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]

How do you even get that first paragraph from any of the definitions given? The one thing in the OP that endorses your statement is Carl Sagan. All other sources, as well as the Oxford English Dictionary, the official English dictionary, disagree with you. (or are defined in such a way as to accept weak atheism).

I'm not sure where you got any of this from. My position has been that atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God because, as my sources point out, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Also, 'disbelief in God' and 'belief that God doesn't exist' are essentially expressing the same point. Are you really objecting to this?

Carl Sagan is not a respected dictionary, Carl Sagan is not the voice for the majority of those who use the word atheist, and Carl Sagan is one person.

Carl Sagan appears to be a very respectable intellectual among atheists and his definition is consistent with the other sources I provided.

When you say "I think it's more coherent and understandable" you are doing little more than bluffing. You mean to say it fits your preconception better, as indicated by all the questions targeting the weak atheism side, and the reference to quotes that you claim to be pro-strong atheism. When it turns out two thirds are in favour of weak atheism, you drop the quotes.

In what way is "I do not believe in a god" less "coherent or understandable" than "I believe a god does not exist"?

As I said, both of those statements express the same point. I never said there was any difference between those two statements. What I take issue with is how people like you attempt to redefine what atheism means. Atheism does not mean lack of a belief, atheism is itself a belief that God does not exist.

And why do you disagree that "lacking a belief in god" is more general a group than "belief in lack of a god"? Do you not recognize the latter is a subset of the former?

Depends. It seems like you're trying to be extremely careful in how you phrase these things. If you'll just admit that both theism and atheism are belief systems then we'll have no problem. Theists believe God exist, atheists believe God doesn't exist. Theists affirm the existence of God, atheists deny the existence of God. Why is this even a controversial point?

Excuse me? On what basis do you make this claim? How can one be a Christian without affirming Jesus as Christ?

Firstly, you're implicitly accepting that a Christian must accept unitarity, and secondly, why must Jesus be divine to be followed?

Uh, I never even once mentioned 'unitarity.' And clearly people can follow Jesus without believing in his divinity. For examples, Muslims hold Jesus in high esteem, however, what is the difference between a Christian and a Muslim? One believes Jesus was divine while the other doesn't. Words have meanings.

There are Christian atheists and Christian deists who don't believe in more than half the stuff Jesus said. If they want to call themselves Christian, that's fine by me, and for me treating Christ like some sort of authority or figure to follow is all it takes for it to be a reasonable word to use. Belief in Jesus' divinity wasn't even the key point.

Yes, people can call themselves whatever they want. They can call themselves married bachelors, or Christian atheists, or whatever, but they would be guilty of oxymorons. Like I said, words have meanings.

[wiploc]

There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak with variations in between.  Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists.

What if the Pope believes there are no gods but, because he is the Pope, doesn't state it? Isn't belief the single test?

If you believe gods exist, you are a theist.
If you believe gods do not exist, you are a strong atheist.
If you don't fit in either of the above categories, you are a weak atheist.

The most common meaning among Atheists themselves refers to a weak, negative, soft, or skeptical Atheist: one who simply lacks a belief in and knowledge of any supernatural entities whatsoever.

"Atheist" refers to anyone who isn't a theist. It's not a synonym for "weak atheist," because strong atheists are also covered by the term.

Even if this weren't the case, lack of belief in gods is the most general position for those who call themselves atheists.

This is clearly false. Those people who lack belief are known as agnostics, not atheists. An atheist is a person who does have a belief, and the belief specifically is that God doesn't exist. See the definition you and I provided.

You provided this definition: "2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
You cited dictionary.com. Dictionary.com says that disbelief is "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true."

I call anyone who isn't a theist an atheist. Dictionary.com defines the word slightly more narrowly, excluding babies and people who have never heard of gods, and anyone else who hasn't considered the issue and come away still not believing. But that still leaves a lot of weak atheists (what you call "agnostics") included under dictionary.com's definition.

So your insistence that Jashwell's definition is clearly false is clearly false.

An atheist by definition does not lack a belief, an atheist is actually a person who subscribes to a belief, and the belief is that God doesn't exist.

That's a legitimate definition. It's listed in dictionaries, and it's in common usage. But your insistence that it is the only legitimate definition is inappropriate. Our definition is also in dictionaries---the same dictionaries, in fact---and is also in common usage.

Plus, there's something awkward about lecturing people about what their own name means. We'd look pretty foolish trying to insist on a definition of "Christian" that Christians didn't accept.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) What is the definition of atheism?

A term like atheist is one of 'em there, that it takes on several meanings depending on the circumstances, and the perspectives of those involved.

This atheist declares "strong" or "hard" atheism as a matter of how I feel about the failed attempts of theists to show their god's there, while understanding the difficulty of pointing to a nothing, and saying, "See, there it ain't, right there".

This atheist is, then, a non-believer.

