To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[Sherlock Holmes]

"Lacking belief in gods" is as ambiguous as "having belief in gods". It is meaningless as a statement of position, either way.

It is easier to understand the position of anyone calling themselves an atheist, as being a personality who believes in materialism so for clarities sake, referring to them as materialists or non-theists cuts through any ambiguity associated with atheism as a position.

Can ya school me on what you mean by 'materialism'?

This (audio) discussion will give you a solid grasp of what "materialism" is all about:

[JoeyKnothead]

"Lacking belief in gods" is as ambiguous as "having belief in gods". It is meaningless as a statement of position, either way.

It is easier to understand the position of anyone calling themselves an atheist, as being a personality who believes in materialism so for clarities sake, referring to them as materialists or non-theists cuts through any ambiguity associated with atheism as a position.

Can ya school me on what you mean by 'materialism'?

This (audio) discussion will give you a solid grasp of what "materialism" is all about:

I preciate it, but I was wanting William's perspective.

[Bust Nak]

The phrase "one can't just redefine X" is simply an informal way of saying "the definition of X is typically something established through precedent and not individual whim".

Not by one particular individual whim, sure, but get enough individuals together to reach a critical mass, well, that's how a new precedent is established.

Try this for yourself, redefine "screw" to mean what "thanks" means today. Then spend the day saying "screw you" rather than "thank you" to all who deserve your thanks and report back here with the results.

No thanks, we both know what the result would be; instead I will reiterate existing results showing how our collective individual whims have successfully redefined words such as "awful" and "clue."

Flew was not successful because the definition has not been universally adopted, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not define it that way, nor does the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

If universal adoption is the benchmark then why are you peddling the definition in those links which is much less widely adopted?

Furthermore there are atheists who describe themselves thus and do use the correct, established definition - "there is no God" - and they are content with that position and definition, if you want to let them know that they are not real atheists then by all means do so.

Another good thing about the current definition is that there is no need to relabel any old school atheists, because they are still real atheists according to the current definition re: lack of belief. Those who hold that there is no God, also lack belief in God. Bonus!

I care not with whom you do or do not desire to be "lumped in with" we're discussing the definition of "atheism" not your likes or dislikes.

How do you think your preferred definition of "atheism" was established, if not by consensus according to the likes of dislikes of the speakers of the language? Why should we care about your likes or dislikes, or that of the two authors in your links?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I care not with whom you do or do not desire to be "lumped in with" we're discussing the definition of "atheism" not your likes or dislikes.

You got a lot of dang gall to say that, given your borne of ignorance desire to define for others how they define themselves.

How bout this - Christians believe stupidity is the way to go! Christians, every dang one, well they're idiots. Cause ya know, Christian and all.

Huh? All I need to do now is point to my own post here, and play this idiotic "some folks say" game, and poof - I get to declare my definition of Christian idiocy is the right'n.

Words like moronic, imbecilic, idiotic, stupidic, come into play when one tries to define -demand- for others, what are their beliefs, or the nons of it.

Arrogance ain't a substitute for intelligence. You believer of moronity, you .

(Where I get to define other's beliefs for em)

[TRANSPONDER]

The phrase "one can't just redefine X" is simply an informal way of saying "the definition of X is typically something established through precedent and not individual whim".

Not by one particular individual whim, sure, but get enough individuals together to reach a critical mass, well, that's how a new precedent is established.

Try this for yourself, redefine "screw" to mean what "thanks" means today. Then spend the day saying "screw you" rather than "thank you" to all who deserve your thanks and report back here with the results.

No thanks, we both know what the result would be; instead I will reiterate existing results showing how our collective individual whims have successfully redefined words such as "awful" and "clue."

Flew was not successful because the definition has not been universally adopted, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not define it that way, nor does the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

If universal adoption is the benchmark then why are you peddling the definition in those links which is much less widely adopted?

Furthermore there are atheists who describe themselves thus and do use the correct, established definition - "there is no God" - and they are content with that position and definition, if you want to let them know that they are not real atheists then by all means do so.

Another good thing about the current definition is that there is no need to relabel any old school atheists, because they are still real atheists according to the current definition re: lack of belief. Those who hold that there is no God, also lack belief in God. Bonus!

I care not with whom you do or do not desire to be "lumped in with" we're discussing the definition of "atheism" not your likes or dislikes.

How do you think your preferred definition of "atheism" was established, if not by consensus according to the likes of dislikes of the speakers of the language? Why should we care about your likes or dislikes, or that of the two authors in your links?

I was surprised when I heard that Philosophy (in some cases, at least) uses the incorrect definition of atheism. And it is incorrect because it is not logically tenable. Given that nobody knows for certain whether there is a god or not, it is logically not possible to make a logically tenable assertion that there is no God (which is itself sloppy as 'are no gods' is logically more valid). Already I begin to suspect that either something is wrong with philosophy, or there's something else going on.

I think it's the latter and what I suspect it is, is that the rules of philosophy require an assumed total assertion, even if in the real world one cannot logically make such an assertion.

