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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 56 by WinePusher]

Fair enough. However, when theists define atheism as 'the denial of God' they are not guilty of 'straw man attempts' and they are not guilty of misunderstanding atheism. The internet debater in the OP attempted to falsely characterize theists, and the characterization was wrong, plain and simple.

WinePusher

You have to recognize that "a denial of god" is not the only definition for atheism. So by labeling all atheists or even in debate using a specific definition when dealing with atheists is in essence purposefully mining a definition for a specific purpose of either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting them.

If a theist defined my atheism as listed above that would be creating a straw man version of my atheism to attack as that does not accurately describe me or my atheism. It would be highly inaccurate.

atheism
Syllabification: a-the-ism
Pronunciation: /TH"izm /
NOUN

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[Clownboat]

And here I thought my contribution was apparent.

I'm sure you did. Unfortunately, no one here has the power to read your mind. In order for a debate to be productive you should try to explain yourself as thoroughly as possible rather than quote mining.

IMO, you appear to be doing exactly what Z claimed theists often do. You take issue with his observation, but that does not seem to stop you from continuing.

Yes, I define atheism as the denial of God's existence because that is how prominent atheists define themselves, and that is how the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary defines it.

And I've also defended/debated many of my Christian beliefs. If you haven't noticed, his thread in particular has to do with atheism so getting into a debate about something like the resurrection of the Bible would be off topic.

The readers are free to agree or disagree if you are actually doing what you take issue with.

I don't take issue with the claim that theists (including myself) define atheism as the denial of God. I do take issue with the false claim that when theists do this, it is a straw man attempt. Do you know what a straw man is? Do you realize that theists are not engaging in straw man arguments by defining atheism in this particular way? Why continue to defend a clearly false statement?

If you are not doing what you seem to be doing, I would have expected you to deal with the brake down of the words that have been presented many times in this thread alone.
- Without Theism = A theist

I don't have any issue with this. Do read the OP again though: Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Will you continue to argue that you are not doing what you seem to be doing?

I will continue to define atheism as the denial of God's existence because that is how nontheistic sources define it. And yes, I will continue to argue against the position that it is a strawman attempt for theists to define atheism this way. That is clearly a false statement.

And please, I hope that you take the time to read what I wrote instead of ignoring it and continuing to level false accusations against me. Why not focus on the actual substance of the debate instead of making it personal?

You insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, you pretend that atheism is exclusively about your god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others.

Disbelief is not the same as denial. Disbelief is either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. This is what you attempt to do with the word "atheist" it seems.

Misunderstandings arise because many theists IMO imagine that all atheists fit a narrow, limited concept of atheism. Reliance on dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries can easily exacerbate the problem. It is also possible that some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite " a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human beliefs or belief systems operate.

Disbelief is just not the same as denial and to me this is what your argument hinges on. Yet you are adamant to continue it seems (like I attempted to point out previously and found to be personally amusing).

[WinePusher]

You have to recognize that "a denial of god" is not the only definition for atheism. So by labeling all atheists or even in debate using a specific definition when dealing with atheists is in essence purposefully mining a definition for a specific purpose of either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting them.

If a theist defined my atheism as listed above that would be creating a straw man version of my atheism to attack as that does not accurately describe me or my atheism. It would be highly inaccurate.

Daniel, let me make this perfectly clear, and I realize that it may sound condescending but please do not take it that way. I do not care about your beliefs and I do not care about how you define your beliefs. If you choose to call yourself an atheist and you don't deny the existence of God fine, be my guest. If we ever were to debate an issue, I probably wouldn't be hounding you to change your usergroup or call yourself something different. I would deal with your arguments and your actual beliefs, not the title you choose to associate with.

However, in this thread, we have an internet debater who explicitly says that it is a straw man attempt when theists define atheism as the denial of God. This is false, yet nobody has admitted this. Also, I've been arguing that it is not accurate to define atheism as merely 'lack of belief.' That being said, I have no problem if you do simply 'lack belief' and call yourself an atheist. I do think that it's not an accurate title for your position, but so what?

Perhaps you can answer this question, which Jashwell chose to ignore:

If you were to ask an agnostic if they believe God exists, they would likely respond by saying 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue.' If you were to ask an atheist if they believe God exists do you think they'd respond by saying, 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue?'

[Star]

It's not that difficult. This has probably been posted already, but I'll take a stab at it...

The A prefix basically means "not" or "without."

A/gnosticism is about knowledge. A/theism is about belief.

Agnostics recognize they lack sufficient knowledge to be certain, while gnostics don't.

Atheists don't believe in any gods, while theists do.

These two terms can actually complement each other. Agnostic-atheists (such as myself) don't believe in any gods, but don't know for certain. A gnostic-theist, like most Christians, think they know their god exists, and of course, actively believe it, too.

There are other categories of atheist to take note of.

Implicit atheists aren't familiar with religion, and haven't had an opportunity to consider any claims, such as infants. Explicit atheists, such as every atheist here, have had the opportunity. For example, I'm familiar with dozens of religions, gods, creation claims, etc., but I don't believe any of them, for reasons I can articulate.

Positive/hard atheists believe god(s) don't exist. This is what many people think atheists are, including Carl Sagan as noted in the OP, and unfortunately some of my personal heroes, such Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Einstein, who both adamantly deny/denied being atheist for this reason.

Negative/soft atheists just don't believe. As an analogy, in a court of law, the accused is found either guilty or not guilty. He or she isn't found innocent. This is founded on the same logical principle as negative/soft atheism. They usually don't believe because they don't know due to lack of evidence, which is a good analogy to a/gnosticism.

