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?

[WinePusher]

I disagree. She is not 'trivializing the issue of semantics.'

Saying that she finds the thread topic 'amusing' definitely seems to be trivializing the topic. If I were to say that I found your posts very 'amusing' wouldn't you agree that I would essentially be trivializing what you write?

There is a time for precision and a time for ambiguity.

And apparently, in your opinion, ambiguity is ok in debate? Otherwise, why even respond to what I wrote? I was criticizing the fact that ambiguity prevents serious dialogue from occurring and that it only causes confusion. Are you really objecting to this?

We should not agree on the 'precise' definition of a word if that requires the sacrifice of accuracy.

Using a precise definition of a word is the exact definition of accuracy.

The problem here is that the words 'atheist' and 'Christian' are mere symbols and those symbols stand for concepts we do not all agree on. If you choose to declare there is but one, very precise and narrow of either, you are welcome to do so, but you will be marching alone. Why should one who claims to be a Christian get to define 'atheist?' Does one who claims to be an atheist have an inherent and exclusive right to define 'Christian?

I am not defining what an atheist is. I am using definitions provided by authoritative sources. If you haven't noticed, my conception of atheism comes from the dictionary, the encyclopedia and actual atheists themselves.

[dianaiad]

I disagree. She is not 'trivializing the issue of semantics.'

Saying that she finds the thread topic 'amusing' definitely seems to be trivializing the topic. If I were to say that I found your posts very 'amusing' wouldn't you agree that I would essentially be trivializing what you write?

I find Shakespeare amusing. Doesn't mean that I'm trivializing him.

Of course, there's nothing Shakespearean about this thread, but I find the irony absolutely delightful.

Never mind: I have often been accused of having a strange (even absent) sense of humor.

[Zzyzx]

.

The thing is, all this discussion over definitions is amusing. At least, to me it is. I like the post that suggests that, in the interest of better communication, that we figure out how the other guy defines "atheist" or "Christian" for himself, and use that definition.

Works for me. Of course, that means that if an agnostic tells me that he's an atheist, OK, he's an atheist. If he tells me he's not, he's not. No skin off my nose, unless he tells me that I have to agree with him regarding his definition for what I am.

Unfortunately a lot of people tend to trivialize the issue of semantics as you've done here. In linguistics, there is a sub-discipline known as discourse analysis. Within discourse analysis, there is much focus placed upon ambiguity, and the goal essentially is to extract as much ambiguity from a language as possible in order to allow for clear, understandable and coherent discourse.

Does this thread represent an honest / honorable attempt to "allow for clear, understandable and coherent discourse" by attempting to coerce opponents to accept a certain definition of their position? Or is it an attempt to "stack the cards" in a direction with a definition of Atheism that a Theist prefers be used?

A huge problem with words is that they carry many meanings, and unless we can agree on the precise meaning of the word any subsequent debate, discourse or dialogue is going to be futile.

Yes, words can carry many different meanings, particularly when used by people of opposing viewpoints.

If a word doesn't suit one's purposes, attempt to redefine " no matter how transparent the tactic. "Day can mean 1000 years" for example (even though day is clearly defined in terms of Earth rotation).

This becomes even more important when discussing important topics like atheism, agnosticism and theism, particularly when an internet debaters attempts to inaccurately criticize theists by saying, "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt."

Is it an "inaccurate" statement " or is it demonstrably true using the OP of this thread as an example?

An attempt is made to "establish" a definition using statements selected by a religion defender as though those statements defined Atheism for Atheists. Definitions supplied in post #3 from authoritative sources (and even a Christian source) differ substantially from the OP.

Of course an Atheist who declares that "gods" do not exist is in as poor a debate position as a Theist who declares that "gods" do exist. Neither can substantiate their claim so the Theist may feel vindicated in believing without evidence (and challenge the Atheist to prove non-existence " a fool's errand).

Diana makes an excellent point with "in the interest of better communication, that we figure out how the other guy defines "atheist" or "Christian" for himself, and use that definition."

In keeping with that I have frequently asked debaters to supply their definition of Christian. The few who are bold enough to make the attempt to do so cite definitions that differ significantly from one another " and vary from quite general to very specific. No definition seems to be acceptable to Christians in general.

Should, therefore, Christian debaters be expected to accept and defend a definition of their religion preferred by Atheists? Wouldn't attempts in that direction qualify as straw man or red herring (as the OP appears to be doing here)?

[WinePusher]

there most definitely is a 'huge meaningful distinction between" "I do not believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist."

The first is an expression of doubt and non-belief: I don't see any evidence to show that God exists. The burden of proof is on the theist claiming that one DOES exist.

The second "I believe that God does not exist" is a statement of positive belief, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove that there is no God.

Are you really telling me that there's a big distinction between these two statements: 'I do not believe Barack Obama is a good president' and 'I believe Barack Obama is a bad president.' Yes, as you said, one is a negative statement and the other is a positive statement but they express the same point. If someone makes any one of those statements, he or she should be able to back it up by telling us why.

Similarly, if an atheist says I do not believe God exists he or she should be able to explain why and offer reasons for their position. In a good debate, both participants would be offering their evidence and reasons because the burden of proof is on both the person who believe in God and the person who doesn't believe in God.

I, personally, would call the difference between the two pretty big. The first is the 'weak' atheist position, and the second is the 'strong' atheist position, and both positions are enfolded under the atheist philosophy.

There's certainly a syntactical difference between the two statements, but like I said they express the same point. What's your opinion about the tooth fairy dianaiad? Is it that you don't believe the tooth fairy exists or that you believe the tooth fairy does not exist? Other than the order of the words, both statements convey the same point.

If it helps, try the difference between the following two statements:

I don't believe that Mary planted that garden (I see no evidence that Mary planted anything)

I believe that Mary had nothing to do with that garden (I can prove that she didn't or that someone else did.)

