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]

His point appears to be that you're defining the label a group of other people use for themselves. Not my example to defend though, ask him.

Please stop saying this. It's demonstrably false. I am not defining anything, I am using the definition provided by references and sources. Danmark used no references and sources for his definition which is why his point fails.

There isn't an authority on atheism.
What you mean is he's popular, and also happens to be an atheist.
Not to mention that since you're arguing the definition of atheist, you can't call him an authority on atheism when that itself is in question.

No, what I mean is that there are a host of internet debaters trying to define atheism in a certain way, and then there are the definition provided by two dictionaries, an encyclopedia and Carl Sagan.

And I will need to keep saying this: Carl Sagan is not a dictionary. He is not an authority on the meaning of words. One person doesn't dictate words - people in general do. The fact that many (even if it was a minority, which I see no reason to believe) people use atheism to mean lack of belief indicates it should at the very least by an additional definition.

Fine, then refer to the definitions I provided from dictionary.com and American Heritage.

Oh, so you take these comments about redefinition back?

Nope. Why would I retract my comments that have nothing to do with what I wrote about your misusage of etymology. Your focus on etymology is fallacious because meaning evolves, and the current meaning of atheism (as defined by FOUR sources) is the belief that God doesn't exist, or to rephrase it, the denial of God.

The etymology is a meaningful, commonly used context of the word.

Etymology deals with origin and history, not CURRENT MEANING.

No. This is straight up false.
Weak atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
Strong atheism refers to the belief in the non existence of a god.

According to wiki weak atheists reject belief in God. That is substantially different from lacking belief in God. For example, I reject belief in the tooth fairy, meaning I do not believe the tooth fairy exists. If I were to 'lack belief' in the tooth fairy I would have no views or beliefs about the tooth fairy.

But you accept many people use "atheism" to mean lack of belief in a god.

Right, but I don't think it's accurate though. People can call themselves whatever they like but in doing so they run the risk of being inaccurate.

The Stanford Encyclopedia does clarify that the denial or negation of theism is atheism. The negation does not mean the antithesis. For instance, the negation of "hot" is "not hot" - not cold, it could be of neutral temperature. The negation of "over there" is "not over there" not "over here".

This is straight up false, and everything you wrote here is at odds with the Stanford Encyclopedia. The Stanford Encyclopedia clearly states that the negation of theism entails the denial of the existence of God. You disagree apparently.

Now, the more important point.
You acknowledge that a notable number of people recognise that atheism means lack of belief in god.

This indicates that the dictionaries that don't acknowledge this should add it as a secondary definition.

Why? Why should dictionaries accept the inaccurate definition that a few internet atheists argue for? Should biology texts be revised to accommodate the inaccurate beliefs of creationists? No. Should dictionaries be revised to accommodate the inaccurate beliefs of internet atheists? No. Notice that actual atheists in the media do not associate with your 'lack belief' definition. That point pretty much destroys your entire position.

As you said, etymology deals with the origin of the words, and words change. You can't have it both ways. Either words don't change and we're stuck with atheism (lack of belief in gods) or words do change and we've got (lack of belief in gods) as a secondary (if not primary) definition.

The problem is that notable atheists throughout history do not identify with you inaccurate definition. Nietzsche certainly didn't. To redefine atheism to mean 'lack of belief' is to obscure the public discussion about religion and atheism because our understanding of atheism, based upon what actual atheists say and do, is not consistent with your or any other internet atheists definition.

[Bust Nak]

No, what I mean is that there are a host of internet debaters trying to define atheism in a certain way, and then there are the definition provided by two dictionaries, an encyclopedia and Carl Sagan.

So why insist on one definitions over the popular one?

Fine, then refer to the definitions I provided from dictionary.com and American Heritage.

Ironically, both dictionary include the "disbelief" version of atheism. So, again why insist on the "denial" definition over the more popular one?

... the current meaning of atheism (as defined by FOUR sources) is the belief that God doesn't exist, or to rephrase it, the denial of God.

Etymology deals with origin and history, not CURRENT MEANING.

But the current meaning of atheism isn't the denial of God, but mere disbelief.

According to wiki weak atheists reject belief in God. That is substantially different from lacking belief in God. For example, I reject belief in the tooth fairy, meaning I do not believe the tooth fairy exists. If I were to 'lack belief' in the tooth fairy I would have no views or beliefs about the tooth fairy.

Alternatively, you could 'lack belief' in the tooth fairy by not believe the tooth fairy exists without explicitly denying its existence.

Right, but I don't think it's accurate though. People can call themselves whatever they like but in doing so they run the risk of being inaccurate.

