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]

[Replying to post 136 by WinePusher]

wine


please define this statement


"I don't believe in gods, however, I don't know that gods don't exist."

To me this statements deals with the level of certainty on the part of the person making it. As a theist, I would say the same thing. I believe in God, however, I don't know that God exists. I'm not absolutely certain in my beliefs.

[WinePusher]

Soft atheism or weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the possibility of knowing the existence of gods.

Ok, so both deal with lack of belief according to you. Also, according to you, one deals with the possibility of knowing and the other does not. Do you understand that in order to believe in something you must first have knowledge of it? I must first have knowledge the thing in question, and after I've attained this knowledge I can then proceed to form beliefs about it. Please address this point directly.

It's the other way around as most philosophers see it - almost exclusively philosophers believe that knowledge is a subset of belief - for example, one philosopher defined knowledge as "justified true belief".

Yes, this is correct. Philosophers do typically define knowledge as a subset of belief. But, this statement in and of itself is limited because belief tends to be based upon current knowledge as well. The epistemological flaw in your reasoning is that our beliefs, which can even be defined as subjective knowledge, are the product of our objective knowledge, that is the knowledge which is obtained through sensory experience.

The difference: Some people used to believe the world was flat. But they didn't know it was flat.

That's a trivial distinction. Knowledge deals with higher degrees of certainty while belief deals with lower degrees of certainty.

[Danmark]

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

I already did, and you ignored them.

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.

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.

What are you talking about? You constantly call this thread silly, pointless and a waste of time, and yet you keep coming back. I find this strange because I also think there are tons of threads on this forum that are silly, pointless and a waste of time but unlike you I avoid posting in them.

What I'm talking about is what you just repeated.

I have previously answered your questions, not ignored them.

You've certainly put a lot of conditions on who I may use as a source. Your restrictions come close to saying my source must be someone who agrees with you. You demand that he must:
1. be prominent
2. be "NON INTERNET" [Is one disqualified if he has ever used the internet?]
3. be a "self professed atheist"

But, I can work within those restrictions:

'"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Harvey, Van A. "Agnosticism and Atheism", in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."

Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."'

_ from the Wikipedia entry on 'Atheism'
BTW, I have previously on this thread cited to Wikipedia on both the definitions of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism.'
The problem faced by anyone who tries to force a narrow definition on atheism is that virtually all sources disagree that there is but one narrow definition that does not overlap with forms of agnosticism. This has been pointed out on this thread and many previous threads on this forum many times previously, as Noisform has statedF

[Elijah John]

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?

In response to the OP here, this is the definition I use from the American Heritage dictionary and that I used in the thread alluded to by the OP:

The first definition from the American Heritage dictionary of "atheism" is:

1) a:"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God." and:
b: "The doctrine that there is no God"

Contrast that to their definition of "agnostic":

1) "One who believes there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility."

So I do take issue with the suggestion that my definition is in any way a "straw man" as it is right from the dictionary.

And I gotta say, I agree with WP, in this case and in that I have never encountered many of our non-Theist's participant's definitions of "atheist" anywhere but here on the internet. Certainly not out there in the "real world".

Finally, in these 15 pages or so of posts on this thread, please excuse me if my posting of the AH dictionary definition is repetitious, as I may have missed it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 136 by WinePusher]

wine


please define this statement


"I don't believe in gods, however, I don't know that gods don't exist."

To me this statements deals with the level of certainty on the part of the person making it. As a theist, I would say the same thing. I believe in God, however, I don't know that God exists. I'm not absolutely certain in my beliefs.

so can atheists not be categorized in this way. This is basically what all the fuss is over. Your claims on the accuracy of a definition center around this distinction of knowing vs believing. An atheist can believe there is no gods without knowing there is no gods or asserting they know there is no gods. This is key for a variety of reasons including burden of proof. Which when applicable to debate can dust up needless arguments surrounding a lack of acknowledgement over certain valid definitions of atheism.

[Jashwell]

Soft atheism or weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the possibility of knowing the existence of gods.

Ok, so both deal with lack of belief according to you. Also, according to you, one deals with the possibility of knowing and the other does not. Do you understand that in order to believe in something you must first have knowledge of it? I must first have knowledge the thing in question, and after I've attained this knowledge I can then proceed to form beliefs about it. Please address this point directly.

It's the other way around as most philosophers see it - almost exclusively philosophers believe that knowledge is a subset of belief - for example, one philosopher defined knowledge as "justified true belief".

Yes, this is correct. Philosophers do typically define knowledge as a subset of belief. But, this statement in and of itself is limited because belief tends to be based upon current knowledge as well. The epistemological flaw in your reasoning is that our beliefs, which can even be defined as subjective knowledge, are the product of our objective knowledge, that is the knowledge which is obtained through sensory experience.