Fairly big difference.

Yea, but you messed up the analogy with the second statement. A more accurate analogy would be:

1. I don't believe Mary planted the garden (this statement conveys the idea that Mary didn't plant the garden)

2. I believe that Mary didn't plant the garden (this statement also conveys the idea that Mary didn't plant the garden).

No difference whatsoever.

[WinePusher]

I find Shakespeare amusing. Doesn't mean that I'm trivializing him.

Of course, there's nothing Shakespearean about this thread, but I find the irony absolutely delightful.

Never mind: I have often been accused of having a strange (even absent) sense of humor.

I find Shakespeare pretty amusing as well. Unfortunately, as you said, Shakespeare isn't debating here, and referring to other people's posts as amusing isn't very civil. If I were to preface all my responses to your posts with 'I find what you write to be amusing' wouldn't you agree that it would be trivializing, condescending and not conducive to civil debate?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 33 by WinePusher]

I haven't heard you respond to the analogy I've given.

I'm holding up a certain number of fingers behind my back (both hands).

There are two possibilities: there are an odd number of fingers xor there are an even number of fingers.
(xor being one or the other, but not both)

Do you believe I'm holding up an even or odd number of fingers?

[WinePusher]

This becomes even more important when discussing important topics like atheism, agnosticism and theism, particularly when an internet debaters attempts to inaccurately criticize theists by saying, "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt."

Is it an "inaccurate" statement " or is it demonstrably true using the OP of this thread as an example?

Yes, it's a very inaccurate statement.

You said: "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt."

I posted three NON-THEISTIC sources that define atheism as the denial of God. I do not see these sources as 'straw man attempts' despite what you say. Will you now retract your inaccurate statement?

An attempt is made to "establish" a definition using statements selected by a religion defender as though those statements defined Atheism for Atheists.

I'm actually open to whatever definition atheists want to use. But, simply saying that an atheist is someone who lacks belief isn't very appropriate, especially considering the many prominent atheists today who clearly deny God's existence.

Of course an Atheist who declares that "gods" do not exist is in as poor a debate position as a Theist who declares that "gods" do exist. Neither can substantiate their claim so the Theist may feel vindicated in believing without evidence (and challenge the Atheist to prove non-existence " a fool's errand).

In a good debate, both sides will definitely state their position and try to support their claims while at the same time attack the claims of their opponents. If one does not have an opinion on the subject matter then one shouldn't be debating it. A debater by definition is arguing for/against a position. Unfortunately, many people chose to simply ask questions instead of engaging in actual debate.

In keeping with that I have frequently asked debaters to supply their definition of Christian. The few who are bold enough to make the attempt to do so cite definitions that differ significantly from one another " and vary from quite general to very specific. No definition seems to be acceptable to Christians in general.

True, there's a lot of disagreement among Christians as to what a Christian is. I personally try to stay away from those debates because I feel I don't have a right to judge others, but imo a Christian is simply someone who believes in the special/divine nature of Jesus Christ. Other matters regarding theology and extraneous beliefs are irrelevant.

Should, therefore, Christian debaters be expected to accept and defend a definition of their religion preferred by Atheists? Wouldn't attempts in that direction qualify as straw man or red herring (as the OP appears to be doing here)?

If you can support your definition of 'Christian' with actual sources then please, go for it. You will notice that my definition is based on actual sources and the opinions of prominent atheists, not internet atheists.

[Goat]

Well, after reading this thread, it appears to me it is one massive straw man to try to redefine what an atheist is, so that there can be a shift in the burden of proof.

It seems there is an insistence that the 'atheist must belief such and such' (which most atheists don't) and therefore must 'prove there is no god.

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 33 by WinePusher]

I haven't heard you respond to the analogy I've given.

I'm holding up a certain number of fingers behind my back (both hands).

There are two possibilities: there are an odd number of fingers xor there are an even number of fingers.
(xor being one or the other, but not both)

Do you believe I'm holding up an even or odd number of fingers?

Because saying that I don't believe you're holding up an odd number of fingers isn't the same as saying I believe you're holding up an even number of fingers....

Apologies, I've had to respond to multiple posts in this thread. I hope you're aware of what converses are. Since there are only two possible options regarding the number of fingers you're holding up, if I say that I don't believe you're holding up an odd number of fingers then I am implicitly implying that I believe you're holding up an even number of fingers. This is precisely why the two statements: I do not believe God exists and I believe God does not exist are really no different from one another.

But this isn't really relevant to the topic. I suppose my main point is that if you identify yourself as an atheist, it is inappropriate for you to simply say that you lack belief and refrain from speculating about God's existence. I'm sure that many internet atheists would prefer the 'lack belief' definition because it makes debate easier for them but the famous, more prominent atheists in society would disagree vehemently.

I mean, do you know any prominent atheists that claim to simply 'lack belief' or is it just the internet atheists who identity with this definition?

[Danmark]

I disagree. She is not 'trivializing the issue of semantics.'

Saying that she finds the thread topic 'amusing' definitely seems to be trivializing the topic. If I were to say that I found your posts very 'amusing' wouldn't you agree that I would essentially be trivializing what you write?

No. Just the opposite. I would take it as a compliment:

a-mus-ing
myooziNG/Submit
adjective
causing laughter or providing entertainment.
"such a likable, amusing man!"
synonyms: entertaining, funny, comical, humorous, lighthearted, jocular, witty, mirthful, hilarious, droll, diverting

On the one hand you are calling for precision in language. On the other you equate "amusing" with "trivializing."

Many great writers are both amusing and profound. If you refer to one of my posts as 'amusing,' I would thank you . . . or would have until your declaration that you intend something other than its ordinary meaning when you use the word.