusal to accept. (most dictionaries I've seen)
In other words, atheism is not accepting theism.
Being an atheist is not being a theist - it isn't being an anti-theist.

(there are many scenarios in which the word 'denial' is used, in which the outcomes are binary.. hence there are scenarios in which 'denial' would entail acceptance of the alternate - but this is by lack of a 'middle ground', not by the definition of the word)


Disbelief is not believing; unbelief; non belief; not accepting something is true; etc.
"I disbelieve in God" means "I don't believe in God" or "I don't hold belief in God"
"I disbelieve in God" does not mean "I believe in the non-existence of God"

Now that's out of the way...

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

rejection of belief in gods

2a : a disbelief in the existence of a deity

Absence of belief that any deities exist
Rejection of belief that any deities exist

or denial that God or gods exist

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

The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods;

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

[Star]

WinePusher's argument is based on a well-known false dichotomy fallacy.

Here's a similar example of a false dichotomy taken from our legal systems: A defendant is found either guilty or innocent. (I saw this mistake made many times during the Martin Trayvon mania.) In reality, a defendant is found either guilty or not guilty, the latter being a third category, which is what WinePusher should pay attention to.

Finding not guilty is akin to a soft/negative atheist and/or agnostic position.

Finding innocent would be akin to a hard/positive atheist and/or gnostic position.

A key point you failed to mention is that in the American legal system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant. The burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove himself/herself innocent because most legal systems operate upon the presumption of innocence. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase, 'innoceny until proven guilty.'

If you do see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same, why not just eliminate the 'soft atheism' concept and just call yourself an agnostic? All of this weak/soft/negative atheism stuff is unnecessary and superfluous. If weak/soft/negative atheism is synonymous with agnosticism then just go with agnosticism and leave the word atheism to those who actually believe God doesn't exist.

And the issue with Travyon Martin had very little to do with people's understanding of 'guilty' vs 'not guilty.' The major point of dispute outside the courtroom, in the popular media, was whether or not there was a racial motive/component to Zimmerman's actions. Were people up in Canada really interested in this case?

Huh? Um, OK...

1) I fully understand that the burden is on the prosecution. If you understood you'd know this actually fits in well with my analogy, and supports it, so thank you for bringing it up. Those making a claim (ie. "my god is the one true god") bear the burden of providing the evidence necessary to convince skeptics.

2) Criminal courts, as in my analogy, do NOT find defendants innocent. If not proven, the verdict is not guilty, which has a distinct meaning recognized by every criminal court in the free world. Not guilty means not proven. The presumption of innocence is just a presumption prior a court's ruling. It's just a legalism. No actual verdicts are made in regards to innocence. This is true whether you accept it or not.

3) I do NOT see atheism and agnosticism as one in the same. In fact, this the exact opposite of what I've been saying. One is about knowledge, and one is about belief. Do you fail to recognize this distinction as well?

4) I realize the Trayvon case was about racism and guns. I never said otherwise. What I did say, however, in plain English, is that I saw a lot of this particular fallacy during the mania. Noticing a fallacy committed during a controversy is NOT the same thing as saying that is what the controversy is all about.

[Star]

I'm reposting this for WinePusher's edification.

The A prefix basically means "not" or "without."

A/gnosticism is about knowledge. A/theism is about belief.

Agnostics recognize they lack sufficient knowledge to be certain, while gnostics don't.

Atheists don't believe in any gods, while theists do.

These two terms can actually complement each other. Agnostic-atheists (such as myself) don't believe in any gods, but don't know for certain. Gnostic-theists, such as most Christians, think they know their god exists, and of course, actively believe it, too.

There are other categories of atheist to take note of.

Implicit atheists aren't familiar with religion, and haven't had an opportunity to consider any claims, such as infants. Explicit atheists, such as every atheist here, have had the opportunity. For example, I'm familiar with dozens of religions, gods, creation claims, etc., but I don't believe any of them, for reasons I can articulate.

Positive/hard atheists believe god(s) don't exist. This is what many people think atheists are, including Carl Sagan as noted in the OP, and unfortunately some of my personal heroes, such Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Einstein, who both adamantly deny/denied being atheist for this reason.

Negative/soft atheists just don't believe. As an analogy, in a court of law, the accused is found either guilty or not guilty. He or she isn't found innocent. This is founded on the same logical principle as negative/soft atheism. They usually don't believe because they don't know due to lack of evidence, which is a good analogy to a/gnosticism.

Most religious people are atheistic towards religions other than their own. As I see it, the only difference between a atheist and an theist in this sense, is the atheist believes in one less religion.

[DanieltheDragon]

winepusher

your refusal to accept the other definitions of atheism is tantamount to saying that "bark" can only refer to the sound a dog makes and that it has nothing to do with the outermost layers of stems and roots of woody plants.

