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?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 288 by Artie]

No what is illogical and confusing is in your imaginary conversation you are claiming "enaidealukal says that atheist means "a person who believes that gods don't exist". " when that poster never said that. Why do you resort to making up something when we all can read the thread and see it is not true?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 288 by Artie]

No what is illogical and confusing is in your imaginary conversation you are claiming "enaidealukal says that atheist means "a person who believes that gods don't exist". " when that poster never said that. Why do you resort to making up something when we all can read the thread and see it is not true?

From post 274:

enaidealukal said and I quote:

"It is a matter of fact that "atheism" is frequently defined BOTH as "absence of theism" and "the belief that theism is false/that god(s) do no exist". One wouldn't be offering a peculiar usage by using either one. I am stating my reasons for preferring the latter."

[help3434]

[Replying to post 291 by Artie]

Preferring the latter is not the same as saying it is the only meaning of the word and that the former is invalid. Recognizing that the entomological derived definition of a word is not the only definition of a word is not illogical, as that poster has already explained several times.

[enaidealukal]

These definitions are logical, rational and widely used

I can't imagine what you mean when you say that definitions are "logical" and "rational"- they are definitions, after all, not arguments- but obviously the definition I've endorsed is widely used as well (as you can see from the OP, where it is the definition given by Dictionary.com, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online, and Mr. Sagan).

and there's nothing wrong with them

I've already pointed out that there isn't anything inherently "wrong" with ANY definition, including a completely novel one ("atheism" as "belief that chocolate ice cream is tasty"), although definitions may be more or less suitable, in different contexts.

so you are supposed to use them too and not use your home-made definitions instead.

1. My definitions are no more "home-made" than yours are.
2. Being "home-made" is not an objection to a definition in the first place (or else coinages wouldn't happen)
3. Since both sets of definitions are widely used and "logical", at least in the sense of being logically consistent (i.e. not self-contradictory), you've given us no reason to prefer yours. I've stated my reasons for preferring mine; reasons which remain without rebuttal. At this point, your insistence that we use your preferred definitions (despite your failure to provide a valid argument to that effect) just looks like arbitrary dogmatism.

If you insisted on using your home-made definitions instead you would only cause confusion and discontent and you wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Non-sequitur; for one, they wouldn't "only cause confusion and disconcent", because they are demonstrably definitions which many other people use as well. But even for those who prefer different definitions, any confusion is easily dispelled by simply stating ones terms. And there's no reason why there should be any "discontent".

[enaidealukal]

Exactly. And it is a simple fact that words frequently mean something other than their literal etymology- as we've seen (I do hope some people actually took the time to read the short About article, even if Artie didn't- it was good, informative, and mildly humorous). Thus, citing the literal etymology as an argument against a particular definition is non-sequitur, as noted.

a- = "not, without"
theism = "belief in the existence of gods"
atheism = "without belief in the existence of gods" (my definition)
atheism = "belief that gods don't exist" (your definition)

Me: "I am an atheist"
Him: "OK, a- means "not, without" and theist means "believer in the existence of gods" so logically you are saying that you are "without belief in the existence of gods".

No, they are not "logically" saying that at all- in fact, the exact opposite; since "X's etymology is Y therefore X's meaning is Y" is fallacious, it is ILLOGICAL, not logical.

Oh sweet irony.

[wiploc]

... the definition I've endorsed is widely used as well (as you can see from the OP, where it is the definition given by Dictionary.com, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online, and Mr. Sagan).

Those don't match up with each other, let alone with your definition.

[Star]

Yeah right. I asked if you "read the thread from the beginning."

You read only 10 or so responses out of nearly 300? This is less than 4%.

Your math looks sound. But did you have a point here?

No?

Yes, it was in the part you cut off from the rest of my quote here. Are you being disingenuous?

That's not really what I said (I was disagreeing with Danmark's comment that everything else is "surplusage" in particular), I've explicitly stated that I hadn't read the entire thread, and I also explictly stated that my disagreement with Danmark's comment was based on a first impression.

Nobody cares about your first impression. The problem is you've shown up late to a debate and accused people of being confused, not knowing what thread they're in, and not having adequately addressed the issue, when by your own admission you haven't even read enough of the thread to know this.

[enaidealukal]

Those don't match up with each other, let alone with your definition.