Haven't we already established that definitions aren't matter of truth but convention? Definitions aren't accurate or inaccurate, only popular and unpopular.

The Stanford Encyclopedia clearly states that the negation of theism entails the denial of the existence of God. You disagree apparently.

And with good reason too. The article ignore those atheist who do not explicly deny the existence of God.

Why? Why should dictionaries accept the inaccurate definition that a few internet atheists argue for? Should biology texts be revised to accommodate the inaccurate beliefs of creationists? No. Should dictionaries be revised to accommodate the inaccurate beliefs of internet atheists? No.

Of course not, but dictionaries should accept the popular definition that people use.

Notice that actual atheists in the media do not associate with your 'lack belief' definition. That point pretty much destroys your entire position.

Can't say I have noticed that. It's pretty much universal to affrim the disbelieve without explicit denial meaning of atheism now.

The problem is that notable atheists throughout history do not identify with you inaccurate definition. Nietzsche certainly didn't. To redefine atheism to mean 'lack of belief' is to obscure the public discussion about religion and atheism because our understanding of atheism, based upon what actual atheists say and do, is not consistent with your or any other internet atheists definition.

It's a bit late to talk of redefine now. It's been defined that way for years.

[Jashwell]

His point appears to be that you're defining the label a group of other people use for themselves. Not my example to defend though, ask him.

Please stop saying this. It's demonstrably false. I am not defining anything, I am using the definition provided by references and sources. Danmark used no references and sources for his definition which is why his point fails.

The whole discussion is about defining atheism.

There isn't an authority on atheism.
What you mean is he's popular, and also happens to be an atheist.
Not to mention that since you're arguing the definition of atheist, you can't call him an authority on atheism when that itself is in question.

No, what I mean is that there are a host of internet debaters trying to define atheism in a certain way, and then there are the definition provided by two dictionaries, an encyclopedia and Carl Sagan.

You mean there's an article on a specific Encyclopedia - not a well recognised one - from 2004 - and Carl Sagan, and that another dictionary (dictionary.com) is an example that disagrees with you.

Disbelief is lack of belief.

Eg. Dictionary.com disbelief : the inbability or refusal to accept something
Ditionary.com refusal : an act or instance of refusing
Dictionary.com refusing : to decline to accept; to decline to submit to

What you call agnostics don't accept theism. They decline to accept it, similarly they decline to accept strong atheism.
Meaning they fit dictionary.com's definition of atheism.
There's also the OED, and the 9+ sources (including 1 study of 30 uses of the word) Wikipedia gives.

And I will need to keep saying this: Carl Sagan is not a dictionary. He is not an authority on the meaning of words. One person doesn't dictate words - people in general do. The fact that many (even if it was a minority, which I see no reason to believe) people use atheism to mean lack of belief indicates it should at the very least by an additional definition.

Fine, then refer to the definitions I provided from dictionary.com and American Heritage.

indicates it should at the very least be (typo) an additional definition

Oh, so you take these comments about redefinition back?

Nope. Why would I retract my comments that have nothing to do with what I wrote about your misusage of etymology. Your focus on etymology is fallacious because meaning evolves, and the current meaning of atheism (as defined by FOUR sources) is the belief that God doesn't exist, or to rephrase it, the denial of God.

So in other words; we should accept the redefinition from "lack of belief" to the MORE SPECIFIC (the original definition INCLUDED the definition you give) "belief in no gods", but we shouldn't accept the fact that many people do think "lack of belief" is atheism as a redefinition.

The etymology is a meaningful, commonly used context of the word.

Etymology deals with origin and history, not CURRENT MEANING.

I said "The etymology", meaning I was referring to a meaning that you have acknowledge is used, "lack of belief", while stating at the same time that it was the original definition, to point out that in this instance, the ORIGINAL DEFINITION which was redefined to mean something else, is also currently used - and so a valid reason to redefine back to the original.

No. This is straight up false.
Weak atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
Strong atheism refers to the belief in the non existence of a god.

According to wiki weak atheists reject belief in God. That is substantially different from lacking belief in God. For example, I reject belief in the tooth fairy, meaning I do not believe the tooth fairy exists. If I were to 'lack belief' in the tooth fairy I would have no views or beliefs about the tooth fairy.

Lacking a belief is rejecting a belief. Reject - dismiss, not accept
If you were to lack belief in the tooth fairy, you would not believe the tooth fairy exists. If you didn't believe the tooth fairy exists, you might or might not believe the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

But you accept many people use "atheism" to mean lack of belief in a god.

