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?

[Danmark]

.

I propose a solution: if someone says he's an atheist, believe him. If he says he's not, believe him. If he says he's an agnostic, or ignostic, or a theist every other day, believe him.

Because subjectivity is absurd.

Since every thought we humans have is "subjective" (defined as: "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world") WHAT alternatives are available?

If someone says they are an apple are you going to think it is OK to eat them?

You could compromise by just polishing them a bit.

Seriously, there are limits to subjectivity. One of them is called 'insanity' by the law, and various other things by psychologists.

When someone says, "God speaks to me," a very large number of people take that at face value and accept it as a subjective statement that may be true. Others may think the speaker has completely gone off his nut. There's a lot of tolerance for subjective statements, and much of it is determined by the belief system of the listener.

[Star]

It's not subjective. These terms/concepts are objectively distinct and logically valid, but some people won't understand, no matter how much or how well others explain it. This is why this thread continues past 20 pages. But we can only repeat ourselves so many times. Unless these theist "internet debaters" present any new strawmen which need debunking, I'm pretty much done.

[wiploc]

You made this claim on July 11. It's been a full week, and you have given no indication of a willingness to support or withdraw the claim.

Bump:

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

Prove this claim, or withdraw it.

[wiploc]

Winepusher? Are you going to come thru for us here?

I'm asking for you to support this claim because I don't believe it. I think it is false. However well-intentioned you were when you said this, I think you were wrong. So if I'm wrong and you're right, I want find that out.

You made this claim on July 11. It's been a full week, and you have given no indication of a willingness to support or withdraw the claim.

Bump:

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

Prove this claim, or withdraw it.

[enaidealukal]

[Replying to post 167 by Star]

This is from www.lackofbelief.com, for those who missed it the first time.

Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof.

If some of this sounds like agnosticism to you, that is because it is. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge, whereas atheism is in the realm of belief. In this context, gnostic (not to be confused with the Gnosticism associated with early Christianity) simply means "with knowledge", while agnostic means "without knowledge". This lack of knowledge can either refer to the absence of the knowledge which is available, or to the notion that it is not possible to possess the knowledge. Since a label of gnostic or agnostic usually tells nothing about what a person believes, only if they have an unspecified knowledge, it is of limited use. Instead, labels related to belief (theism and atheism) are more common. Though the two types of labels are most descriptive when paired, the knowledge-based label is often absent. This is often either due to a poor understanding of the differences between the four labels, or because the belief-based label implies it as its default state.

Since generally atheists believe people are born without knowledge of the concept of gods, thus do not have an innate belief in any gods, the default atheist position is an agnostic-atheist. If an atheist then encounters a god belief and does not accept it, the person remains an agnostic-atheist. However, if the person encounters the god belief and then claims to have knowledge that the god truly does not exist, the person is a gnostic-atheist. Most gnostic-atheists are those that have either not seriously considered their position, have a poor understanding of the topic, are being intellectually dishonest, or are really agnostic-atheists. The last type understand the nuances of the issue but claim their knowledge is sufficient to warrant the gnostic label if they wish to use it, unless pressed with a strict definition of knowledge. This last group is often the cause of much of the confusion, since they commonly use the colloquial understanding of knowledge when making statements about the existence of gods. Unfortunately, the gnostic-atheist label is rarely used by gnostic-atheists due to an ironic lack of knowledge. Instead, these people ambiguously use the atheist label, which implies the default agnostic-atheism. This creates additional confusion as to what atheism is. Additionally, more confusion is introduced when the agnostic term is often mistakenly used instead of [agnostic-]atheist since the person intends to mean while they do not have the knowledge of the true answer, they do not hold a positive god belief either.

While the line is relatively clear-cut in terms of the default atheist position, the theistic view of the default theist position varies greatly. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there is a great deal of diversity of thought regarding innate knowledge and belief. A very common theistic view that is also most apt for confusion during discussions with atheists is that a person is born with the belief/knowledge/both of their god(s), with this claim to knowledge instead being supported by the concept of faith. Not only does this understanding of knowledge differ from the atheist, but it places the default theistic position to be gnostic-theism, the opposite of the default atheist position. The result is the theist not only using a different understanding of what constitutes knowledge than the atheist, but also assuming the atheist is coming from the gnostic perspective. Due to this misunderstanding, many conversations do not get past this point.