[wiploc]

Wiploc, your post is full of many distortions and errors. Let's take them one by one.

I don't understand why you're still talking this way. Your case has been thoroughly refuted. You gave three sources.

- Sagan's was personal and eccentric.
--- You can't find any dictionary that agrees with him.
--- You don't agree with him yourself.
--- You can't find any significant body of English users who agree with him.

All three of these claims are false. I provided two dictionaries that corroborate Sagan's definition,

You provided one dictionary and one encyclopedia article. Neither of them agree with Sagan.

- Sagan said atheists know that gods don't exist.
- The article said that atheists believe gods don't exist.
- The dictionary gave two definitions: Atheists can believe gods don't exist, or they can just not believe that gods exist.

I DO agree with him myself

Your claim is that only those who believe gods don't exist are an atheists.

Sagan's claim was that you have to know gods don't exist. Just believing gods don't exist wouldn't make you an atheist; you'd have to know it.

This is a fundamental disagreement.

and there are many influential English users who agree with Sagan.

Prove this claim, or withdraw it.

- SEP's described how he was going to use the word in that article.

Do you know what the article was about?

I read most of it.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism, a concept that many don't seem to fully understand.

The person writing the article has every right to open by explaining which kind of atheism he's talking about, and which kind of agnosticism.

- Dictionary.com doesn't agree with you either.
--- Yes, it includes the definition you like, but it also includes the one you claim is wrong.
--- You provided this source, but you say it's wrong.
--- It agrees with us, but not with you.

Again, all three of your claims are demonstrably false. First you say that dictionary.com doesn't agree with me then you admit that it does.

You say that there's only one definition of atheism: people who believe gods don't exist are the only atheists.

Dictionary.com says there are two definitions. There's your definition, and then there's also the definition that includes all explicit atheists: Anyone who has considered that god may exist, and come away unconvinced, is an atheist.

Dictionary.com says those are both good definitions, but you opened this thread specifically to attack the second one.

You keep saying that you agree with dictionary.com, and we keep pointing out that you don't.

Please get your story straight. I don't even know what you mean with your second claim, and your third claim is confusing. Who is 'US?'

People who think you can be an atheist without believing that gods don't exist.

Do you presume to speak for all your other nontheist buddies in this thread,

Only the ones, theist and atheist (and dictionary.com) who believe that you can be an atheist without believing that gods don't exist.

because it doesn't even appear as though you all are on the same page. Perhaps you should PM each other and hammer out all the inconsistencies and contradictions in your position.

This thread exists to make the single point that atheism requires believing that gods do not exist. That's the point I'm discussing. I am not concerned with inconsistencies on other points. (Be sure to get back to me, though, when theists have hammered out all of their inconsistencies.)

You, on the other hand, don't seem to be concerned about inconsistencies at all. You act as if Sagan and dictionary.com agree with you, even though it has repeatedly been pointed out that this is not the case.

Of your three sources, the only one that describes common usage is dictionary.com Dictionary.com says we are right and you are wrong.

Again, who is 'we?'

Again, it is people who disagree with your thesis. You claim that weak atheists aren't really atheists, and we disagree.

I'm sorry, but during the 4 years I've debated on this forum I haven't been on a team.

Good for you.

I don't need or want back up from other debaters,

And you're not likely to get it until you hammer out the inconsistencies in your position.

so I'm not accustomed with all this 'we' and 'us' business. Who exactly do you presume to speak for?

People who recognize that weak atheists are atheists too.

If you define atheism as 'lack of belief' then you're inaccurate, it's as simple as that.

Why should I believe you. I have considerable experience using the English language. I have researched this issue in the big OED, the unabridged Websters, and other dictionaries. I found a pocket dictionary that agreed with you once, but no dictionary of desk size or larger. I have discussed this and read discussions of hundreds or thousands of atheists over the years. I know for a fact that it is common usage among atheists to use "atheist" to refer to anyone who is not a theist.

I'll put up my Madalyn Murray O'Hair against your Carl Sagan any day.

If you define atheism as rejection of belief in God, or disbelief in God, or denial of God, or any one of those definitions then you would be accurate.

If Joe hears hears stories about gods without being persuaded that gods exists---but also without being persuaded that gods do not exist---then:

- Joe has rejected belief in god without becoming a strong atheist.
- Joe disbelieves in god without becoming a strong atheist.

So Joe fits these definitions, but he doesn't believe in the nonexistence of gods. If you are correct that these definitions are accurate, then you are just wrong to say that you have to believe gods don't exist to be an atheist.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Wikipedia says we're right and you're wrong.

Please read the quote again.

Okay.

In the broadest sense, atheism is the rejection of belief in deities.