Right, but I don't think it's accurate though. People can call themselves whatever they like but in doing so they run the risk of being inaccurate.

Not the point I'm getting at.

The Stanford Encyclopedia does clarify that the denial or negation of theism is atheism. The negation does not mean the antithesis. For instance, the negation of "hot" is "not hot" - not cold, it could be of neutral temperature. The negation of "over there" is "not over there" not "over here".

This is straight up false, and everything you wrote here is at odds with the Stanford Encyclopedia. The Stanford Encyclopedia clearly states that the negation of theism entails the denial of the existence of God. You disagree apparently.

Unfortunately the St. Encyclopedia article from 2004 doesn't offer a definition of denial, but I think that not accepting is denying.
Denial itself just has connotations of the thing being denied being true.
deny: one refuses to admit the truth or existence of; refuse to give [something] to [someone]

Refusal isn't acceptance of the contrary.

Now, the more important point.
You acknowledge that a notable number of people recognise that atheism means lack of belief in god.

This indicates that the dictionaries that don't acknowledge this should add it as a secondary definition.

Why? Why should dictionaries accept the inaccurate definition that a few internet atheists argue for? Should biology texts be revised to accommodate the inaccurate beliefs of creationists? No. Should dictionaries be revised to accommodate the inaccurate beliefs of internet atheists? No. Notice that actual atheists in the media do not associate with your 'lack belief' definition. That point pretty much destroys your entire position.

"A few internet atheists argue for", because we all know that the Oxford English Dictionary is an internet atheist. And a large group of atheists. And the first (possibly only?) explicitly atheist chat show. And many explicitly atheist podcasts. And many prominent atheist debaters such as JT Eberhard and Matt Dillahunty. And the fact that it includes the other definition, while this definition excludes that definition.

But no, a 2004 article that doesn't explicitly state either way and Carl Sagan (who died in 1996) are apparently authoritative on the current meaning of atheism.

When a reasonable number of people are using a word to have a different meaning, that's usually the sign that you should add it to the dictionary.
For example: Gay means homosexual. Do you accept that? Gay can also mean happy or carefree. Was it a bad idea for the dictionaries to have taken a common use of the word (that was originally slang and had derogatory connotations) and add it to the definition?

As you said, etymology deals with the origin of the words, and words change. You can't have it both ways. Either words don't change and we're stuck with atheism (lack of belief in gods) or words do change and we've got (lack of belief in gods) as a secondary (if not primary) definition.

The problem is that notable atheists throughout history do not identify with you inaccurate definition. Nietzsche certainly didn't.

Not to imply this is relevant, but as an additional note - Source?

Are you trying to argue that the historical meaning (lack of belief) is relevant or not? If not, stop bringing up the long dead. If you are, accept the etymological meaning.

To redefine atheism to mean 'lack of belief' is to obscure the public discussion about religion and atheism because our understanding of atheism, based upon what actual atheists say and do, is not consistent with your or any other internet atheists definition.

Obscure? Seriously? As we've said so many times, let people label themselves what they want. They can tell you what their own beliefs are.

Redefine? I'm saying add a commonly used definition; the original definition at that.

What is the problem with adding the commonly used definition of "lack of belief" to another dictionary?

[wiploc]

What I don't agree with is the idea that atheism can be defined as 'lack of belief.'

I don't understand why you're still talking this way. Your case has been thoroughly refuted. You gave three sources.

- Sagan's was personal and eccentric.
--- You can't find any dictionary that agrees with him.
--- You don't agree with him yourself.
--- You can't find any significant body of English users who agree with him.

- SEP's described how he was going to use the word in that article.

- Dictionary.com doesn't agree with you either.
--- Yes, it includes the definition you like, but it also includes the one you claim is wrong.
--- You provided this source, but you say it's wrong.
--- It agrees with us, but not with you.

Of your three sources, the only one that describes common usage is dictionary.com Dictionary.com says we are right and you are wrong.



Here's wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Wikipedia says we're right and you're wrong.


Here's the OED on atheism:

without god
denying god
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods
godlessness.

That's five definitions (depending how you count). Three of the definitions agree with us, and only one of them agrees with you---and that one is given as an alternative. That is, the OED disagrees with you: It claims that yours is not the only legitimate definition.

Which is to say that atheists do not have any particular beliefs or views concerning God's existence. This is clearly NOT true when considering prominent atheists like Dawkins, Victor Stenger and Christopher Hitchens. These atheists clearly DO have a particular belief concerning God, and that belief is that God does not exist.

Some atheists are strong atheists: they believe that gods do not exist. Others are weak atheists: they don't believe either way.

