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?

[enaidealukal]

Please show me where "auto" or "mobile" are seen in the word "dog", or "people" etc....

Um, why? The point is that, like many words, "automobile" means something other than what its literal etymology would suggest- if what Artie was saying were a valid argument, then by the same token, "automobile" could not mean "a type of road vehicle with an internal combustion engine", it would have to mean "something which moves itself". Which, of course, would mean that dogs and cats are types of automobiles- and many other things which are not automobiles besides. But this is an etymological fallacy, just like the argument that "atheist" must mean "not theist" because that's what "a"-"theist" literally means; what a word's literal etymology suggests and what the word means are not necessarily the same- as is demonstrably the case in many, many instances, like "automobile", and the examples given in the About article.

An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.

As in the present case, which is that "a" means "not" and "theist" means theist therefore "atheist" means "not theist". That's the argument. And it is not valid.

I find the etymology of atheist to be relevant still. Can you provide a reason as to why I should change my mind?

Not unless you tell me your reasons for finding the etymology to be relevant. I'm not a mind reader. It is a demonstrable fact that words often do not mean what their literal etymology means- we can give many examples. Thus, a words etymology being X doesn't entail its meaning being X- in other words, citing the etymology as an argument for its meaning is non-sequitur.

If you cannot, I will continue to reject your etymological fallacy claim.

What claim, that etymological fallacies are... well, fallacious? This is getting silly.

[enaidealukal]

Why are many Theists so intent on the definition of Atheism when they cannot agree upon a definition of Christianity among themselves?

Are they? In my experience, its atheists who are far more intent on quibbling about what "atheism" means or what atheism *really* is- as the present case would sort of suggest; what's especially curious is that some people appear to act like they have some emotional stake in it, as if some definitions positively offend them. I don't understand that at all. Its just a definition, definitions differ, at worst you may disagree with a definition, but to get angry about it? Bizarre.

[Clownboat]

Please show me where "auto" or "mobile" are seen in the word "dog", or "people" etc....

Um, why? The point is that, like many words, "automobile" means something other than what its literal etymology would suggest- if what Artie was saying were a valid argument, then by the same token, "automobile" could not mean "a type of road vehicle with an internal combustion engine", it would have to mean "something which moves itself". Which, of course, would mean that dogs and cats are types of automobiles- and many other things which are not automobiles besides. But this is an etymological fallacy, just like the argument that "atheist" must mean "not theist" because that's what "a"-"theist" literally means; what a word's literal etymology suggests and what the word means are not necessarily the same- as is demonstrably the case in many, many instances, like "automobile", and the examples given in the About article.

An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.

As in the present case, which is that "a" means "not" and "theist" means theist therefore "atheist" means "not theist". That's the argument. And it is not valid.

I find the etymology of atheist to be relevant still. Can you provide a reason as to why I should change my mind?

Not unless you tell me your reasons for finding the etymology to be relevant. I'm not a mind reader. It is a demonstrable fact that words often do not mean what their literal etymology means- we can give many examples. Thus, a words etymology being X doesn't entail its meaning being X- in other words, citing the etymology as an argument for its meaning is non-sequitur.

If you cannot, I will continue to reject your etymological fallacy claim.

What claim, that etymological fallacies are... well, fallacious? This is getting silly.

The reason was in the part you left out when quoting me:
This does not, however, show that etymology is irrelevant in any way, nor does it attempt to prove such.

While the assumption that a word may still be used etymologically can be fallacious, the conclusion from such reasoning is not necessarily false. Some words can retain their meaning for many centuries, with extreme cases like mouse, which denoted the same animal in the Proto-Indo-European language several thousand years ago.

You keep calling something fallacious that is only fallacious sometimes. To equate "dog" to mean "automobile", that is one thing. "A-theists" is obviously not in this same camp.

We have shown that you can break down a-theists and that it makes sense and even agrees with what it seems most people think it to mean. You failed to do this with "dog" and/or "people", because the comparisons are not equal.

[Clownboat]

Why are many Theists so intent on the definition of Atheism when they cannot agree upon a definition of Christianity among themselves?

Are they? In my experience, its atheists who are far more intent on quibbling about what "atheism" means or what atheism *really* is- as the present case would sort of suggest; what's especially curious is that some people appear to act like they have some emotional stake in it, as if some definitions positively offend them. I don't understand that at all. Its just a definition, definitions differ, at worst you may disagree with a definition, but to get angry about it? Bizarre.

Anger?!? Where is this coming from?
Are you projecting?

[enaidealukal]

The reason was in the part you left out when quoting me:
This does not, however, show that etymology is irrelevant in any way, nor does it attempt to prove such.

Well sure- obviously the etymology of a word is part of that word's history, up to its present meaning. But since many, many words have come to mean something (sometimes far) different from their literal etymology, just giving the etmology, in itself is not relevant- arguing simply that its etymology is X therefore its meaning is X is not valid, since it is demonstrably false as we've noted with several examples ("automobile", the examples in the About article like "december")

While the assumption that a word may still be used etymologically can be fallacious, the conclusion from such reasoning is not necessarily false.