Four common statements can illustrate each of these perspectives:

1. Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2. Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3. Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4. Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

You are now equipped with a good understanding of what an atheist is (and is not). During discussions, be sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of which category each person belongs in -- and even which definition of "god" will be used. If your arguments are not even directed at what the person actually believes/doesn't believe, you're wasting your time. [Gnostic-]theists should know that if they want to debate with an [agnostic-]atheist, asking the atheist to prove that gods don't exist does nothing but make the theist look clueless. This also holds for gnostic-atheists asking agnostic-theists to prove gods exist -- though I hope by this point in the reading, the gnostic-atheists would no longer consider themselves gnostic.

A whole lot of bare assertions here, regarding what "most" atheists think or what is "generally" true. Statements like this barren of any corroboration is always suspicious.

In any case, this discussion (and similar ones) is sort of silly and arbitrary- it turns entirely on definitions, and yet people are still carrying on as if they think that there is a correct or true answer to the question. There really isn't, although one could make the case that a certain definition is more useful than another. And that is precisely what I would do- what, exactly, is gained by defining atheism as mere lack of theistic belief, such that the term "atheist" applies to atheists proper, agnostics, non-theists of all sorts including even animals and inanimate objects? This would seem to make the term ambiguous beyond any practical use (and then we're obliged to make all sorts of distinctions between "weak", "strong", "implicit, "positive", "negative" atheism and so on). Moreover, such a usage is inconsistent with the history of the term "atheism", and the position associated with it- which is as an intellectual and critical rejection of/opposition to theism. Why not define atheism as it has been defined for centuries- as the principled rejection of theism- such that atheism and agnosticism do not overlap (when they are often mutually exclusive), and we are not using the same term to describe the intellectual, critical position of, e.g. Nietzsche, that we use to describe the non-position of your dog?

Not only this, the relatively recent tendency to define atheism as the absence of theistic belief (rather than positive disbelief) is often motivated by other concerns- for instance, to set the stage for arguing that people are "naturally" atheists, and that atheism is "the default position" in order to relieve oneself of the epistemic burden of justifying one's atheism (such is the tactic of Dawkins and the New Atheists). But not only is this slightly dishonest, its completely unnecessary, since atheism is the most rationally tenable position in light of the available evidence- in other words, there's no need to foist off the epistemic burden of justification with flimsy semantic games, because atheism can easily meet that burden.

Thus, for practical reasons (linguistic clarity), we should probably prefer the schema that defines theism as the position that at least one god exists, atheism as the meta-position that theism is false, and non-theism as the mere absence of believe that any gods exist. This is the most precise, minimizes overlap, and is consistent with the tradition of atheism as a meta-position regarding theism.

[Jashwell]

A) Many self professed atheists merely lack belief
B) The definition of atheism according to most dictionaries allows for lack of belief
C) The etymology of the word clearly professes lack of theism (hence is the literal meaning of a-theos)
D) The original meaning entirely encompasses the new meaning. When have you heard of a word becoming narrower in scope?

"Tradition of atheism" To my knowledge, it's only a tradition according to theists.
Some theists like WLCraig regularly, with no respect to what the other actually believes, assert that atheists have a burden of proof, when many atheists are weak atheists. Regardless of whether or not WLCraig agrees with most dictionaries, the other's beliefs are important, and lack of belief is clearly a popular viewpoint for many self professed atheists.

At the very least, there is no reason to disagree that given the large number of atheists who are weak atheists, even if dictionaries didn't already, they should incorporate lack of belief as a new context.

It doesn't matter what they call themselves, the beliefs they are debating are what is important. Clearly atheism does incorporate lack of belief - at the very least explicit atheism (though some dictionaries, the etymology, and many atheists also count implicit atheism - although I'm unaware of anyone who is unaware of the concept of gods) and you can see through the 20 odd pages of the thread.

Multiple sources and most people who claim to be atheists take this as the definition.

For practical reasons we should accept atheism as a-theism or lack of theism (as denoted by the a- prefix), as "godlessness" or not having gods, as the definition that many atheists use. As the definition that fits the already existing concepts of weak atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, agnostic atheism, half of which are not compatible with belief that no gods exist.

A bachelor is a man that has never been married. We don't extend this concept to inanimate objects.
The -ist suffix denotes a person, i.e. a follower.
Hence atheist means a person by etymology.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 204 by enaidealukal]

I agree that arguing over semantics is silly. The purpose of words is to communicate. Therefore is we aren't sure what someone means by a particular word the best path to communication is to simply ask them what they mean when they use that word. Arguing with them over how they are using the term is fruitless.