Now you read it again. That's the broad sense, not the broadest (most inclusive) sense.

Did you miss that part? IN THE BROADEST SENSE.

If you want to be this stubborn and abrasive, you ought to take some care to be in the right. There is a difference between "in a broad sense" and "in the broadest sense."

Do you know what that means?

Yes. Do you? Because if you can't tell broad from broadest, I don't know what we can accomplish here.

In the most general sense of the term, atheism is the rejection of belief in deities.

Once again, you are pretending that a definition agrees with you when it clearly does not. In the most general ("most inclusive") sense of the term, atheism is "the absence of belief that deities exist." It says that, right there, in the passage that you are quoting. And then you turn around and act like it says something else.

Regarding the 'inclusive' definition, I'd really like to know what the internet writer had in mind when writing this.

I'll explain: The most inclusive definition is the broadest definition, the one that includes the most people. The big tent definition. It's the opposite of the narrowest definition, the one that includes the least people. We could illustrate this way:

Least inclusive, Sagan: You have to know gods don't exist.
Less inclusive, Winepusher: You have to believe gods have to do.
More inclusive, dictionary.com: You have to have heard of god without becoming a theist.
Most inclusive, see below*: You only have to not be a theist.

*Me, most of the people discussing this with you, and almost all of the atheists I've talked to over the years.

And you do realize that Wikipedia is edited by random people on the internet, right?

To me, Wikipedia is an incredible community effort by hundreds of thousands of people. It has errors, of course, but strives to correct them. I've read that it is more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. I've also read (in Wikipedia) that about on par or a little less accurate than Britannica.

To me, you are a random person on the internet.

Which brings us back to my original question about the credibility of random people on the internet.

Um, yes.

If atheism was actually defined as 'lack of belief' then why is this definition (preferred by internet atheists) at odds with what actual atheists say and do?

Generally speaking, it is not. Most of us, including most of us in this thread, use "atheist" to mean "does not believe that gods exist."

Some of us are strong atheists. We may tell you that gods don't exist, but that doesn't mean we think that the only atheists are people who agree that gods don't exist.

You do realize that famous atheists, as opposed to unverifiable internet atheists, do not simply lack belief, right?

I'll take your word for it that some famous atheists are strong atheists. That doesn't support your point. Your claim is when people say "atheist," they don't mean to include weak atheists. You haven't done anything to support that point beyond citing one single encyclopedia author who talked that way for the duration of one article.

Here's the OED on atheism:
without god
denying god
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods
godlessness.

Where is the 'lack belief' definition?

What do you think "without god" means? Do you think it means that god walked away from you, so you are an atheist regardless of whether you believe in him? No, it means "without belief in god." "Without god" is the broadest, most inclusive, definition: It means that every non-theist is an atheist.

What do you think "disbelief in the existence of God or gods" means? This definition is nearly as inclusive. It includes all non-theists except babies and others who have never heard of god or somehow never considered the issue.

What do you think "godlessness" means? It is, again, the broadest definition of atheism: Every nontheist, babies included, is an atheist.

That's five definitions (depending how you count). Three of the definitions agree with us, and only one of them agrees with you---and that one is given as an alternative. That is, the OED disagrees with you: It claims that yours is not the only legitimate definition.

Wait, where is the LACK BELIEF definition? Did you forget to include it?

No, it's there, and it's obvious. I can't imagine that you've overlooked it.

The fact is that dictionaries agree with us, and so many English users agree with us that you are just wrong: Your preferred definition is not the only correct definition.

Your claim is clearly unsupportable. I don't know why you are still making it.

Seems like there's a lot of confusion

I'm beginning to wonder whether that's really the issue.

about this so let me clarify.

Good.

What I reject is the idea that atheism can be defined as 'lack of belief.'

You've been clear about that from the beginning.

I don't really have any problem with the five OED definitions you gave,

You don't mind the definitions, but you reject their meaning?

I think they're all accurate but I personally see the 'denying God' one as the most accurate as it describes what modern atheists actually say and do.

I see it as the least relevant, least accurate. If the Pope believes there are no gods, he is an atheist regardless of whether he speaks his belief aloud.

But, that doesn't make the other 4 definitions any less credible. The one definition I reject is the 'lack belief' one.

Three of the four are about lack of belief. In dictionary.com, one of the two is about lack of belief.

[Star]

It's like saying the definition of Christianity is [insert definition of Catholicism only].

Or saying the definition of Islam is [insert definition of Shiites only].

These are examples of mistakes concerning subcategories. Only one path on a decision tree is explored, and an incomplete conclusion is applied to the entire category. Only some Christians are Catholics. Only some Muslims are Shiite. And only some atheists believe no god exists.

The problem occurs at the "believes god doesn't exist" vs. "doesn't believe" branch.