Right. But I've never said that "atheism" means such-and-such because supposing it means "not theist" on the basis of its etymology is fallacious- I've given my reasons for preferring to reject the "absence of theism" definition, and Artie responded by presenting his etymological argument. My point that this is a fallacy is merely to rebut this argument. I'm not basing my case for my definition on the fact that this particular argument is fallacious.

In any case, this etymological argument is symptomatic of the misunderstanding I've already alluded to- that there is some matter of fact at issue here, i.e. what atheism *really* means, what it's *true* definition is. This is fundamentally mistaken. There is no prescriptive obligation here at all, if I wanted to define "atheism" as "belief that chocolate ice cream is tasty", I wouldn't be wrong, I'd just be offering a highly peculiar (and fairly pointless) definition that nobody would have any reason to adopt. So even if the definition one preferred was entirely novel and unprecedented, in itself there would be nothing wrong with that. But that isn't the case here anyways. It is a matter of fact that "atheism" is frequently defined BOTH as "absence of theism" and "the belief that theism is false/that god(s) do no exist". One wouldn't be offering a peculiar usage by using either one. I am stating my reasons for preferring the latter. If you disagree, you aren't mistaken in any way, you prefer a different definition.

To equate "dog" to mean "automobile", that is one thing. "A-theists" is obviously not in this same camp.

So, are you going to at least state the reason why it is not (i.e. special pleading)? Or can we just spare ourselves the trouble? That it aligns with present usage is a different argument- if the argument "X's etymology is Y therefore X means Y" is fallacious/invalid, then it is always fallacious/invalid. Its a form of argument, and that form of argument is invalid, it is invalid in any particular case. To have it not be invalid, the argument needs to have a different form (i.e. a different argument).

And once again, so you're not misunderstanding me- I'm not saying that "atheism" can't mean "absence of theistic belief", or that that isn't what people mean by "atheism" in many cases; I'm saying that I prefer the way "atheism" is defined in many other cases- the position that theism is false. And I prefer it because it specifies a more clear epistemic position, because it doesn't overlap with agnosticism which is often taken to be exclusive, and because the contexts in which I'm interested in atheism is largely the philosophy of religion, where "belief that no gods exist" is the standard definition (probably for the reasons I've just given, at least in part).

[wiploc]

Well then, simply tell us what other things it could literally mean according to you if not "not theist/without theism"!

Why? What's the point? We've already established that what it "literally means" doesn't tell us what it presently means, or what it must mean. So what does it matter?

Actually, we have established that a- and theist means the same together as separately since you have given us no other meaning for them, separate or not. Case closed.

Don't bust your hump trying to win with this argument, Artie. The meaning of the word depends on what people mean by it, regardless of whether the etymology supports that usage.

Your etymological argument is useful for explaining what you mean when you use the word.

It's also useful when theists try to use the alternative etymological argument, which used to be common. I haven't seen it in a long time, so maybe this argument defeated that argument.

In any case, the way you can tell that the etymological argument can't suffice as a stand-alone is that you wouldn't let it beat you if it supported the other team. That is, if the theists had an etymological argument purporting to prove that "atheist" meant "strong atheist," then you would be saying that usage trumps etymology.

Reserve the argument for the times when it's useful.

[Star]

prefix a- mean the same in agnostic as in atheist if not why not?

It means the same. Agnostic isn't gnostic. Atheist isn't theist. Contrary to what we're being told, it's as simple as this. Ambiguous? Yes. But useful in combos. The label "agnostic-atheist" tells me a lot. "Agnostic soft atheist" tells me even more.

[enaidealukal]

Don't bust your hump trying to win with this argument, Artie. The meaning of the word depends on what people mean by it, regardless of whether the etymology supports that usage.

Exactly. And it is a simple fact that words frequently mean something other than their literal etymology- as we've seen (I do hope some people actually took the time to read the short About article, even if Artie didn't- it was good, informative, and mildly humorous). Thus, citing the literal etymology as an argument against a particular definition is non-sequitur, as noted.

[Danmark]

The arguments about the definition of 'atheism' were covered adequately in many earlier threads on this forum and once again in the first two pages, if not the first page of this one. The rest is surplusage. It is long since time for this thread to die by inattention.

[enaidealukal]

The arguments about the definition of 'atheism' were covered adequately in many earlier threads on this forum and once again in the first two pages, if not the first page of this one. The rest is surplusage.

Actually, at first blush that doesn't appear to be the case. Regardless, by the time I had signed up for the forum, it had been at least a week or two since the last post on this particular thread. But clearly people are still interested in the subject, as quite a few posters have responded since I pulled a necro (albeit not a very bad one- maybe a couple weeks old). And there isn't anything wrong with having a long-running thread devoted to a recurring topic like this- indeed, having one thread on the topic that is kept open can keep new ones from sprouting up, and thus helps keep the forum clear of redundant threads. Indeed, many forums have a thread specifically for (and often pinned) a particular topic that is a perennial one, for precisely this reason.