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?

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 329 by Clownboat]

Your assessment is quite fair but I must still point out some things. Although theists, polytheists, pantheists, etc. all believe in different or specific Gods, they still believe that an entity is responsible for the existence of all creation. Instead of the Christian being an atheist on all other channels except channel 12 (although I argued was more along the lines of agnosticism), the idea that a Christian is watching any channel at all makes him a theist (in the deistic sense at the very least/whether his faith is based proof or preference) whereas the atheist doesn't watch any channel at all.

The idea that there is a creator, a designer in the deistic sense is an important question in terms of understanding truth and reality. I cannot think of anything else that would be more important than that, the attempt to know whether there is a creator or not, purpose and ultimate truth. So it seems you and I are coming at this at different angles but I feel still that atheism is the position that claims that there doesn't exist any God [standard definition]. I'm not saying that the atheist has to provide evidence or proof as to why he/she holds to such a belief, even Christians aren't required to do so at that sense.

But when more than one person opens up for debate on the topic if God exists or not, obviously someone may ask which God is being debated, but I feel that one is not warranted to argue for a specific God, if the topic at hand is trying to prove whether or not the world that we live in currently was created by a being rather than existing on its own. (A question that does not have to subscribe to a specific religion).

The reason why I say the theist, polytheist, or pantheist is not required to argue for their specific creator (and could argue at the very least in a deistic sense) is that at the end of the day, all major worldviews all agree that there is one being responsible for anything existing, and fields such as intelligent design are not necessarily specifically Christian, but rather open to any theism so it does just make it a question on whether one should watch television at all or not, not necessarily which channel one should watch (which would be secondary).

[Danmark]

Decided to bring this up again, as it was brought up in other threads so why not discuss this separately again?

Because the thread is over a year old and was not that interesting anyway. Anyone not clear on what "atheist" means can just look it up. And yes, we are all clear on the fact that an atheist can also be a belly dancer . . .
. . . or not.

[catnip]

Decided to bring this up again, as it was brought up in other threads so why not discuss this separately again?

Because the thread is over a year old and was not that interesting anyway. Anyone not clear on what "atheist" means can just look it up. And yes, we are all clear on the fact that an atheist can also be a belly dancer . . .
. . . or not.

I'm sorry. I hate it when people bring up old posts. Sometimes I catch it before I respond, sometimes I don't. I wish there were a special warning system, like the thread title turned red or something.

[Bust Nak]

Atheism is a world view, just like theism. The position that New Atheists hold onto is a "watered down" definition of atheism that wasn't not held before, before atheists realized how difficult or unfeasible it would be to reasonably prove that no God exists and hold that position. The New Atheists try to shift the burden of proof on the Theists, claiming that proving negatives are impossible, but I hope that everyone is well aware that this isn't true.

Woah, hold your horses, whether "atheist" is defined as "someone who don't believe in gods" or "someone who believes there are no gods," it's still the theists who have the burden of proof.

Although one may try to define the meaning of a transliteral definition of Atheism, that isn't the Standard definition, as this is a tactic to throw off debaters, by trying to shift the grounds of the debate to more favorable grounds, away from philosophical scrutiny to ones of psychology.

You say that like traditional strong style atheist wasn't on favourable grounds to begin with? Atheism, wither the strong traditional "there are no gods" or what you called the watered down version has always been on dismantle theists' claim/Negative/Con side of the debate. It's just easier to knock something down than to build something up.

About Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, akjflorujslfk, etc. I am not an atheist about them, in the ontological sense. You seem fixated with debating this on strictly epistemological basis only, but I feel that you may be ignoring the ontology of my point. I say that I am an agnostic about them because I dont have definitive proof on whether or not I should believe or disbelieve in them (it would not be warranted for me to unjustly reject the possibility of their existence). As a matter in fact, I would be ignostic about the existence of akjflorujslfk.

That doesn't tell us whether you believe in Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, akjflorujslfk or not. Do you believe in any of them?

Atheism is the counter position to theism (both being opposite worldviews), that claims in its standard definition at Stanford University
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athei ... sticism/#1

We are talking about worldviews? If one does not follow standard definitions, then it would lead to debates on the existence of God to be really ambiguous.

But there are many standard definitions. Stanford is but one definition, granted, more common than the weaker "disbelief" definition.

[Zzyzx]

.
Isn't it interesting and illuminating that Apologists often seek to define Atheist but cannot agree on a definition of Christian?

Could that be an attempt to construct a straw man to flail against (or pursue some other agenda as with this thread)?

