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?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 297 by enaidealukal]

The latter two aren't.

Negation of X is "Not X". E.g. the negation of the region ">5" is the region "<=5" not "<5".
Negation of theism is everything that doesn't overlap with theism - namely strong AND weak atheism.

"Stanford" itself is just a definition given for usage in a single article written in 2004.
(And denial itself in most dictionaries I've seen is explicit lack of belief, not requiring alternative belief)

"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" is disbelief.
Disbelief is lack of belief.
The "/" you put in is a misnomer - they're separate because they have separate meanings.

[Artie]

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.

On second thought, you may be right. Who in their right mind could think that if you put a word that means not in front of the word theist the combination of those two words would mean "not theist"? Completely illogical of course. You win.

[Star]

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?

I'm absolutely serious. You cut the quote there, separating my point on the second block. But before this, you asked what my point was, making it look like my math was a random demonstration of irrelevance. A reader wouldn't notice my point unless they continued reading.

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").

Negative. You stated I "must be confused" and "perhaps (I'm) in the wrong thread."

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 535#672535

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.

I'm not debating the definition of atheism anymore. That ship has sailed, which is why I tried directing you to older posts (apparently to no avail). I also wasn't complaining about you specifically. There was complaining long before you came along, and not just from me (eg. Diana's last post). IMO, your posts have been getting the most attention lately because they've been the most uppity, and many of us are still subscribed to this thread.

[enaidealukal]

I'm not debating the definition of atheism anymore.

Gotcha. Happy trails, then.

[enaidealukal]

The latter two aren't.

Negation of X is "Not X". E.g. the negation of the region ">5" is the region "<=5" not "<5".
Negation of theism is everything that doesn't overlap with theism - namely strong AND weak atheism.

"Stanford" itself is just a definition given for usage in a single article written in 2004.
(And denial itself in most dictionaries I've seen is explicit lack of belief, not requiring alternative belief)

"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" is disbelief.
Disbelief is lack of belief.
The "/" you put in is a misnomer - they're separate because they have separate meanings.

That is not how "disbelief" is analyzed in most epistemology (disbelief in X as belief in ~X), "denial of the existence of God" is equivalent to the view that "God exists" is not true (in other words, that "God exists" is false), which clarifies the sense in which it is a negation of theism. But, as I said, this point is moot anyways; even if the usage were entirely novel, that wouldn't be an objection to it- but the usage is far from novel.

[enaidealukal]

On second thought, you may be right. Who in their right mind could think that if you put a word that means not in front of the word theist the combination of those two words would mean "not theist"?

Anyone who is unaware of how linguistic meaning actually works, anyone is unaware of what an etymological fallacy, and/or anyone who doesn't care whether their reasoning is fallacious or not, for starters.

Completely illogical of course. You win.

For most people, fallacies are indeed "completely illogical". Its unfortunate that you were unable to actually consider the possibility that you were mistaken, and take advantage of a learning opportunity.

[Danmark]

Gotcha. Happy trails, then.

Moderator Comment
This is an unproductive 'one-liner.' It adds nothing to the debate. It is a self congratulatory personal remark. Please address the arguments not the debaters personally.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 304 by enaidealukal]


Dictionary.com on disbelief
"the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true."
"refusal or reluctance to believe"
(and if you really need me to go further, refuse, "to decline to accept")

Denial "is explicit lack of belief, not requiring alternate belief" meaning one of the definitions taken by most dictionaries. If you want to refer to common usage, then most of the time denial is used in one of two contexts. With reference to having done something, or with reference to belief claims.
The latter, in common usage, is only when the belief claim is taken to be uncontroversial and true (this connotation is the entire basis of the word undeniable). If you want to argue the common usage of "disbelief in X" supports "belief in not X", you should also be arguing that theism is uncontroversially accepted as truth - which clearly isn't the case.
Any objections to that would be objections to your case in the first place.

(My particular issue is context - I don't think most people recognise what a negative position such as weak atheism is, at first)

"I deny that God exists" means "I refuse to accept that God exists" means "I choose not to accept that God exists" not "I choose to accept God does not exist"


Do you think "non-theism" should be an academically used word?

[Replying to post 238 by Jashwell]

[Artie]

On second thought, you may be right. Who in their right mind could think that if you put a word that means not in front of the word theist the combination of those two words would mean "not theist"?

Anyone who is unaware

Unaware. Un- aware. Un- = "not". It is therefore of course completely illogical that the word unaware should mean "not aware". Strangely enough, it actually does mean "not aware"! What do you think "unaware" really should mean?

of how linguistic meaning actually works, anyone is unaware of what an etymological fallacy, and/or anyone who doesn't care whether their reasoning is fallacious or not, for starters.

For most people, fallacies are indeed "completely illogical".

Illogical. Il- logical. Il- = "not, without". It is therefore of course completely illogical that the word illogical should mean "not logical". Strangely enough, it actually does mean "not logical"! What do you think "illogical" really should mean?

[wiploc]

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)

I assume that Sagan believed that god does not exist. Don't you believe that? But here he was saying he was not an atheist. So it seems to me that you are changing his words so that they completely contradict the point he was trying to make.

But, if you're willing to do that, then, yes, everyone's definition of everything matches up.