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?

When that internet debater is Zzyzx, and where Carl Sagan is no longer with us to offer clarification or even retraction, and where book makers have been known to print intentional 'errors', in order to later assert copyright infringement, I'm content in concluding Zzyzx speaks with authority.

3) Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary 'theists' and 'theistic sources?'

Don't seem to be.

Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary guilty of straw man attempts?

They're guilty of trying to declare their own definitions more appropriate than mine.


Conclusions?

When it pops up in the future, y'all that are atheists, try to remember to tell it that you're either asserting belief, or asserting fact. That goes for the theists there too, if at all confused, ask for such clarificationings and that sort of thing it takes, 'til ya know if you're dealing with a non-believer, or a swearing up and downer.

[Mr.M]

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?

The encyclopedia answer is definitive. Exclusion of Carl Sagan from the repertoire is necessary (argumentum ab auctoritate). Splitting hairs over Zzyzx’s colloquial verbiage to create an ad hominiem attack is a red herring. This entire argument is meretricious.

[Zzyzx]

.

Similarly, it would be a poor definition of Christian to say "those who believe in the divinity of Jesus and the unitarity of the trinity". A broader, more general definition would simply be "those who believe in or support many of the claims or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

Excuse me? On what basis do you make this claim? How can one be a Christian without affirming Jesus as Christ?

Perhaps you are unaware that the Jehovah's Witness denomination of Christianity has a very different view of Jesus from the mainstream?

Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was "fully God, fully man." Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God's first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God's agent of creation and God's chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.
http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_w ... eliefs.htm

Bold added

[Danmark]

Oxford English Dictionary:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

Yes, those definitions are correct. What I took objection to is how the internet debater falsely said that, "Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt." Obviously, it isn't just theists who assert that atheism is the 'denial of gods.'

Even if this weren't the case, lack of belief in gods is the most general position for those who call themselves atheists.

This is clearly false. Those people who lack belief are known as agnostics, not atheists. An atheist is a person who does have a belief, and the belief specifically is that God doesn't exist. See the definition you and I provided.

No, it is not "clearly" false. It is not even false.
There is some overlap in the words. Words after all, are mere symbols. Particularly when we are dealing with symbols like 'atheist' and 'agnostic, words are approximations of what the user holds in is mind.

As Jashwell said, the word "Christian" means many things to many people. Some of the arch conservative 'Christians' on this forum are considered 'non Christian' or even 'anti Christian' by some; just as liberal 'Christians' are not considered 'Christian' if don't meet certain criteria set by others. My own view is that 'atheist' should be reserved for those who do not necessarily disbelieve in a THEISTIC god; that is, a god with a personality.

Wikipedia's description is as good as any:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

In my opinion an agnostic more truly fits this part of that paragraph:
"... the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."

An atheist may believe the possibility of a theistic god is extremely unlikely, less than a 1 percent chance, whereas an agnostic has no opinion or believes no opinion is possible. Is the atheist actually agnostic, because he grants there is some possibility he is wrong? Where is the tipping point? 49.9999%? .000000000001%?
Ultimately the question may be as pointless as the purpose for this thread. What does it matter, and to whom, whether there is absolute agreement on the range of thought that encompasses the label 'atheist?'

[dianaiad]

.

Similarly, it would be a poor definition of Christian to say "those who believe in the divinity of Jesus and the unitarity of the trinity". A broader, more general definition would simply be "those who believe in or support many of the claims or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

Excuse me? On what basis do you make this claim? How can one be a Christian without affirming Jesus as Christ?

Perhaps you are unaware that the Jehovah's Witness denomination of Christianity has a very different view of Jesus from the mainstream?

Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was "fully God, fully man." Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God's first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God's agent of creation and God's chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.
http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_w ... eliefs.htm

Bold added

I've been reading this thread with great interest; it's been fun. I'm just chiming in here with a quick comment: if you ask a Baptist (or pretty much any other Protestant) whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, the answer you get isn't going to support your contention that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination. Shoot, "JW's aren't Christian" is said at least as often as "Mormons aren't Christian!"

I'm with you, mind you. I think they are. Christian, that is. I'm just sayin'. I haven't read any posts replying to this one yet, but if at least one of 'em doesn't come back with this objection....that JW'S are not EITHER Christian, I'll fry my earphone covers in butter, cover 'em with syrup and eat 'em for breakfast.

[WinePusher]

How do you even get that first paragraph from any of the definitions given? The one thing in the OP that endorses your statement is Carl Sagan. All other sources, as well as the Oxford English Dictionary, the official English dictionary, disagree with you. (or are defined in such a way as to accept weak atheism).

I'm not sure where you got any of this from. My position has been that atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God because, as my sources point out, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Also, 'disbelief in God' and 'belief that God doesn't exist' are essentially expressing the same point. Are you really objecting to this?