See http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=29475

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 333 by Bust Nak]

What you are espousing is not Atheism but rather verificationism (which has been dead in the academic circles sense the 60s). Not only is such a view unattainable, with weak claims and easily falsifiable points, in a sense it is not able to build a strong case in order to help discover truth, but at the same time it is not entirely just meant to disprove everything but its inner workings and philosophy makes it self contradictory. I was reluctant on replying back as seeing I'm being pressured to not bring up old discussions (regardless of their importance or relevancy), but I suppose I have to clear up some points.

Again you are espousing verificationism which states that things that are unprovable are untrue, which is untrue with reality. About weak and strong atheism, those are non standard terms and again atheism by default not only is it supposed to refute the existence of God, but also build it's own case as to why that is the world that we live in and why would the existence of God would be not only logically impossible but also ontollogically proven to not exist definitively. Atheism is not a default position, going by standard definitions (and if we are talking about worldviews and if we are trying to compete worldviews as well).

I haven't seen any reason why I should believe santa or akjflorujslfk exist or don't exist, so I have no say in the matter (I have no proofs on either end to defend really). So my say in the matter is that I don't know. Simple and I hope you understand at least this point.

[Replying to post 334 by Zzyzx]

Effective Christian apologists often argue mere Christianity that is still Christianity at the foundational levels. Notice you are using Christianity instead of Theism which would be the more comparative statement to use with Atheism. Christianity is secondary to the topic of the existence of God.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 335 by shushi_boi]

Umm although I agree with some because I hold true that I cannot prove nor disprove a god, yet I can by evidence falsify doctrine of a religion. The enigmatic approach that there just is a god does not need to be verified but evidence to up hold a way or morality based on a doctrine needs some relevant evidence beyond just belief. Those who are able need to be vigilant for those who are not, all social animals do this to varying degrees. Therefore I take personal responsibility to question and provide evidence against doctrine that can and does effect public opinion on what is ethical. Since we live in a world of belief we have a compartmentalized morality, we live in a subjective world due to doctrine of faiths that divides humanity. This is why morality is subjective to given society values which are not cross culturally objective, due to a belief system based on a belief(philosophy). The philosophy of a god/creator is fine anything built upon is belief since based on that predisposition of god/creator and feelings rather than logical deduction biased on objectivity, since one already accepts the idea(philosophy) as truth.

Now atheism is not a philosophy nor denial, it is for most brought about for there being no greater need for life to be nor the universe that just being. Although theist like to contend this is a philosophy it is not since philosophies need a reason atheism needs no reason, it just is. Now atheism will produce philosophies not linked to the predisposition of need for greater meaning to reality(mysticism/supernatural). To make assertions that there is more to everything is a philosophy since it needs to be believed in, atheism does not require a belief in anything at all. Belief is accepting philosophies than constructing a view based on that belief of, atheism is not rejection it just means what is, is all there is. It is not a belief because it does not require belief in anything at all. Although in past I have contended it is but only by those who think it is the correct way of thinking then you are actually following a belief, otherwise it just is. Believing something is the correct way of thinking both atheistically or theistically is faith since neither can be verified, only doctrine can be, atleast those doctrines that impose/have a creation or origin story. Those are surmised as myths to no longer practiced religions.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 333 by Bust Nak]

What you are espousing is not Atheism but rather verificationism (which has been dead in the academic circles sense [sic] the 60s). Not only is such a view unattainable, with weak claims and easily falsifiable points, in a sense it is not able to build a strong case in order to help discover truth, but at the same time it is not entirely just meant to disprove everything but its inner workings and philosophy makes it self contradictory. I was reluctant on replying back as seeing I'm being pressured to not bring up old discussions (regardless of their importance or relevancy), but I suppose I have to clear up some points.

You could start a new thread on verificationism, or logical positivism, or falsificationism or whatever epistemological concern you have that you think is "important" or "relevant," and its relationship to atheism and see if anyone is interested. I think it is fair to say you could do that without any sense of "pressure," whether real or perceived.

The appropriate forum for this would probably be "Philosophy" rather than apologetics.

I agree with Z that in almost every case on this forum when a theist attempts to define atheism it seems like an effort to 'construct a straw man to flail against.'

[bluethread]

I agree with Z that in almost every case on this forum when a theist attempts to define atheism it seems like an effort to 'construct a straw man to flail against.'

Just as whenever an atheist attempts to define a Christian, or theist.

[Danmark]

I agree with Z that in almost every case on this forum when a theist attempts to define atheism it seems like an effort to 'construct a straw man to flail against.'

Just as whenever an atheist attempts to define a Christian, or theist.

Again as Z points out, even Christians do not agree on the definition of 'Christian.' Many atheists are former Christians and very well acquainted with the wide variance of definitions, and disagreements among Christians that sometimes lead to heated discussions if not violence. I'm happy to let each person give his and her own definitions or qualifications for using the label "Christian." According to some, I am a Christian.