You cannot prove or tend to prove that all atheists are strong atheists by showing that some atheists are strong atheists.

Even if you could, even if you could prove that there are no examples of what you call "agnostics," that would not prove or tend to prove that the word "atheist" wouldn't include "agnostics" if they existed.

Maybe you want to argue that Dawkins, Stenger, and Hitchens used the word they way you use it. Two points about that:
- You have not made this argument, or presented any evidence that would support it.
- Even if you proved this claim (a claim that you have not yet made) it wouldn't prove or tend to prove that dictionaries and significant part of the English-speaking world don't agree with us.

The fact is that dictionaries agree with us, and so many English users agree with us that you are just wrong: Your preferred definition is not the only correct definition.

Your claim is clearly unsupportable. I don't know why you are still making it.

[Star]

WinePusher's argument is based on a well-known false dichotomy fallacy.

Here's a similar example of a false dichotomy taken from our legal systems: A defendant is found either guilty or innocent. (I saw this mistake made many times during the Martin Trayvon mania.) In reality, a defendant is found either guilty or not guilty, the latter being a third category, which is what WinePusher should pay attention to.

Finding not guilty is akin to a soft/negative atheist and/or agnostic position.

Finding innocent would be akin to a hard/positive atheist and/or gnostic position.

[Danmark]

WinePusher's argument is based on a well-known false dichotomy fallacy.

Here's a similar example of a false dichotomy taken from our legal systems: A defendant is found either guilty or innocent. (I saw this mistake made many times during the Martin Trayvon mania.) In reality, a defendant is found either guilty or not guilty, the latter being a third category, which is what WinePusher should pay attention to.

Finding not guilty is akin to a soft/negative atheist and/or agnostic position.

Finding innocent would be akin to a hard/positive atheist and/or gnostic position.

Since this distinction is near and dear to my heart, let me pontificate. This is exactly right. "Not Guilty" does not mean "innocent." One of the most import things a criminal defense attorney does during voir dire is to hammer on this distinction. One of the techniques I've used, I stole from a Superior Court Judge:

'If you think the defendant 'probably' committed the crime, you need to vote "Not Guilty," because in order to convict you must believe he is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt. "Probably" is insufficient.'

I hasten to point out, the Judge did not phrase it this way in an instruction to the jury. He said this to me in a private conversation.

[WinePusher]

Wiploc, your post is full of many distortions and errors. Let's take them one by one.

I don't understand why you're still talking this way. Your case has been thoroughly refuted. You gave three sources.

- Sagan's was personal and eccentric.
--- You can't find any dictionary that agrees with him.
--- You don't agree with him yourself.
--- You can't find any significant body of English users who agree with him.

All three of these claims are false. I provided two dictionaries that corroborate Sagan's definition, I DO agree with him myself and there are many influential English users who agree with Sagan.

- SEP's described how he was going to use the word in that article.

Do you know what the article was about? The difference between atheism and agnosticism, a concept that many don't seem to fully understand.

- Dictionary.com doesn't agree with you either.
--- Yes, it includes the definition you like, but it also includes the one you claim is wrong.
--- You provided this source, but you say it's wrong.
--- It agrees with us, but not with you.

Again, all three of your claims are demonstrably false. First you say that dictionary.com doesn't agree with me then you admit that it does. Please get your story straight. I don't even know what you mean with your second claim, and your third claim is confusing. Who is 'US?'

Do you presume to speak for all your other nontheist buddies in this thread, because it doesn't even appear as though you all are on the same page. Perhaps you should PM each other and hammer out all the inconsistencies and contradictions in your position.

Of your three sources, the only one that describes common usage is dictionary.com Dictionary.com says we are right and you are wrong.

Again, who is 'we?' I'm sorry, but during the 4 years I've debated on this forum I haven't been on a team. I don't need or want back up from other debaters, so I'm not accustomed with all this 'we' and 'us' business. Who exactly do you presume to speak for?

If you define atheism as 'lack of belief' then you're inaccurate, it's as simple as that. If you define atheism as rejection of belief in God, or disbelief in God, or denial of God, or any one of those definitions then you would be accurate.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Wikipedia says we're right and you're wrong.

Please read the quote again. In the broadest sense, atheism is the rejection of belief in deities. Did you miss that part? IN THE BROADEST SENSE. Do you know what that means? In the most general sense of the term, atheism is the rejection of belief in deities. Regarding the 'inclusive' definition, I'd really like to know what the internet writer had in mind when writing this. And you do realize that Wikipedia is edited by random people on the internet, right? Which brings us back to my original question about the credibility of random people on the internet.