I've seen this done with 'materialism', the metaphysical (philosophical) definition being a flat assertion that nothing but the material can or does exist. While I can see that this definition might be required in making philosophical constructs, in the real world, however, it is simply not correct, though usable, and is used with implied caveats such as 'only the material, so far as we know' and 'the material seems to be the better supported basis' and of course the practical working standpoint or 'mechanical materialism' I have heard it called is the actual practical materialism that science, rationalism, secularism and atheism is based on and NOT the metaphysical (philosophical) definition, even though I seen that used to try to discredit materialism not by saying that it is not supported by the evidence, of courser it is but on the grounds that it is logically untenable. And that's why it is not correct for practical use outside philosophy, but it wouldn't matter if theism did not use it to debunk Materialism.

I think that is what it done with atheism. On evidence atheism has a very big degree of probability of there being no gods and even higher that there is no Biblegod, just as with no other personal/religious gods. And it wouldn't matter that technically it isn't logically correct to say 'There is no God' (caveat - 'so far as we know', other than theists use it to try to force on us a definition that is in fact logically untenable. So even if the Philosophical definition of Atheism had been used, we'd have had to change it to the definition we actually do now use to be correct.

I am aware that, apart from the constant insistence of Theists to force the Philosophical definition of atheism on us (and 'because it is logically untenable' tells us why they do it) but I still don't know why the universal take on atheism and agnosticism is 'agnostic - one who is not sure whether a god exists or not' and 'atheist - One who denies the existence of God' (the definition there used to be in Websters). If that definition has been corrected as it is no longer 'common usage', then there is no reason to insist that 'Metaphysical atheism' should be given any credence or usage outside of philosophy.

.p.s. I once read the essay on atheism in Standford. It stunk. Like it had been written by a Christian, as it probably had been.

[TRANSPONDER]

The phrase "one can't just redefine X" is simply an informal way of saying "the definition of X is typically something established through precedent and not individual whim".

Not by one particular individual whim, sure, but get enough individuals together to reach a critical mass, well, that's how a new precedent is established.

Try this for yourself, redefine "screw" to mean what "thanks" means today. Then spend the day saying "screw you" rather than "thank you" to all who deserve your thanks and report back here with the results.

No thanks, we both know what the result would be; instead I will reiterate existing results showing how our collective individual whims have successfully redefined words such as "awful" and "clue."

Flew was not successful because the definition has not been universally adopted, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not define it that way, nor does the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

If universal adoption is the benchmark then why are you peddling the definition in those links which is much less widely adopted?

Furthermore there are atheists who describe themselves thus and do use the correct, established definition - "there is no God" - and they are content with that position and definition, if you want to let them know that they are not real atheists then by all means do so.

Another good thing about the current definition is that there is no need to relabel any old school atheists, because they are still real atheists according to the current definition re: lack of belief. Those who hold that there is no God, also lack belief in God. Bonus!

I care not with whom you do or do not desire to be "lumped in with" we're discussing the definition of "atheism" not your likes or dislikes.

How do you think your preferred definition of "atheism" was established, if not by consensus according to the likes of dislikes of the speakers of the language? Why should we care about your likes or dislikes, or that of the two authors in your links?

I was surprised when I heard that Philosophy (in some cases, at least) uses the incorrect definition of atheism. And it is incorrect because it is not logically tenable. Given that nobody knows for certain whether there is a god or not, it is logically not possible to make a logically tenable assertion that there is no God (which is itself sloppy as 'are no gods' is logically more valid). Already I begin to suspect that either something is wrong with philosophy, or there's something else going on.

I think it's the latter and what I suspect it is, is that the rules of philosophy require an assumed total assertion, even if in the real world one cannot logically make such an assertion.

I've seen this done with 'materialism', the metaphysical (philosophical) definition being a flat assertion that nothing but the material can or does exist. While I can see that this definition might be required in making philosophical constructs, in the real world, however, it is simply not correct, though usable, and is used with implied caveats such as 'only the material, so far as we know' and 'the material seems to be the better supported basis' and of course the practical working standpoint or 'mechanical materialism' I have heard it called is the actual practical materialism that science, rationalism, secularism and atheism is based on and NOT the metaphysical (philosophical) definition, even though I seen that used to try to discredit materialism not by saying that it is not supported by the evidence, of courser it is but on the grounds that it is logically untenable. And that's why it is is not correct for practical use outside philosophy, but it wouldn't matter if theism did not use it to debunk Materialism.

I think that is what it done with atheism. On evidence atheism has a very big degree of probability of there being no gods and even higher that there is no Biblegod, just as with no other personal/religious gods. And it wouldn't matter that technically it isn't logically correct to say 'There is no God' (caveat - 'so far as we know', other than theists use it to try to force on us a definition that is in fact logically untenable. So even if the Philosophical definition of Atheism had been used, we'd have had to change it to the definition we actually do now use to be correct.

I am aware that, apart from the constant insistence of Theists to force the Philosophical definition of atheism on us (and 'because it is logically untenable' tells us why they do it) but I still don't know why the universal take on atheism and agnosticism is 'agnostic - one who is not sure whether a god exists or not' and 'atheist - One who denies the existence of God' (the definition there used to be in Websters). If that definition has been corrected as it is no longer 'common usage', then there is no reason to insist that 'Metaphysical atheism' should be given any credence or usage outside of philosophy.