Accepting how they use it is productive, even if we might use the term differently.


I think it can be useful to offer lists like the following to help clarify what any particular person believes, and far more importantly how they might apply it to different things.

1. Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2. Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3. Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4. Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

For example using this list, I would say that I am a Gnostic Atheist with respect to the Biblical God. That is to say that I am 100% certain that the Biblical God does not exist as literally portrayed by the Bible.

Now, could a God exist that is not literally described by the Bible? Possibly. But if it does then it's not the God that is literally described by the Bible.

So I can safely say that I am a Gnostic Atheist with respect to the Biblical God. I know that God does not exist. It's simply impossible because the Bible describes a God that contradicts its own supposed character. The description is simply inconsistent and logically contradictory.

However, when it comes to the possibility of a God existing on some abstract level, then I'm open to the possibility. In this case, rather than making any claims of "theism" or "a-theism" I would simply prefer to use the term Agnostic. Meaning that I simply do not have enough knowledge to rule the concept in or out.

But I even go further than this.

Speaking entirely in terms of logical reasoning and knowledge of life and science I would say that I'm agnostic. I simply don't have sufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion one way or another.

However, speaking in terms of intuition and gut feelings, I would have to say I'm more spiritually-minded than not. In other words, intuitively I lean toward the idea that something mystical is going on.

I prefer not to even call this "theistic" because to me theism, reeks of dogma and religion. Like a belief in some particular God myth or ancient texts that claim to know of a God. Instead my spiritual minded leanings are entirely intuitive. In fact, once I realized that Christianity could not be true I didn't start looking for another religion to "believe in". However, I did look to see if there were any religions or spiritual pictures out there that were already in harmony with how I innately felt in terms of spirituality. I found religions that matched my innate natural feelings. And so I naturally embrace those philosophies as being something that naturally matches how I innately feel. I don't follow any of those "religions" or necessarily "believe" anything they teach, other than the things they might teach that already ring true for me naturally.

My search for these other religions was not to "Find God" but rather to simply see if there are other humans out there who think and feel the same way I do. And so in that respect it was comforting to find religions that are in harmony with my natural intuitive feelings. It tells me that I'm not alone in feeling this way.

So my religious leanings aren't even a matter of "belief" but rather they are a matter of simply finding other humans who naturally feel the same spiritual things that I feel.

This is why, for me, these things really have nothing at all to do with theism or atheism. For me, it's more of just recognizing that there are other people out there who feel the same way I do. Not so much here in the western world, but clearly the Eastern mystics are in harmony with the way I've always imagined God to be even before I was old enough to know what theology or religion was.

So I don't even care much for terms like theism or atheism. Agnostic is ok, because as far as I'm concerned when it come to the true nature of reality we are all agnostic whether we are willing to confess it or not.

[enaidealukal]

A) Many self professed atheists merely lack belief
B) The definition of atheism according to most dictionaries allows for lack of belief
C) The etymology of the word clearly professes lack of theism (hence is the literal meaning of a-theos)
D) The original meaning entirely encompasses the new meaning. When have you heard of a word becoming narrower in scope?

A. Many self-professed atheists actively disbelieve.
B. The definition of "atheism" according to most dictionaries allows for (if not explicitly mentions) disbelief.
C. The etymology of the word appears to also be consistent with disbelief.
D. All the time. Technical fields employ more precise (i.e. narrower) language as a matter of course.

"Tradition of atheism" To my knowledge, it's only a tradition according to theists.

Atheism, as an intellectual position, is no exception- it has its influences and predecessors, and a history of its own. "Atheism" originally meant heresy, and only fairly recently (the last 300-400 years) came to mean some sort of opposition to, rejection of, or at least absence of theism- originally an atheist was merely a blasphemer, not a non-believer. When we trace atheism, in anything resembling its current form, back as far as we can, we end up with guys like Meslier, d'Holbach and Diderot, and philosophers like Hume, Nietzsche, and Marx. But then, as I said, theirs, and the views of their heirs, even down to comtemporary atheists, is a cognitive, intellectual and reasoned position. A definition of "atheism" that fails to capture that fact by also regarding the position towards theism of inanimate objects, animals, and non-linguistic humans as atheism is already problematic.