I think if WinePusher doesn't understand this concept by now, he's not going to.

[Zzyzx]

.

It's like saying the definition of Christianity is [insert definition of Catholicism only].

Or saying the definition of Islam is [insert definition of Shiites only].

These are examples of mistakes concerning subcategories. Only one path on a decision tree is explored, and an incomplete conclusion is applied to the entire category. Only some Christians are Catholics. Only some Muslims are Shiite. And only some atheists believe no god exists.

The problem occurs at the "believes god doesn't exist" vs. "doesn't believe" branch.

I think if WinePusher doesn't understand this concept by now, he's not going to.

You (and others) have made the concept VERY clear -- easily understood by anyone sincerely interested in understanding -- with abundant citations that anyone can check. I trust that very few readers have doubts about the various sub-sets within Atheism and that god-denial is NOT required in Atheism.

However, a few may refuse to understand or pretend to not (for various reasons or agendas).

[bernee51]

.

It's like saying the definition of Christianity is [insert definition of Catholicism only].

Or saying the definition of Islam is [insert definition of Shiites only].

These are examples of mistakes concerning subcategories. Only one path on a decision tree is explored, and an incomplete conclusion is applied to the entire category. Only some Christians are Catholics. Only some Muslims are Shiite. And only some atheists believe no god exists.

The problem occurs at the "believes god doesn't exist" vs. "doesn't believe" branch.

I think if WinePusher doesn't understand this concept by now, he's not going to.

You (and others) have made the concept VERY clear -- easily understood by anyone sincerely interested in understanding -- with abundant citations that anyone can check. I trust that very few readers have doubts about the various sub-sets within Atheism and that god-denial is NOT required in Atheism.

However, a few may refuse to understand or pretend to not (for various reasons or agendas).

What also seems to be being ignored by some is that without theism atheism would not exist. Atheism is dependent on theism for its existence. Theism is defined as the belief in one or more deities. Atheism is lack of said belief.

To suggest that atheism is the denial of the existence of god is tantamount to suggesting that to be a theist on must INSIST that god exists.

Does the theist protagonist in this discussion INSIST this god exists?

[WinePusher]

Since you refuse to accept that 'lack of belief in any god' is atheism, even if a million self proclaimed atheists say it is so, tell us what term you would apply to a person who says:

First, I think you'd actually agree with me if we were on the same page about what 'lack of belief' means. As I've already said many times, if one merely 'lacks belief' they do not have any particular views or positions regarding the subject. This is why it's foolish to define atheism in this manner because atheists do have views, positions and beliefs regarding the subject of God's existence.

Second, produce one prominent NON-INTERNET self professed atheist that identifies with the 'lack belief' or present your own take on what 'lack belief' means.

"I don't know if there really is a god or not, but I think it extremely unlikely that there is one or could be." Do you claim this person is an agnostic?

Let's take 3 cases:

1. A person agrees he has no absolute knowledge but thinks the chance that a God exists is remote, somewhere under 10%.

2. A person agrees he has no absolute knowledge but thinks the chance that a God exists is as likely as it is unlikely, 50-50 in percentage terms; or he says the issue can never be determined; that it is beyond our ability to know.

3. A person agrees he has no absolute knowledge but thinks the chance that a God exists is more likely than not, whether it is characterized in percentage terms of 60% or 90%.

What labels do you place on each of the three?

Talk about 'muddying the water.' You're overcomplicating this for no good reason. Percentages do not matter and levels of certainty do not matter. What matters is the baseline belief the person subscribes to. For example, as a theist I am still open to the possibility of God's nonexistence but that doesn't make me any less a theist. This is why your three examples make no sense.

[WinePusher]

.

It's like saying the definition of Christianity is [insert definition of Catholicism only].

Or saying the definition of Islam is [insert definition of Shiites only].

These are examples of mistakes concerning subcategories. Only one path on a decision tree is explored, and an incomplete conclusion is applied to the entire category. Only some Christians are Catholics. Only some Muslims are Shiite. And only some atheists believe no god exists.

The problem occurs at the "believes god doesn't exist" vs. "doesn't believe" branch.

I think if WinePusher doesn't understand this concept by now, he's not going to.

You (and others) have made the concept VERY clear -- easily understood by anyone sincerely interested in understanding -- with abundant citations that anyone can check. I trust that very few readers have doubts about the various sub-sets within Atheism and that god-denial is NOT required in Atheism.

However, a few may refuse to understand or pretend to not (for various reasons or agendas).

Finally, the first personal attack of the thread. And it's made by a moderator at that. Do you really want to stand by the statement that whoever disagrees with you is not 'sincere' and 'refuses to understand?' As a moderator, shouldn't you know better than to demean other people and insult their intelligence? Can you NOT debate without making implicit personal attacks like this?