Outside of Sagan's addition of the word "certain" (and I suspect that he would admit that this is not a necessary condition), they certainly are. If we replace "is certain" with "believes" in Sagan's definition, they all amount to much the same thing, i.e.-

"An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist" (Sagan)

"Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford)

"the doctrine or belief that there is no God/disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" (Dictionary.com)

These are equivalent to "the position that theism is false", provided theism means belief that God exists. If someone holds "the position that 'God exists' is false", then they deny that God exists, they do not believe God exists. So clearly they "match up". But the point is moot anyways, as has been stressed many times now- even if the usage were completely unprecedented, that wouldn't necessarily be a reason for rejecting it. People come up with novel usages all the time, this is a basic fact of how language operates and how words come to mean what they do- but this usage is anything but novel.

[enaidealukal]

Yes, it was in the part you cut off from the rest of my quote here. Are you being disingenuous?

Lol, you mean the part that I quoted the very next line? Are you being serious?

Nobody cares about your first impression. The problem is you've shown up late to a debate and accused people of being confused, not knowing what thread they're in, and not having adequately addressed the issue, when by your own admission you haven't even read enough of the thread to know this.

Actually, having read several posts that were guilty of this confusion would appear to be enough to know that at least some posters are confused (which, I believe, were my exact words- "some posters on this thread").

Its also curious that, as someone who is complaining about me commenting on a thread that had been dead for a week or two, you're so intent on pursuing a completely tangential conversation. If you feel that this topic is all wrapped up in a neat little package, and nothing more needs be said, then find a thread more to your liking. If there is something here regarding definitions of atheism that you would like to comment on, then do so. I'm probably not going to continue replying to your posts if they're not at least slightly on-topic.

[Star]

And this...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 047#668047

It's not that difficult. This has probably been posted already, but I'll take a stab at it...

The A prefix basically means "not" or "without."

A/gnosticism is about knowledge. A/theism is about belief.

Agnostics recognize they lack sufficient knowledge to be certain, while gnostics don't.

Atheists don't believe in any gods, while theists do.

These two terms can actually complement each other. Agnostic-atheists (such as myself) don't believe in any gods, but don't know for certain. A gnostic-theist, like most Christians, think they know their god exists, and of course, actively believe it, too.

There are other categories of atheist to take note of.

Implicit atheists aren't familiar with religion, and haven't had an opportunity to consider any claims, such as infants. Explicit atheists, such as every atheist here, have had the opportunity. For example, I'm familiar with dozens of religions, gods, creation claims, etc., but I don't believe any of them, for reasons I can articulate.

Positive/hard atheists believe god(s) don't exist. This is what many people think atheists are, including Carl Sagan as noted in the OP, and unfortunately some of my personal heroes, such Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Einstein, who both adamantly deny/denied being atheist for this reason.

Negative/soft atheists just don't believe. As an analogy, in a court of law, the accused is found either guilty or not guilty. He or she isn't found innocent. This is founded on the same logical principle as negative/soft atheism. They usually don't believe because they don't know due to lack of evidence, which is a good analogy to a/gnosticism.

Most religious people are atheistic towards religions other than their own. As I see it, the only difference between a atheist and an theist in this sense, is the atheist believes in one less religion.

Um. Ok. You've merely stated one set of definitions. Definitions which I've already acknowledged exist. What, exactly, am I supposed to do with that? There's certainly no argument here for preferring these definitions. Are you perhaps also misunderstanding this issue, in the sense that you think there is some matter of fact at issue here, i.e. what "atheism" *really* means? Otherwise, simply stating another set of definitions isn't really any argument one way or another.

That was actually several sets.

This thread is about the definition of atheism. The OP was from the perspective of a theist (WinePusher) stuck on only one narrow definition of atheism. Now we've made a full circle back to the original category error.

Is the distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty" semantic as well? These are just words, after all.

Regardless of our language, there are valid logical distinctions between a) believing something isn't true, and b) simply not believing. There are also differences between knowledge and belief.

So it doesn't matter that definitions of words aren't factual. What we're attempting to describe however is. If we can't agree on words, and the intending meanings they should convey, then we can't communicate effectively, and conflict increases.

I feel like I being told what I believe just because people can misinterpret and misrepresent my ideologies however they please because of one of the many words I choose to describe myself.