Carl Sagan is not a respected dictionary, Carl Sagan is not the voice for the majority of those who use the word atheist, and Carl Sagan is one person.

Carl Sagan appears to be a very respectable intellectual among atheists and his definition is consistent with the other sources I provided.

In what way is "I do not believe in a god" less "coherent or understandable" than "I believe a god does not exist"?

As I said, both of those statements express the same point. I never said there was any difference between those two statements. What I take issue with is how people like you attempt to redefine what atheism means. Atheism does not mean lack of a belief, atheism is itself a belief that God does not exist.

And why do you disagree that "lacking a belief in god" is more general a group than "belief in lack of a god"? Do you not recognize the latter is a subset of the former?

Depends. It seems like you're trying to be extremely careful in how you phrase these things. If you'll just admit that both theism and atheism are belief systems then we'll have no problem. Theists believe God exists, atheists believe God doesn't exists. Theists affirm the existence of God, atheists deny the existence of God. Why is this even a controversial point?

Excuse me? On what basis do you make this claim? How can one be a Christian without affirming Jesus as Christ?

Firstly, you're implicitly accepting that a Christian must accept unitarity, and secondly, why must Jesus be divine to be followed?

Uh, I never even once mentioned 'unitarity.' And clearly people can follow Jesus without believing in his divinity. For examples, Muslims hold Jesus in high esteem, however, what is the difference between a Christian and a Muslim? One believes Jesus was divine while the other doesn't. Words have meanings.

There are Christian atheists and Christian deists who don't believe in more than half the stuff Jesus said. If they want to call themselves Christian, that's fine by me, and for me treating Christ like some sort of authority or figure to follow is all it takes for it to be a reasonable word to use. Belief in Jesus' divinity wasn't even the key point.

Yes, people can call themselves whatever they want. They can call themselves married bachelors, or aggressive pacifists, or Christian atheists, or libertarian socialists, or whatever, but they would be guilty of being oxymoronic. Like I said, words have meanings.

[Danmark]

I've been reading this thread with great interest; it's been fun. I'm just chiming in here with a quick comment: if you ask a Baptist (or pretty much any other Protestant) whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, the answer you get isn't going to support your contention that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination. Shoot, "JW's aren't Christian" is said at least as often as "Mormons aren't Christian!"

I'm with you, mind you. I think they are. Christian, that is. I'm just sayin'. I haven't read any posts replying to this one yet, but if at least one of 'em doesn't come back with this objection....that JW'S are not EITHER Christian, I'll fry my earphone covers in butter, cover 'em with syrup and eat 'em for breakfast.

This is the point I tried to make with "Some of the arch conservative 'Christians' on this forum are considered 'non Christian' or even 'anti Christian' by some; just as liberal 'Christians' are not considered 'Christian' if don't meet certain criteria set by others."

To JW's and Mormons, you can add "Spong Christians" and anyone who does not believe Jesus was/is as fully divine as God or who finds the trinity to be absurd, or does not believe in a literal Garden of Eden, complete with a talking snake with legs. I suppose some believe if you are not a Young Earth Creationist you are not a Christian. Someone who is a hearer of the word, but not a doer cannot be considered 'Christian' can he? Are you a Christian when your views result in intolerance of others, in constant judging and spreading contention and discord? Does confessing that God appeared in the flesh as Jesus provide the acid test?
Is the person who holds up a sign proclaiming "JESUS HATES FAGS!" a Christian?

[WinePusher]

I've been reading this thread with great interest; it's been fun. I'm just chiming in here with a quick comment: if you ask a Baptist (or pretty much any other Protestant) whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, the answer you get isn't going to support your contention that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination. Shoot, "JW's aren't Christian" is said at least as often as "Mormons aren't Christian!"

I'm with you, mind you. I think they are. Christian, that is. I'm just sayin'. I haven't read any posts replying to this one yet, but if at least one of 'em doesn't come back with this objection....that JW'S are not EITHER Christian, I'll fry my earphone covers in butter, cover 'em with syrup and eat 'em for breakfast.

Being a Roman Catholic, I've had my share of fundamentalists accuse me of 'not being Christian.' I've also heard tons of fundamentalist evangelicals accuse Mormons of not being Christian as well. My basic position is that we ought not to judge others, as scripture commands. Unfortunately, the commandment to refrain from judging others is often ignored by a large majority of Christians these days. While I do think that words have meanings, and not everybody can be a Christian, I think the requirements are very small.

A Christian doesn't have to accept a certain view of the Bible, or believe in the trinity or believe in a certain theology or any of that. To be a Christian, one must simply affirm the divine/special nature of Jesus Christ. If you see Jesus has just any other ordinary human then I don't understand how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian. You may be an admirer of Jesus of Nazareth, as Muslims are, but Muslims are not considered Christians because they reject Jesus special/divine nature.