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?

[enaidealukal]

I already explained atheism and agnostisim. So did a few others. I'm uncertain as to why people are still wasting their time perpetrating myths and haggling over that which has already been established.

Hmm, you must be confused- perhaps you're on the wrong thread? "Perpetrating myths"? "Haggling over what has been established"? You "explained" atheism and agnosticism?

Or perhaps are you one of those who has mistakenly taken this for a factual dispute, rather than a semantic one? Perhaps you think you're the authority on English language use, such that you've "explained" the matter- and thereby settled it? Not any other way I can think of to explain your curious comments.

[Star]

I already explained atheism and agnostisim. So did a few others. I'm uncertain as to why people are still wasting their time perpetrating myths and haggling over that which has already been established.

Hmm, you must be confused- perhaps you're on the wrong thread? "Perpetrating myths"? "Haggling over what has been established"? You "explained" atheism and agnosticism?

Or perhaps are you one of those who has mistakenly taken this for a factual dispute, rather than a semantic one? Perhaps you think you're the authority on English language use, such that you've "explained" the matter- and thereby settled it? Not any other way I can think of to explain your curious comments.

This is WinePusher's infamous "definition of atheism" thread. We're now 251 posts in. Thank you for joining us. Have you actually read the thread from the beginning? Let me know what you disagree with in my previous posts.

[Star]

And BTW, it's not just semantics.

Words aside, there are actual differences in people's beliefs and knowledge. This is a fact.

[Artie]

I already explained atheism and agnostisim. So did a few others. I'm uncertain as to why people are still wasting their time perpetrating myths and haggling over that which has already been established.

Maybe because:

1. He wants to ignore or redefine the meaning of the prefix a-
2. He thinks "without a specific opinion" means the same as "having the opposite opinion" and wants other people to think so too when most atheists like me are trying to make it perfectly clear to people that not being a theist doesn't automatically mean that you oppose theism. In a time when many theists and atheists are working to narrow the divide he insists on trying to widen the divide by trying to put us in opposition when not even the word atheism means "opposed to theism".

[instantc]

I already explained atheism and agnostisim. So did a few others. I'm uncertain as to why people are still wasting their time perpetrating myths and haggling over that which has already been established.

Maybe because:

1. He wants to ignore or redefine the meaning of the prefix a-

It's nonsensical to think that because "a" means something in one context, it has to mean the same in every other context. The prefix a is also used to form adjectives from verbs, for example alive from live.

[Artie]

I already explained atheism and agnostisim. So did a few others. I'm uncertain as to why people are still wasting their time perpetrating myths and haggling over that which has already been established.

Maybe because:

1. He wants to ignore or redefine the meaning of the prefix a-

It's nonsensical to think that because "a" means something in one context, it has to mean the same in every other context. The prefix a is also used to form adjectives from verbs, for example alive from live.

Does the prefix a- mean the same in agnostic as in atheist if not why not?

[instantc]

I already explained atheism and agnostisim. So did a few others. I'm uncertain as to why people are still wasting their time perpetrating myths and haggling over that which has already been established.

Maybe because:

1. He wants to ignore or redefine the meaning of the prefix a-

It's nonsensical to think that because "a" means something in one context, it has to mean the same in every other context. The prefix a is also used to form adjectives from verbs, for example alive from live.

Does the prefix a- mean the same in agnostic as in atheist if not why not?

Meaning of words depends on what meanings we wish to assign to them. 'Atheism' doesn't simply mean one thing that could be stated as some kind of an evident fact. Different definitions have been assumed by a number of authors in different literary contexts. Same goes for the prefix 'a', which clearly means different things in different contexts. In my view, the most useful, precise and unambiguos definitions of words should always be preferred, I'm not quite sure what that means for atheism though.

[enaidealukal]

1. He wants to ignore or redefine the meaning of the prefix a-

Neither. The literal etymology of a word doesn't tell us what the word actually means. This is known as the "etymological fallacy". As you clearly don't believe me, Google it. As I said, if this was a valid argument, then by the same token a dog would have to be a type of automobile.

2. He thinks "without a specific opinion" means the same as "having the opposite opinion" and wants other people to think so too when most atheists like me are trying to make it perfectly clear to people that not being a theist doesn't automatically mean that you oppose theism. In a time when many theists and atheists are working to narrow the divide he insists on trying to widen the divide by trying to put us in opposition when not even the word atheism means "opposed to theism".

Rather than guessing what my motives are, and simply making something up, you could actually just read what I've said.

[enaidealukal]

Have you actually read the thread from the beginning?

Nope.

And BTW, it's not just semantics. .

Yes, it most certainly is. Arguing over how "atheism" should most properly be defined is a semantic dispute. There is no fact of the matter at issue here. In any case, if you have a specific post you'd like me to address, repost, quote or give the post #, or else you'll have to confine yourself to responding to what I've written. There's no way I"m going to read the whole thread, nor am I going to go on a goose chase for specific posts which may or may not be worth responding to.

[enaidealukal]

Meaning of words depends on what meanings we wish to assign to them. 'Atheism' doesn't simply mean one thing that could be stated as some kind of an evident fact. Different definitions have been assumed by a number of authors in different literary contexts. Same goes for the prefix 'a', which clearly means different things in different contexts. In my view, the most useful, precise and unambiguos definitions of words should always be preferred, I'm not quite sure what that means for atheism though.