Some theists like WLCraig regularly, with no respect to what the other actually believes, assert that atheists have a burden of proof, when many atheists are weak atheists.

And Craig is right- provided that the atheist has made an assertion/claim (such as in a debate). Burden of proof pertains to discussions, debates, arguments- not beliefs. And it falls on anyone making a claim, whether they are asserting God exists, that no God exists, or that Pepsi is better than Coca-Cola.

On the other hand, beliefs have something similar to a burden of proof- epistemic justification. Knowledge is distinguished from belief, and reasonable belief is distinguished from unreasonable belief, on the basis of justification- the reason one has for holding a given belief, the evidence supporting it. For instance, if I guess that its raining today in London, and it turns out it is, I didn't know anything, because I had no justification for this- it was a lucky guess. Similarly with a belief- one's belief is reasonable, and a true belief constitutes knowledge, if and only if it is justified; it is held on the basis of sufficient evidence. And this applies to any belief one holds, whether it is positive or negative, theistic or atheistic, or concerning the weather in the UK. In other words, atheism doesn't get a free pass from having to be properly justified (the epistemic equivalent of a burden of proof), simply because it is a "negative" or even "default" position. But this is often exactly what is intended when we hear someone like Dawkins say that atheism is the default position, it is merely the absence of belief, and therefore the atheist doesn't have to have any evidence for this belief. This is mistaken, and worse, its an unnecessary cop-out, as I already pointed out.

Regardless of whether or not WLCraig agrees with most dictionaries, the other's beliefs are important, and lack of belief is clearly a popular viewpoint for many self professed atheists.

Well, or at least that's what they say- often for the reason mentioned above. Oftentimes, they want to have their cake and eat it to, and in other contexts their position sounds an awful lot like positive disbelief rather than a mere absence of belief. And yet, when the question arises, "what is the evidence for atheism", all of a sudden atheism is a negative, default position and blah blah blah.

But in any case, as above, this point holds in the other direction- active disbelief is clearly a popular viewpoint as well.

At the very least, there is no reason to disagree that given the large number of atheists who are weak atheists

Or that a large number of people who self-identify as atheists are "strong" atheists...

even if dictionaries didn't already, they should incorporate lack of belief as a new context.

Well, but why? Do they have some emotional attachment to this particular word, "atheist"? As I said, it seems perfectly appropriate to call what is often referred to as "weak" atheism "non-theism", and this has the result that atheism, non-theism, and agnosticism no longer overlap, and the term "atheism" ceases to be so broad that its close to meaningless. This seems like a win to me.

Multiple sources and most people who claim to be atheists take this as the definition.

Wait a min- I was ok with "many", but I'm not sure about "most". Can you source this- that "most" people who consider themselves atheists are using it in the sense of absence of belief rather than disbelief? I guess it could be true, but I've never seen any surveys or anything establishing that this is the case (also, important to note that in itself this wouldn't mean a whole lot).

For practical reasons we should accept atheism as a-theism or lack of theism (as denoted by the a- prefix), as "godlessness" or not having gods, as the definition that many atheists use.

Well, but what practical reasons? I don't see any practical reasons to prefer that over and above the alternative- and as I've said, the alternative has the practical advantage of being more precise.

As the definition that fits the already existing concepts of weak atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, agnostic atheism, half of which are not compatible with belief that no gods exist.

I don't see that as an advantage at all- we want language to be more clear, not less.

[instantc]

But this is often exactly what is intended when we hear someone like Dawkins say that atheism is the default position, it is merely the absence of belief, and therefore the atheist doesn't have to have any evidence for this belief. This is mistaken, and worse, its an unnecessary cop-out, as I already pointed out.

I agree, and I think it is important to note that in order to have a productive conversation, people need to make arguments. Why hide behind your disbelief in hopes that you can avoid an equal burden of proof, when you obviously have something to say about the issue? Suppose we debate about whether the mind is a physical or a "non-physical" property of the brain. If I simply declare that I 'don't believe that the mind is purely materialistic', and then you declare that you 'don't believe that the mind is anything else than materialistic, both of us avoiding to make any positive statements, what's the point of the conversation? If William Craig came to every debate declaring that he 'doesn't believe that the universe is Godless', but not asserting that there is a God, and thus avoiding the burden of proof like almost all his atheist opponents do, should we not accuse him of a cop-out?

