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?

[WinePusher]

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.

Your statement is totally unwarranted. I refuse to accept ONE definition of atheism because I do not think it's accurate. I've explained why literally a thousand times, so you can go back and actually address my reasons instead of making up stuff like this.

[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.

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?

He said "a few" people either refuse or pretend not to understand for various reasons and agendas. If this is your definition of an "implicit personal attack" then the one you made on me for apparently committing psychological projection proceeded this by many posts.

[WinePusher]

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.

You miss the point entirely. People are presumed to be INNOCENT right off the bat which is why I mentioned the 'presumption of innocence' which you completely ignored.

2) Criminal courts, as in my analogy, do NOT find defendants innocent.

You're right, criminal courts presume the innocence of the defendant right off the bat. The concept is known as 'the presumption of innocence.' Please familiarize yourself with it.

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.

You're absolutely right to say that not guilty means not proven. But, the innocence of the defendant is maintained UNTIL guilt can be proven. That's where your mistake is.

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?

That DOES NOT address my question. I'll re-post it in case you missed it:

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.

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.

Even though there was no fallacy about this mentioned. Did you not follow the case that closely? All the public debate was centered around race, guns, self defense, etc AND all the participants in the case as well as outside commentators understood what 'guilty and not guilty meant.' On what basis did you make your claim in the first place?

[Danmark]

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.

1st,
I note you refuse to answer the questions put to you.
2d, The fact that everyone disagrees with you is significant. When it comes to defining the meaning of words, the majority opinion rules. As I've pointed out to you several times, words are merely symbols. If everyone agrees that '$##$%^%$' means "black: devoid of color" than that is what it means, by definition.

What is interesting in this little debate is that you refuse to answer questions that would clarify. You also refuse to disclose WHY you are making such a big deal about it. It has been suggested by several that you are trying to set up a burden of proof shift, ala WLC.

Good luck with that. No matter how one wants to shift the playing field and change the burden of proof, those that claim there is a Great Flying Spaghetti Monster or other similar deity, bear the burden of proof. This is a fact you have to live with. No matter how the GFSM or other 'God' proponent squirms and deflects, he bears the burden of proving his claim. The one who says I do not believe, has no such burden, whether you call him 'atheist,' 'agnostic,' 'non theist,' or 'infidel.'

This entire exercise has been a colossal waste of time. The burden of proof has not been shifted.

[mwtech]

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.

Did you completely miss the issue with asking someone to provide you with a non-internet atheist who lacks belief or did you ask for it specifically because it is so impractical. How are we going to link you to a NON_INTERNET SOURCE? What do you want us to do, quote our mom or something? Any source we give you that is not from the internet will just be claimed to be an unreliable source with no authority on the subject.
Well, if you want an atheist who lacks belief, here I am. I have no idea if there is a God, I don't know what created the universe, but I lack belief in God. This makes me an atheist. My lack of belief in God and my lack of knowledge about the universe and God makes me an agnostic-atheist.

"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.

He is not overcomplicating. He is breaking this down for you to make the point you keep ignoring. You say

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.

You are not acknowledging the fact that agnostic has nothing to do with theology. You can be agnostic about anything. I am agnostic when it comes to what your middle name is. I lack the knowledge concerning this thing. Probabilities and percentages are completely relevant. Once a person reaches 50% (doesn't believe at all one way or the other) they are no longer a theist. If they do not believe in God, which they do not if they are completely unsure, then they are an atheist. It is completely impossible to be neither a theist or an atheist.

Person 1 is agnostic because he/she does not have absolute knowledge. He/she is also an atheist because of the lack of belief in God.
Person 2 is also agnostic because of the lack of knowledge. They are also an atheist because of the lack of belief in God.
Person 3 is also an agnostic because the lack of absolute knowledge. This person is a theist because of the belief in God.

Such an drawn out example should be uneccessary, but since you refuse to acknowledge the fact that atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive terms, it is necessary to explain this to you.

[WinePusher]

1st, I note you refuse to answer the questions put to you.

Seems like you're guilty of doing the very same thing. Unlike you, I actually took the time to explain why I thought your questions were meaningless and senseless.

2d, The fact that everyone disagrees with you is significant.

I agree that it is significant, but for different reasons. It shows that nontheists require help, support and backup and debate while theists do not. The fact that an idea is popular among internet atheists (:lol:) says NOTHING about the truth of the idea.

When it comes to defining the meaning of words, the majority opinion rules.

No, the dictionary rules. If you want to go with the 'lack belief' definition you put yourself at odds with the dictionary.

As I've pointed out to you several times, words are merely symbols. If everyone agrees that '$##$%^%$' means "black: devoid of color" than that is what it means, by definition.

You refuse to acknowledge that only internet atheists agree on the 'lack belief' definition. I challenged you to produce on prominent NON INTERNET atheist that identifies with this definition and you failed to do so.