If atheism was actually defined as 'lack of belief' then why is this definition (preferred by internet atheists) at odds with what actual atheists say and do? You do realize that famous atheists, as opposed to unverifiable internet atheists, do not simply lack belief, right?

Here's the OED on atheism:
without god
denying god
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods
godlessness.

Where is the 'lack belief' definition?

That's five definitions (depending how you count). Three of the definitions agree with us, and only one of them agrees with you---and that one is given as an alternative. That is, the OED disagrees with you: It claims that yours is not the only legitimate definition.

Wait, where is the LACK BELIEF definition? Did you forget to include it?

The fact is that dictionaries agree with us, and so many English users agree with us that you are just wrong: Your preferred definition is not the only correct definition.

Your claim is clearly unsupportable. I don't know why you are still making it.

Seems like there's a lot of confusion about this so let me clarify. What I reject is the idea that atheism can be defined as 'lack of belief.' I don't really have any problem with the five OED definitions you gave, I think they're all accurate but I personally see the 'denying God' one as the most accurate as it describes what modern atheists actually say and do. But, that doesn't make the other 4 definitions any less credible. The one definition I reject is the 'lack belief' one.

[WinePusher]

WinePusher's argument is based on a well-known false dichotomy fallacy.

Here's a similar example of a false dichotomy taken from our legal systems: A defendant is found either guilty or innocent. (I saw this mistake made many times during the Martin Trayvon mania.) In reality, a defendant is found either guilty or not guilty, the latter being a third category, which is what WinePusher should pay attention to.

Finding not guilty is akin to a soft/negative atheist and/or agnostic position.

Finding innocent would be akin to a hard/positive atheist and/or gnostic position.

A key point you failed to mention is that in the American legal system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant. The burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove himself/herself innocent because most legal systems operate upon the presumption of innocence. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase, 'innoceny until proven guilty.'

If you do see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same, why not just eliminate the 'soft atheism' concept and just call yourself an agnostic? All of this weak/soft/negative atheism stuff is unnecessary and superfluous. If weak/soft/negative atheism is synonymous with agnosticism then just go with agnosticism and leave the word atheism to those who actually believe God doesn't exist.

And the issue with Travyon Martin had very little to do with people's understanding of 'guilty' vs 'not guilty.' The major point of dispute outside the courtroom, in the popular media, was whether or not there was a racial motive/component to Zimmerman's actions. Were people up in Canada really interested in this case?

[Danmark]

Seems like there's a lot of confusion about this so let me clarify. What I reject is the idea that atheism can be defined as 'lack of belief.' I don't really have any problem with the five OED definitions you gave, I think they're all accurate but I personally see the 'denying God' one as the most accurate as it describes what modern atheists actually say and do. But, that doesn't make the other 4 definitions any less credible. The one definition I reject is the 'lack belief' one.

It is an interesting 'clarification' that serves only to muddy the waters.

Since you refuse to accept that 'lack of belief in any god' is atheism, even if a million self proclaimed atheists say it is so, tell us what term you would apply to a person who says:
"I don't know if there really is a god or not, but I think it extremely unlikely that there is one or could be." Do you claim this person is an agnostic?

Let's take 3 cases:

1. A person agrees he has no absolute knowledge but thinks the chance that a God exists is remote, somewhere under 10%.

2. A person agrees he has no absolute knowledge but thinks the chance that a God exists is as likely as it is unlikely, 50-50 in percentage terms; or he says the issue can never be determined; that it is beyond our ability to know.

3. A person agrees he has no absolute knowledge but thinks the chance that a God exists is more likely than not, whether it is characterized in percentage terms of 60% or 90%.

What labels do you place on each of the three?

[Zzyzx]

.

If you do see soft atheism and agnosticism as one in the same, why not just eliminate the 'soft atheism' concept and just call yourself an agnostic?

Why focus so much attention upon the definition of someone else's theological position (including a separate thread) rather than upon one's own position?

If a Theist could defend supernatural beliefs effectively they could do so whether their opponent was an Agnostic, Atheist, Hard Atheist, Soft Atheist, Non-Christian or Non-Theist. It would make no difference WHICH of those the opposition chose as a debate position IF one could sustain their own personal position / claims / stories or those of their religion.

However, they might have trouble debating an Ignostic (whose position is "The topic of 'gods' cannot be intelligently and rationally discussed unless god-believers can define, identify and describe the 'god' to be discussed").

Tactics and diversions do not make up for a weak position (as I trust readers observe).