.p.s. I once read the essay on atheism in Standford. It stunk. Like it had been written by a Christian, as it probably had been.

[harvey2]

“a lack of belief in god” is a perfect definition for most atheists.
I lack a belief in God(as a general concept). I lack a belief in string theory, in “A non-material, sentient, will of unimaginable capability, not subject to law but a creator of law”, in strogois, in ghosts, in aliens, in YETI, in LOCK NEST MONSTER.
Which translates in I am unconvinced because of lack of compelling evidence. Until such evidence is presented I will remain unconvinced, I will lack a belief.
Also I have a disbelief in Yahweh(poor imaginative attempts of ignorant ancient goat herders) and omnibenevolent, personal “shy” gods that does not distinguishes from an immaterial invisible extremely shy unicorn. Also claim such beings do not exist.
There is a significant difference between my “lack of belief”(=weak atheist) and my “disbelief+claim:such beings do not exist”(=strong atheism).

I also lack belief in string theory because I think that the evidence favors my position and that people who believe in string theory lack merit in their beliefs. I don't think there's many real atheists who would say that others who believe God doesn't exist are without merit.

[TRANSPONDER]

String theory is still a plausible hypothetical. Perhaps not even as 'expected' as the Higgs -Boson (and you may recall what a lot of cheering there was when that was finally shown to exist). There is a sliding scale of confidence in hypothetical theories that haven't yet been verified. For Abiogenesis, it is really very high. For Dark matter and String theory, a bit less, and for multiverses and the holographic universes a bit less I suppose. While 'believe of not' is not the way of approaching probabilities, it is (or can be) the result of very high probability, pending verification.

Incidentally sorry, folks, for the repeated post. I must have corrected something on the way out of a preview and that resulted in a duplicate post.

[Bust Nak]

I was surprised when I heard that Philosophy (in some cases, at least) uses the incorrect definition of atheism. And it is incorrect because it is not logically tenable. Given that nobody knows for certain whether there is a god or not, it is logically not possible to make a logically tenable assertion that there is no God (which is itself sloppy as 'are no gods' is logically more valid).

Well, lets not go that far, "correctness" isn't really a thing when it comes to things that are purely a matter of consensus. It's correct if something matches the consensus, it's incorrect if it doesn't match. Logical bases helps build the consensus, as untenable positions naturally aren't as popular. Using logic to evaluate which definition is correct misses the point that society is under no obligation to adopt the most logical position. Whatever we collectively say is the correct definition, is automatically correct.

[Realworldjack]

It is incorrect actually, one can't just pick some term, redefine it and then say this is now the real meaning of the term.

I can, watch as I demonstrate: atheism is now defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. This is the real meaning of the term.

The phrase "one can't just redefine X" is simply an informal way of saying "the definition of X is typically something established through precedent and not individual whim".

Try this for yourself, redefine "screw" to mean what "thanks" means today. Then spend the day saying "screw you" rather than "thank you" to all who deserve your thanks and report back here with the results.

I refuse to bend to your will on this, the definition of atheism whether you like it or not is established through precedent.

Too late for that, the boat has already sailed. Flew was successful at rebranding atheism, there is now a new precedent. This newer definition is popular enough to be listed in dictionary over the old "denial of God" definition.

Flew was not successful because the definition has not been universally adopted, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not define it that way, nor does the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

Furthermore there are atheists who describe themselves thus and do use the correct, established definition - "there is no God" - and they are content with that position and definition, if you want to let them know that they are not real atheists then by all means do so.

If they adopt 2. then their position is identical to "I do not know if God exists" and warrants no special term or bastardization of the existing term "atheist", saying "I don't know" or "I am uncommitted" is all that's needed, no fancy word play or Emperor's new clothes or other mumbo jumbo.

But lots of theists also say "I don't know," I don't want to be lumped in with those guys. That's reason enough to warrant the "atheist" label.

I care not with whom you do or do not desire to be "lumped in with" we're discussing the definition of "atheism" not your likes or dislikes.

I believe this post pretty much demonstrates the point you have attempted to make in the OP. In other words, this post seems to clearly demonstrate there are those who would like to use a different definition "one made up". To the best of my understanding, this change is due to the fact that there are those who would like to identify as atheist who want to shed themselves of the burden. You see, if the definition is changed (which seems to be clearly what they are admitting is occurring) to a simple "lack of belief" these folk are somehow under the impression this frees them from owning any sort of burden and shifts the burden to the Christian.

This is certainly a tactical argument and seems to demonstrate those who really have no interest in pursuit of truth. Rather, they are simply looking for a way in which to win an argument. The problem as I see it is, this tactic does not accomplish all that much. Because you see, the Christian who simply explains what it is they believe, based upon the facts, and evidence, who makes no claims which cannot be demonstrated owns no burden. So exactly what does one think they are accomplishing by changing the meaning? I mean if they claim neither faith nor disbelief in God, this would be the definition of agnostic and would accomplish the same thing, which is exactly nothing as far as I can see.