[Jashwell]

While the existence of self professed weak atheists IS an argument for weak atheism as a position to be called atheistic, the existence of strong atheists IS NOT an argument for weak atheism to not be called atheistic.

The exclusive existence of strong atheists might be, but the premise for such an argument would be clearly wrong.

If we change atheism to strong atheism, we reject weak atheists.
If we keep atheism as lack of theism, we don't reject strong atheists.

If you want to change atheism to "belief in the non existence of gods", you're going to be rejecting many self professed atheists.
If you keep it as "non belief in the existence of gods", you aren't rejecting the strong atheists.

A) Many self professed atheists merely lack belief
B) The definition of atheism according to most dictionaries allows for lack of belief
C) The etymology of the word clearly professes lack of theism (hence is the literal meaning of a-theos)
D) The original meaning entirely encompasses the new meaning. When have you heard of a word becoming narrower in scope?

A. Many self-professed atheists actively disbelieve.

Which is included by lack of belief.
Nobody is saying ONLY weak atheists should be atheists, and I'm not saying all atheists merely lack belief.

B. The definition of "atheism" according to most dictionaries allows for (if not explicitly mentions) disbelief.

... disbelief is lack of belief, but that aside,
Once again, this is included by weak atheism. It is not an argument against calling weak atheism an atheistic position.

C. The etymology of the word appears to also be consistent with disbelief.

I'm not sure what definition of disbelieve you've got - it appears you think "I disbelief X" means "I believe Not X". This isn't the case.
If I believe that you're holding up a number of fingers, and I disbelieve that you're holding up an odd number of fingers, that doesn't mean I believe it's even.

The etymology of atheism explicitly means lack of theism. It's consistent with strong atheism because it's already included in atheism.

D. All the time. Technical fields employ more precise (i.e. narrower) language as a matter of course.

Give an example?

"Tradition of atheism" To my knowledge, it's only a tradition according to theists.

Atheism, as an intellectual position, is no exception- it has its influences and predecessors, and a history of its own. "Atheism" originally meant heresy, and only fairly recently (the last 300-400 years) came to mean some sort of opposition to, rejection of, or at least absence of theism- originally an atheist was merely a blasphemer, not a non-believer.

"In early ancient Greek, the adjective theos (, from the privative - + "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". "
(Atheism in Pagan Antiquity, A.B. Drachmann)

When we trace atheism, in anything resembling its current form, back as far as we can, we end up with guys like Meslier, d'Holbach and Diderot, and philosophers like Hume, Nietzsche, and Marx. But then, as I said, theirs, and the views of their heirs, even down to comtemporary atheists, is a cognitive, intellectual and reasoned position. A definition of "atheism" that fails to capture that fact by also regarding the position towards theism of inanimate objects, animals, and non-linguistic humans as atheism is already problematic.

Except it doesn't. -ist denotes a person exclusively.
This is like me saying "the definition of theist includes rocks that believe in God".
If a rock could believe (which, without tacitly accepting a form of disproving the existence of souls, you can't prove a rock can't believe - but that's a different matter) it'd be a theist.

"I'm not a theist".
That includes inanimate objects too.
This isn't a sensible objection.

Some theists like WLCraig regularly, with no respect to what the other actually believes, assert that atheists have a burden of proof, when many atheists are weak atheists.

And Craig is right- provided that the atheist has made an assertion/claim (such as in a debate). Burden of proof pertains to discussions, debates, arguments- not beliefs. And it falls on anyone making a claim, whether they are asserting God exists, that no God exists, or that Pepsi is better than Coca-Cola.

Yes, but he does it against weak atheists.
Weak atheists don't claim.

On the other hand, beliefs have something similar to a burden of proof- epistemic justification. Knowledge is distinguished from belief, and reasonable belief is distinguished from unreasonable belief, on the basis of justification- the reason one has for holding a given belief, the evidence supporting it. For instance, if I guess that its raining today in London, and it turns out it is, I didn't know anything, because I had no justification for this- it was a lucky guess. Similarly with a belief- one's belief is reasonable, and a true belief constitutes knowledge, if and only if it is justified; it is held on the basis of sufficient evidence. And this applies to any belief one holds, whether it is positive or negative, theistic or atheistic, or concerning the weather in the UK. In other words, atheism doesn't get a free pass from having to be properly justified (the epistemic equivalent of a burden of proof), simply because it is a "negative" or even "default" position. But this is often exactly what is intended when we hear someone like Dawkins say that atheism is the default position, it is merely the absence of belief, and therefore the atheist doesn't have to have any evidence for this belief. This is mistaken, and worse, its an unnecessary cop-out, as I already pointed out.