What is interesting in this little debate is that you refuse to answer questions that would clarify.

Your questions make no sense. I already explained why, and instead of countering you just chose to ignore it. Please respond to what I write instead of ignoring it.

You also refuse to disclose WHY you are making such a big deal about it.

I made a debate thread about it, how is that tantamount to 'making a big deal about it?' I've made several debate threads about this issue throughout my time on this forum because the inconsistency and contradictions among so called atheists is a topic worth debating, imo.

It has been suggested by several that you are trying to set up a burden of proof shift, ala WLC.

I already addressed this too. The burden of proof is on BOTH debaters to support their claim and/or to attack the claim of their opponent. What about this is not clear?

This entire exercise has been a colossal waste of time.

Oh, well that's your problem. You keep complaining about the thread yet you keep on coming back, posting in it and 'wasting your time.'

[Danmark]

1st, I note you refuse to answer the questions put to you.

Seems like you're guilty of doing the very same thing. Unlike you, I actually took the time to explain why I thought your questions were meaningless and senseless.

I disagree. I'll answer any question you have. Just ask.

BTW, this is not the first time you have tried to use against a person the fact they participate in the debate. This is irrelevant and I suggest an unfair and illogical debating tactic which in essence says, "If you reply you admit my argument is worth replying to. If you do not reply, you concede the point."

In any event this seems like a deflection from the point in question which is that you have the burden of proof to show your beliefs have merit; while those who lack belief have no burden.

[Star]

You miss the point entirely. People are presumed to be INNOCENT right off the bat which is why I mentioned the 'presumption of innocence' which you completely ignored.

Nobody concludes innocence in criminal cases. This presumption is not a statement of fact. But this is beside the point. The point is there's a category in addition to innocent and guilty, which makes it an apt analogy to agnostic soft atheism.

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?

That DOES NOT address my question. I'll re-post it in case you missed it:

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.

I repeat: I do NOT see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same, so your point is invalid, and your malformed question unanswerable. I encourage you to look-up the definitions of both "knowledge" and "belief" in a dictionary.

Even though there was no fallacy about this mentioned. Did you not follow the case that closely? All the public debate was centered around race, guns, self defense, etc AND all the participants in the case as well as outside commentators understood what 'guilty and not guilty meant.' On what basis did you make your claim in the first place?

You are incorrect again. I named the specific fallacy in that post twice: False dichotomy. eg. "An accused is found either guilty or innocent" or "A person either believes god exists, or he believes god doesn't." You are omitting an additional category.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 125 by WinePusher]

I disagree with Zzyzx's view on 'denial' - the dictionaries I've checked all define denial as refusal to accept - and refusal as declining to accept. Meaning that anyone who is presented with a truth claim (e.g. a god exists) and chooses not to accept it is denying it. (They are also denying to give it belief, another context of the word)
While this doesn't include implicit atheism (as they been presented with the claim to be in the position to deny it), it does include explicit weak atheism.


What counts as a non internet source?
Matt Dillahunty and JT Eberhard, prominent atheists?
A copy of the Oxford English Dictionary?
A copy of the Merriam Webster Dictionary?
An explicitly atheist (aimed at theist call ins) chat show that's been running for 16 years and has nearly 900 hours of screen time?


You apparently think Carl Sagan is an authority on atheism because he was popular. He died 18 years ago. Similarly, the article you source was published 10 years ago (and the last revision saw no reason to change the meaning since the meaning was for the use in the article).

Yet you also argue that words change. And to top it off, you don't think that dictionaries should add relatively common usages of words, but you do accept that "lack of belief" is in relatively common usage.

You repeatedly say "internet debaters", yet you refuse to acknowledge all the sources given. You repeatedly refer to your own sources which have been shown to be against you. (see post 110 for instance)

You repeatedly claim that the fact that there are atheists that have belief that no gods exist somehow means that atheism shouldn't mean or have an additional meaning of people who don't hold a belief in god. This would include them anyway. The definition of atheism we support doesn't mean you have no beliefs, it means you don't have a belief in the existence of a god.
Similarly, it would be like arguing that Christianity should be defined as Catholicism because some (one and a half times as many as protestants) people are Catholic.

We aren't one organised group - we're all people that disagree with you on one position: whether or not "lack of belief" is a valid definition for atheism.

You've claimed that the burden of proof is on both debaters.

I already addressed this too. The burden of proof is on BOTH debaters to support their claim and/or to attack the claim of their opponent. What about this is not clear?

But you also support the presumption of innocence.
The defendant is very much a debater.
They don't have to defend their innocence with a single piece of proof.

Similarly, weak atheists (what you call agnostics) don't have to.

[dianaiad]

.

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?

Moderator Final Warning

If you believe that a post violates the forum rules, report it. Do not respond with negative insulting comments of your own, especially with a post consisting of nothing but negative personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.