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?

[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.

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.

Good, I grant the same privilege to atheists, or any other viewpoint for that manner. If we all take this approach and focus on the arguments presented and not straw men, there is not problem.

[Clownboat]

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.

Good, I grant the same privilege to atheists, or any other viewpoint for that manner. If we all take this approach and focus on the arguments presented and not straw men, there is not problem.

Perhaps we can start as soon as sushi stops defining what an atheist is?

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 341 by Clownboat]

I don't want to seem like a persistent fish [raw fish] that's fixated on this topic and wont let it go, or someone that is arrogant, but I do want to confess though that if we loosely use terms and do not properly go by standard definitions, not only will there be a lot of ambiguity but discussion concerning truth will ultimately be meaningless and pointless. If we cannot agree on terms and if anyone is freely to use terms as they wish then I can't see why anyone would even bother to try and engage in stimulating dialogue that's conducive to anything.

I for one don't mind if others use terms loosely as long as one qualifies terms properly (so that others aren't misguided or confused) if not I will go by standard definitions (by default) and if I see inconsistencies I will point them out, but if others are too fixated in stating that I am wrong in doing so, then I guess they would just have to deal with it. Its nothing personal and I never try to make things personal, but I do take things serious in that this is the only reason why I am here, to debate not only interesting topics but also debate them in a meaningful matters. I promise to be quite now

[Danmark]

I promise to be quite now

Quite what?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 341 by Clownboat]

I don't want to seem like a persistent fish [raw fish] that's fixated on this topic and wont let it go, or someone that is arrogant, but I do want to confess though that if we loosely use terms and do not properly go by standard definitions, not only will there be a lot of ambiguity but discussion concerning truth will ultimately be meaningless and pointless. If we cannot agree on terms and if anyone is freely to use terms as they wish then I can't see why anyone would even bother to try and engage in stimulating dialogue that's conducive to anything.

I for one don't mind if others use terms loosely as long as one qualifies terms properly (so that others aren't misguided or confused) if not I will go by standard definitions (by default) and if I see inconsistencies I will point them out, but if others are too fixated in stating that I am wrong in doing so, then I guess they would just have to deal with it. Its nothing personal and I never try to make things personal, but I do take things serious in that this is the only reason why I am here, to debate not only interesting topics but also debate them in a meaningful matters. I promise to be quite now

The only thing worse than loosely using terms (as you said) would be to assign untruths to known terms.

For example, to be an atheist, that means you deny the Christian god (or whatever god said person happens to be promoting).

This is false because a person can, not hold any religious beliefs whatsoever while still not denying the Christian god (or any god for that matter).
Therefore, denial of a god is not necessary to be considered an atheist.

[Zzyzx]

.

Effective Christian apologists

Kindly identify those you consider effective Christian Apologists in these debates (preferably using PM).

often argue mere Christianity that is still Christianity at the foundational levels.

What, exactly, is mere Christianity?

Apologists who seem somewhat credible in these debates present liberal or moderate forms of Christianity " and distance themselves from Fundamentalist / Biblical Literalist / Traditionalist dogma. Those who promote the latter three do not seem to fare very well or last very long.

Notice you are using Christianity instead of Theism which would be the more comparative statement to use with Atheism.

I agree. However, the vast majority of Theists who debate here are Christians (who often attempt to use straw man definitions of Atheism in their arguments).

Theism is easily defined: belief in the existence of a god or gods www.dictionary.reference.com but Christianity is apparently not " or cannot find an acceptable definition to those who claim membership.

Christianity is secondary to the topic of the existence of God.

Agreed

However, the existence of gods is immaterial in the definition of Atheism (OP topic).

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Notice that many Non-Theists (not all are Atheists -- consider Agnostics and Ignostics) ASK Christians to define their own term. Unfortunately Christians seem unable to define the term and/or to agree among themselves exactly what it means.

See http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7cc4d89c7d

To the contrary, most Atheists agree that they don't believe in gods (the definition of Atheism).

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 346 by Zzyzx]

And a disbelief isn't a belief, nor a philosophy, there maybe one behind not believing but just disbelief is not.

[Zzyzx]

.

And a disbelief isn't a belief, nor a philosophy, there maybe one behind not believing but just disbelief is not.

I agree -- and wonder why so many seem to take offense at "I don't believe your god tales"?

Some apparently view all disbelief as a conspiracy among those who disbelieve to oppress believers or their beliefs.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 348 by Zzyzx]

Of course seems to be a common thread to all Judaic religions for validity. If others don't believe or says you are wrong it is because they don't have god. The Jewish text reference so much that being oppressed is apart of believing in the real true God and that is perpetrated through Christianity and Islam. Oh boy lol