Lack of belief does get a free pass.

If I said God doesn't exist, I would have a burden of proof.
If you think I need a burden of proof to not accept that he does, then there's no point discussing anything.

If you said "it's going to rain tomorrow at 3pm" and I said "I don't believe you", I don't need to prove that it isn't going to rain - it might rain - I'm simply not accepting your claim.

Regardless of whether or not WLCraig agrees with most dictionaries, the other's beliefs are important, and lack of belief is clearly a popular viewpoint for many self professed atheists.

Well, or at least that's what they say- often for the reason mentioned above. Oftentimes, they want to have their cake and eat it to, and in other contexts their position sounds an awful lot like positive disbelief rather than a mere absence of belief. And yet, when the question arises, "what is the evidence for atheism", all of a sudden atheism is a negative, default position and blah blah blah.

If they're a strong atheist, they have a burden of proof.
Dictionaries don't change words because some holders of a belief are being unreasonable or shifting the goalpost.

But in any case, as above, this point holds in the other direction- active disbelief is clearly a popular viewpoint as well.

What you mean is included by lack of belief in the existence of a god.

Active disbelief includes explicit weak atheism, a lack of belief in the existence of a god (i.e. refusal to accept the claims of theism). The only thing it doesn't include is implicit atheism (which is the only kind that's reasonably arguable).

At the very least, there is no reason to disagree that given the large number of atheists who are weak atheists

Or that a large number of people who self-identify as atheists are "strong" atheists...

Subset of lack of belief.

even if dictionaries didn't already, they should incorporate lack of belief as a new context.

Well, but why? Do they have some emotional attachment to this particular word, "atheist"? As I said, it seems perfectly appropriate to call what is often referred to as "weak" atheism "non-theism", and this has the result that atheism, non-theism, and agnosticism no longer overlap, and the term "atheism" ceases to be so broad that its close to meaningless. This seems like a win to me.

Because it's a popular usage.
Agnosticism is in the awkward position of being a very sketchy word.
You think that it's clear cut but it isn't.

Etymologically, agnosticism means lack of knowledge. An agnostic by this doesn't hold the belief that you can know whether or not a God exists.

(Most people who are weak atheists also use this definition of agnosticism)

Multiple dictionaries disagree - some accept this and some instead take agnosticism to be weak atheism.


We already have terms like agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic theist and gnostic atheist. Weak atheist, Strong atheist, implicit atheist, explicit atheist.
Even if you changed the definition of atheism, these words wouldn't change, as they ONLY mean with respect to non-believers.

Multiple sources and most people who claim to be atheists take this as the definition.

Wait a min- I was ok with "many", but I'm not sure about "most". Can you source this- that "most" people who consider themselves atheists are using it in the sense of absence of belief rather than disbelief? I guess it could be true, but I've never seen any surveys or anything establishing that this is the case (also, important to note that in itself this wouldn't mean a whole lot).

I meant in this thread. I said it right after "20 odd pages of the thread", but I guess I put a new line in.
Sorry if I wasn't very clear.

Disbelief is explicit absence of belief by the way.

For practical reasons we should accept atheism as a-theism or lack of theism (as denoted by the a- prefix), as "godlessness" or not having gods, as the definition that many atheists use.

Well, but what practical reasons? I don't see any practical reasons to prefer that over and above the alternative- and as I've said, the alternative has the practical advantage of being more precise.

A-D
No, it doesn't have the advantage of being more precise.
It excludes a definition for no good reason.

You can't use "its more precise" as a reason for excluding a definition.
It's like if I redefined rectangle to mean square because it's "more precise", ignoring the names of other rectangles that aren't squares.

As the definition that fits the already existing concepts of weak atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, agnostic atheism, half of which are not compatible with belief that no gods exist.

I don't see that as an advantage at all- we want language to be more clear, not less.

Yes. Hence we shouldn't redefine atheism to mean strong atheism, thus creating multiple terms that will continue to be used and meaningful in the same sense but will oppose the new definition. Hence we shouldn't say to weak atheists "you aren't atheists". That's not very clear.