The difference: Some people used to believe the world was flat. But they didn't know it was flat.

That's a trivial distinction. Knowledge deals with higher degrees of certainty while belief deals with lower degrees of certainty.

It is certain that knowledge is not equivalent to belief. The words have different meaning.

The actual definition depends, but knowledge is almost always a subset of belief. Usually it's said to be a justified belief (justified true belief is itself unknowable), e.g. a belief held for good reasons that are indicative of what we think to be truth.


Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief, it deals with knowledge.

An agnostic atheist doesn't think it's possible to know whether or not a God exists but doesn't believe one does.
A gnostic atheist thinks it is possible to know whether or not a God exists but doesn't believe one does.
A gnostic theist thinks it is possible to know whether or not a God exists and believes that one does.
An agnostic theist doesn't think it's possible to know whether or not a God exists but believes that one does.

You can't get an agnostic who claims to knows god exists, you can't get an agnostic strong atheist (who claims to knows god doesn't exist), you can get gnostics that, while they hold that it is possible to know, doesn't claim to know themselves.

That's why they aren't the same and his definitions are consistent.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 143 by Elijah John]

There are a few reasons, and I've certainly given plenty of sources.

So first off, looking at the American Heritage dictionary -
disbelief in the existence of God

Well, it defines disbelief as "Refusal or reluctance to believe. "
Refusal is defined as " The act or an instance of refusing."
Refusing is defined as "To indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow"
Denial itself is defined through refusal also.

So disbelief in god does not mean belief in the non existence of god, it includes explicit weak atheism and explicit strong atheism but not implicit weak atheism.
Explicit atheism means the person has considered the idea of God; implicit atheism means they simply fit the "lack of faith" definition. Weak Atheism is "lack of faith", and Strong Atheism is "belief in the non existence of gods"

Now, the Oxford Dictionaries site, which among its sources include the Oxford English Dictionary (the most well respected and closest to official English dictionary there is, at least in England), lists atheism as
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
This includes both implicit and explicit atheism; weak and strong.

There's also the etymology of the word. A-theist is the negation of theist. This doesn't just mean the opposite - it means without; the absence of - the absence of theism includes those who lack faith.

And many self professed atheists including famous atheists like James Randi and Sam Harris use this definition (see earlier in thread), at the very least it is deserving of being an additional context of dictionaries that haven't included it.

Agnosticism is also not defined the same way. Agnostic, coming from a-gnosis, meaning "without knowledge". It is odd that some dictionaries use the definition of weak atheist for agnostic, but once again I have only really encountered this from Christian Apologists.

Where have you encountered definitions of atheism? The only times I've heard it defined the other way (belief in the non existence of gods) is from Christian Apologists like WL Craig who himself only uses it to shift the burden of proof - if the person they're debating was a weak atheist who identified as an atheist, he shouldn't be expected to fit Craig's conceptions of the label.

That said, the important things is the beliefs of the person applying the label themselves. A lot of atheists identify with lack of belief in God, so the sources that haven't acknowledged this yet are frankly out of date.
Though I have heard that "belief in the non existence of gods" is more prevalent in America, which isn't surprising considering that the word is defined by the majority - which in America, means that 80-90% theists are defining atheism.

[wiploc]

Weak Atheism is "lack of faith", and Strong Atheism is "belief in the non existence of gods"

Excellent post, Jashwell.

I'm going to pick a nit with this particular bit, because it's a mistake that several people in this thread have been making.

Atheism is not believing that gods exist.
Weak atheism is not believing that gods exist, plus not believing that gods don't exist.

When you say, "Weak Atheism is lack of faith," I assume you mean it is lack of faith (belief) in that gods exist. But that definition covers all of atheism, not just weak atheism.

[Star]

WinePusher, you misunderstand most of what reasonable people say to you. Now you're getting tripped up over the meanings of "belief" and "knowledge." I encouraged you to look up their meanings. Did you?

Religion is full of examples of people believing in things that aren't supported by sufficient evidence. They may have knowledge of claims, but not their truth value. In absence of knowledge, believing religious claims requires FAITH.

In sharp contrast, atheists typically only believe what they know, with varying degrees of certainty, and are cognizant of this certainty (or lack thereof). Many are "no evidence, no belief" types. NENB even made a user handle out of it.

belief
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the Holy spirit"
"contrary to popular belief, not all atheists believe god doesn't exist"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
- a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon;
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in creationism"

knowledge
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery;
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
- what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
- PHILOSOPHY
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation;

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 148 by Star]

Star, either go back and reply to my response or we're done here. I don't have a problem debating you, but I do have a problem if you're going to ignore everything I've written and proceed to mischaracterize my views.

Post 136. Reply to what I've written there, otherwise I have nothing further to say to you.