Most religious people are atheistic towards religions other than their own. As I see it, the only difference between a atheist and an theist in this sense, is the atheist believes in one less religion.

[mwtech]

Perhaps you can answer this question, which Jashwell chose to ignore:

If you were to ask an agnostic if they believe God exists, they would likely respond by saying 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue.' If you were to ask an atheist if they believe God exists do you think they'd respond by saying, 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue?'[/quote]
An agnostic (defined in the terms you have here) is by default an atheist. You can only believe in a god/gods, or not believe in one. You do not have to deny it to not believe it, but you not having any beliefs about God, they are a-theists. Someone who lacks beliefs about God. Agnosticsm is not an exclusive "belief system." It is a modifier that can be applied to the term theist or atheists. It is simply the absence of gnosticism, the same way atheism is the opposite of theism.

It is a straw man attempt to claim that atheists believe there is no God, if that changes the debate at hand, which it often does on this site. In this debate, it is actually relevant, and not a straw man. In the context Z quoted, it was a straw man. It was distracting from the issue at hand by trying to shift the burden of proof.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 62 by WinePusher]
Sorry, I missed your question. (I occasionally miss things when I split posts up into quotes, as I often go back and forth between parts of the reply)
I didn't choose to ignore it.

If you asked an atheist, they would say no.
If you were to ask an agnostic, they would say either yes or no.
(I would explain why, but apparently literally stating the definition of agnosticism is accusing you of saying things that you haven't said)

But rephrasing your question so as to avoid begging the question
(as we're debating what the words mean in the first place):


If you were to ask a self professed atheist if they believe God exists, how do you think they'd respond?
They'd respond 'no'.
As would those that you call agnostics.
(That may or may not be agnostics but are atheists)

Now about my entire post that you read (since you know I didn't respond) but forgot to respond to... (not to imply that you chose to ignore the entire post)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 62 by WinePusher]

No I don't think it is condescending that's fine.

the "denial of god" definition of atheism is a specific definition. There is more than one definition though and one of those definitions is a lack of belief in a god according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

so lets say we have 2 definitions to go by

1.denial of god

2.lack of belief in god

these are very different in both meaning and context.

Person A goes by belief 1
Person B goes by belief 2
Person C is a theist

C is in a debate with Person B and makes an argument surrounding definition 1 in regards to Person B's atheism.

that is a straw man literally whether it is intentional or not.

If you were to ask an agnostic if they believe God exists, they would likely respond by saying 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue.' If you were to ask an atheist if they believe God exists do you think they'd respond by saying, 'I Don't Know, I Don't Have Any Beliefs About This Issue?'

Yes that is a possible response I suppose even if its inaccurate however using the OED definition I could respond by saying

I don't believe in gods, However I do not know there are no gods.

[Danmark]

I still see no need for the conversation in the first place. Atheists define their beliefs or lack thereof in their own ways. This is their prerogative within certain bounds.

I prefer the term "non theist" for myself. I see no reason, and certainly no necessity to invent something to explain anything that has a a natural explanation. When it comes to the universe or existence itself, again I see no reason to posit some unknown explanation. It seems speculative beyond imagining to arbitrarily choose some 'cause' or 'reason' without evidence of it. But the last thing I would choose would be to invent out of whole cloth some being with a personality as that ultimate cause. All that does is to push the real answer back further and stick an arbitrary label on it.

It seems so brutally obvious that early man simply imagined another man, tho' much like himself, but with infinitely greater powers. Why not the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster or Super Mickey Mouse or any of the thousands of gods man has invented? I don't think theism should be dignified with its own 'a-word.'

I'm not an 'a-golfist.' I just don't golf. I'm not an 'a-theist,' I simply have no belief in the 'God' people talk about. It seems ridiculous to me, a fantasy. Any particular God seems as likely to me as the Spaghetti Monster, so why give it the dignity of an 'anti' label?

[Zzyzx]

.

However, when theists define atheism as 'the denial of God' they are not guilty of 'straw man attempts' and they are not guilty of misunderstanding atheism.

Many Theists simply pick a definition of Atheism that they prefer from the many available (and which they may hope they can dispute).

By that "reasoning" Atheists should be free to pick whatever definition of Christianity they prefer to debate against -- and cite some Christian spokesman as an authority (as though any one spoke for all Christians).

The internet debater in the OP attempted to falsely characterize theists, and the characterization was wrong, plain and simple.

Notice what the "Internet debater" ACTUALLY said (bold and red emphasize a key word in the correct quotation).

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

That an attempt is made to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism by some Christians (or "often") is verified by the "Christian Internet Debater" in this thread doing exactly that (for whatever reasons).

SOME Atheists deny the existence of "gods." SOME Atheists do not deny the existence of "gods."

To claim that Atheists (inclusive) deny ignores the latter group " and is, therefore, incorrect.


A more rational position, suggested by some here, is to have the individual Atheist or Christian define the term as applies to themselves or their debate position.

As the saying goes, "I have no horse in this race" because my position is NOT Atheist, and NOT denial, and decidedly NOT Christian. Instead, it is Non-Theist tending toward Ignosticism (not Agnosticism) as announced clearly in signature. As far as I am concerned, ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY exist " awaiting evidence upon which to make an informed and intelligent decision.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 68 by Zzyzx]

So, let us define 'Christian:'
One who believes the Earth and the universe was created out of nothing in six days about 6000 years ago and believes the Bible is the actual word of God, is literally true; that the Garden of Eden story and that of Noah and the Tower of Babel and all the other stories happened exactly like the Bible says.