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?

[Wootah]

Hi,

Is there a difference between 'lack of belief' and "I don't know"?

Lack of belief is agnosticism right and not atheism?

There are things I have never heard of for which I have never formed a belief and so lack a belief. But can I lack a belief after hearing about it?

[Zzyzx]

.

There are things I have never heard of for which I have never formed a belief and so lack a belief. But can I lack a belief after hearing about it? [bold added]

Sure. If people hear of the Scarsdale Diet, the Grapefruit diet, the No Fat diet, MUST they form an opinion ("believe vs. not believe" in theistic terms)?

Wouldn't a sensible position be to seek more information before making a decision?

[mwtech]

Hi,

Is there a difference between 'lack of belief' and "I don't know"?

Lack of belief is agnosticism right and not atheism?

There are things I have never heard of for which I have never formed a belief and so lack a belief. But can I lack a belief after hearing about it?

As has been stated in almost very other post on this thread, agnosticism does not deal with whether or not you believe in God. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic. It means the lack of knowledge. Theism/atheism is like a light switch. The light is either on or off. There is no inbetween. You either believe in God or you do not. If you do not know whether or not God exists, but you are inclined to believe anyway, you are an agnostic theist. If you do not know and refrain from casting any judgement at all on the matter, then you do not believe and you are an agnostic atheist.
If you have never heard of God before in your life, you are not a theist, so you are an atheist. If you hear about god when you are 20 and it sounds just as mythical as santa clause so you dismiss it, you are not a theist. You are an atheist. Every single person who is not a theist is an atheist.

[wiploc]

Hi,

Hey.

Is there a difference between 'lack of belief' and "I don't know"?

If we're speaking carefully, yes. If you don't believe either way, then you lack belief. If you don't know either way, you lack knowledge. It's perfectly possible to have belief without knowledge. Example: My mother, an agnostic theist, said she struggled with her faith every day.

Lack of belief is agnosticism right and not atheism?

If you have the belief that gods exist, you are a theist.
If you do not have the belief that gods exist, you are an atheist.
If you know whether gods exist, you are a gnostic.
If you don't know whether gods exist, you are an agnostic.

There are things I have never heard of for which I have never formed a belief and so lack a belief. But can I lack a belief after hearing about it?

Sure. Let me posit that there are an odd number of stars in the universe. Do you believe that's true? No. Do you believe it's false? No. You have heard the proposition, but you still lack a belief.

[wiploc]

Winepusher,

Why do you keep calling Carl Sagan an atheist?

He says he's not an atheist. You say you agree with him. But you keep citing him as an atheist who agrees with you.

How does that make sense?

[wiploc]

Bump:

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

Prove this claim, or withdraw it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to wiploc]

I am speaking carefully. You can only lack a belief in something you have not heard of.

An agnostic does not know if God exists. It says so here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

A gnostic is a religious belief. It says so here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

If you have the belief that gods exist, you are a theist.

Correct.

If you do not have the belief that gods exist, you are an atheist.

Correct. They believe God doesn't exist.

If you know whether gods exist, you are a gnostic.

No. Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: gnostikos, "learned", from gnsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world.

If you don't know whether gods exist, you are an agnostic.

Correct.

I appreciate you are trying to normalise the words to match the rule in regards to say, typical and atypical, gnostic and agnostic. But English rules vary and are not reliable. Go to the definition, lest an apple becomes not a pple.

Sure. Let me posit that there are an odd number of stars in the universe. Do you believe that's true? No. Do you believe it's false? No. You have heard the proposition, but you still lack a belief.

So how do you play a game of guess the jelly beans? You form a belief and you make a guess. I think the number of stars is even. It's always even when I stop counting. A lot of beliefs are based on sparse data, which is why so many beliefs are wrong.

Personally I think the real false position is agnosticism. If you see your fellow caveman eat a berry and die you don't just assume you haven't got enough data to form an opinion. You don't eat the berry. A more generous understanding of agnosticism is that they must agree that there is evidence for and against the issue of whether God exists but cannot weigh the evidence to give an emphatic opinion. However their belief one way or the other is still their belief.

If pushed we can say what we believe and I think it behooves us to to do on a debating forum. Especially when others can better craft their replies based upon an understanding of what you believe. Incidentally I am most for Christianity when it is compared to the alternatives and I harbour the belief that is why few people wish to share their beliefs (plus it is hard to articulate what one believes).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 181 by Zzyzx]

I think we form a view and that view can change as we acquire new information.

In fact this is the first time I have heard of the 'Scarsdale Diet'. I don't know what it is but I don't like dieting so I can already tell you I don't believe in it. But I concede my biases and am happy to hear more. But right now I don't believe in the scarsdale diet.

edit: I am not happy to hear more on the Scarsdale Diet

[Danmark]

I am speaking carefully. You can only lack a belief in something you have not heard of.
....
Personally I think the real false position is agnosticism.

I disagree with the first statement. I have heard of phrenology and astrology. I believe in neither.

As to the second statement, I can appreciate the type of agnosticism [sometimes called non cognitivism] that says we cannot know whether these religious propositions are true or not true. In A. J. Ayer's words, such statements are literally non sense.

My beef with the other form of agnosticism is that they simply cop out. They say maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. I choose not to choose. This is intellectual cowardice. We can all agree that we do not have absolute knowledge, but c'mon. Step up to the plate. Have an opinion. Is it more or less likely that the god of orthodox theism exists? I say 'no.'

[Star]

[Replying to wiploc]

I am speaking carefully. You can only lack a belief in something you have not heard of.

Incorrect. We've already debunked this myth several times throughout the thread.

In this context, we mean belief as either believing something exists or believing it doesn't exist. We don't mean having knowledge of a claim. We also don't mean believing there is a claim. You can have knowledge of a claim and believe that it's true, or believe that it's false, or just not believe, which is the third category you deny is possible.

For instance, I have knowledge of string theory, but I don't believe either way whether it's true or not. I believe there's people who believe it, and I believe there are claims that it's true, but I don't believe.