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?

[Zzyzx]

.
I ask again, Why are Christians attempting to select for debate the definition of Atheism that THEY prefer?

Do they not realize that no one definition is cast in concrete or acceptable to all Atheists (even if by a prominent Atheist)?

Do they not acknowledge that no one definition of Christianity is acceptable to all Christians (even if by a prominent Christian)?

Perhaps they think that by forcing all Non-Believers to be considered God-Deniers, Theists can fare better in debate?

Are Christians taught in their churches that Atheists are all God-Deniers (and terrible people)?

Are Christians looking for a way out of the responsibility of demonstrating their claimed knowledge of God by saying "You can't prove he doesn't exist"?

[Ayn Randy Savage]

It seems Artie is really having trouble understanding the etymological fallacy.

If every English speaker got together and decided that the word "atheist" meant "banana" that's what the word atheist would mean. Word's derive meaning from how they're used. Etymology may play a role in that, and it may not.

Secondly, you're actually getting the etymology wrong(not that it matters, since its a fallacy to resort to it)

The etymology of "atheism" isn't "a+theism" it's actually "atheos+ism"

The word entered the English/French lexicon when theologians took the Greek/Latin word "atheos"(literally "godless") and attached the suffix "ism" to it to denote a belief.

so the actual original intended meaning of atheism was not "lacking theism" it was "ungodly belief"

And this makes sense if you actually look at the word's usage. "atheism" was a pejorative that was applied to anybody who held beliefs that the speaker found to be "ungodly" this could apply to Pagans, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. Lacking belief in gods was never the intended meaning of the word.

[Danmark]

It seems Artie is really having trouble understanding the etymological fallacy.

If every English speaker got together and decided that the word "atheist" meant "banana" that's what the word atheist would mean. Word's derive meaning from how they're used. Etymology may play a role in that, and it may not.

Secondly, you're actually getting the etymology wrong(not that it matters, since its a fallacy to resort to it)

The etymology of "atheism" isn't "a+theism" it's actually "atheos+ism"

The word entered the English/French lexicon when theologians took the Greek/Latin word "atheos"(literally "godless") and attached the suffix "ism" to it to denote a belief.

so the actual original intended meaning of atheism was not "lacking theism" it was "ungodly belief"

And this makes sense if you actually look at the word's usage. "atheism" was a pejorative that was applied to anybody who held beliefs that the speaker found to be "ungodly" this could apply to Pagans, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Lacking belief in gods was never the intended meaning of the word.

[Welcome to the forum!]
This may be; however, as you point out, usage is king. Tho' some today may hold to the old conotation (or even etymologically literal) meanding of "ungodly," that word today has a very negative conotation.

Isn't in fair today to say that 'atheism' means "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" and includes a variety of versions including 'strong' and 'weak' atheism? Your argument and many of the arguments on this subtopic present reasons why I prefer the term "non theist."

[Artie]

It seems Artie is really having trouble understanding the etymological fallacy.

If every English speaker got together and decided that the word "atheist" meant "banana" that's what the word atheist would mean. Word's derive meaning from how they're used.

And since most atheists define atheism to mean "absence of belief in gods" why don't we use that.

Secondly, you're actually getting the etymology wrong

I am getting the etymology wrong? Then The Online Etymology Dictionary is getting the etymology wrong. "atheist ... 1570s, from French athiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist Please refer me to a source explaining your point in further detail.

[Artie]

Isn't in fair today to say that 'atheism' means "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" and includes a variety of versions including 'strong' and 'weak' atheism? Your argument and many of the arguments on this subtopic present reasons why I prefer the term "non theist."

If a person says he is a "non theist" I would have to continue to ask "Are you a weak atheist or a strong atheist or an agnostic or what?" If he says up front that he's a weak atheist it's a step closer to understanding what he means.

[Ayn Randy Savage]

And since most atheists define atheism to mean "absence of belief in gods" why don't we use that.

First of all, you don't have any reason to believe "most" atheists define it that way. Secondly, what matters is how the English-speaking population as a whole uses it. Self-identification doesn't give you a monopoly over a word. self-described pedophiles don't get to define how we use the word "pedophile"

I am getting the etymology wrong? Then The Online Etymology Dictionary is getting the etymology wrong. "atheist ... 1570s, from French athiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist Please refer me to a source explaining your point in further detail.

That agrees with me. The term "atheism" came into existence in the 16th century when French and English theologians took the Greek word "atheos"(ungodly/godless) and added the suffix "ism" to it, denoting a "godless/ungodly" belief/beliefs.

And again, appealing etymology is a fallacy. The only thing that matters when trying to figure out a word's meaning is how it's used in society.

[Danmark]

Isn't in fair today to say that 'atheism' means "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" and includes a variety of versions including 'strong' and 'weak' atheism? Your argument and many of the arguments on this subtopic present reasons why I prefer the term "non theist."

If a person says he is a "non theist" I would have to continue to ask "Are you a weak atheist or a strong atheist or an agnostic or what?" If he says up front that he's a weak atheist it's a step closer to understanding what he means.

This non theist says that there is no significant evidence of a theistic God; that is, a God who is personal, who has a personality. I see no reason today to accord theism the significance implied by referring to it as "a-anything." Until theists demonstrate their 'theism' is supported anymore than is astrology or phrenology, it does not merit anything that claims to be a-theism.

[Artie]

And since most atheists define atheism to mean "absence of belief in gods" why don't we use that.

First of all, you don't have any reason to believe "most" atheists define it that way.

I'll just direct you to about.com. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheis ... Basics.htm

[Ayn Randy Savage]

[Replying to Artie]

I've SPOKEN with the guy who runs that page. He's no authority whatsoever on anything regarding atheism.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Artie]

I've SPOKEN with the guy who runs that page. He's no authority whatsoever on anything regarding atheism.

This one-liner does not advance the argument. An expansion on why is not an authority in your opinion would be helpful, particularly if you can document your claim with specifics.
Moderator Comment

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.