A defintion of Atheism.

[Frenger]

Just to clear up what seems to be a nagging point, I thought we could define Athiesm in a handy, pocket sized thread to avoid communication errors in the future. So here we go

Atheism simply means a lack of belief in gods. It is a vague term, and for good reason as there are so many religious claims it is hard to be anymore specific.

Atheism is not a truth claim, It doesn't assert that there isn't a god or a god is not possible, it simply means we see no evidence for one/any.

Athiesm is not an ideology, you can be be a athiest nihilist, an atheist humanist, an athiest secularist, an atheist communist an atheist anything. All it means is that you lack belief in gods.

You could be an atheist and believe in ghosts, you could believe in an afterlife, you could believe in astrology, you could believe in Harry Potter. All Atheism means is that you lack belief in god.

Although Athiests don't assert that a god doesn't exist, they may refute certain claims as false, for instance Noahs flood or Adam and Eve, those claims we can say with certainty are false because of geological and mitochondrial evidence respectively (plus a lot more).
It is of course possible to deny these claims as a believer, Athiesm simply means a lack of belief in god.

And while we are here, Agnostic does not mean you are undecided about god, it means you are without knowledge, that is to say you don't know if knowledge can be obtained. You can be an agnostic atheist (you don't think it's possible to know god and you don't see any evidence for one) or you can be an agnostic theist (you believe there is a god but you don't feel it's possible to know him).

I hope this has helped, please feel free to add anything I may have missed.

 

[Prolescum]

You've made the (some say irrelevant) sin of treating atheism like its a proper noun above (likely unintentionally) a couple of times. It is, in my view, the first step in the slippery slope that leads rubes to the belief that atheism is a world view. It's subtle, but remember they capitalise "he" when referring to YHWH or Jesus; that should tell you all you need to know about their grammatical mindset.

I quite like the term polyatheist.

Edit: That didn't come out right. Oh well.

 

[Frenger]

I think what happened was that I originally tried to write it without any specific person in my head, and then I failed and sometimes addressed it to certain people. But yes, atheism isn't a noun or an ideology or a way of life.

I too like the term polyatheist, good job.

 

[Squawk]

Atheism is not a truth claim, It doesn't assert that there isn't a god or a god is not possible, it simply means we see no evidence for one/any.

That's the only part I don't really like. One could be atheist despite there being evidence for a deity.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Atheism is not a truth claim, It doesn't assert that there isn't a god or a god is not possible, it simply means we see no evidence for one/any.

That's the only part I don't really like. One could be atheist despite there being evidence for a deity.

If there's sufficient evidence that a deity exists everyone would be an atheist. Proof would do away with the need for belief n all that jazz

 

[Squawk]

If there's sufficient evidence that a deity exists everyone would be an atheist. Proof would do away with the need for belief n all that jazz

I'm going to presume that's a typo of theist when addressing it, as I don't see how it can make sense otherwise.

I contend that, should you happen to accept the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then claims of omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent gods can never have sufficient evidence in support to warrant acceptance. After careful consideration (and I mean a metric fuck tonne of it), I'm quite happy to state that no evidence would ever be sufficient for me to believe in that God.

If you start to put further constraints on it then we might have a chance of going the evidential route, but how do we distinguish between a sufficiently advanced alien and a deity? Do we need to make that distinction even?

Plus, evidential standards are different for everyone. There are still people who think the earth is flat.

 

[Frenger]

Atheism is not a truth claim, It doesn't assert that there isn't a god or a god is not possible, it simply means we see no evidence for one/any.

That's the only part I don't really like. One could be atheist despite there being evidence for a deity.

Another good correction, motion passed.

 

[televator]

Aye thee izum : God hatin' Devil/Darwin worship for Nazis and/or Commies.

How's that?

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Aye thee izum : God hatin' Devil/Darwin worship for Nazis and/or Commies.

How's that?

You forgot about baby eating.

 

[nemesiss]

i think as a whole, it might be easier to (re)define theism, since A-theism is simply "Not Theism".

ok, my attempt at definition:

Theism: a (confictional) believe in 1 or mutliple gods.
often excluding well presented evidence and/or arguments*.
* evidence and arguments may seem/feel valid for an individual, but are not valid or credible in general.


A-theism: not a (confictional) believe in 1 or mutliple gods.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Philosotroll has an interesting take on this:

Atheism as a Propositional Attitude: How it Works

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Okay let me just say first of all that I don't think it's terribly productive to debate the definition of atheism. Bottom line is we don't believe in gods. So I don't particularly care whether or not someone "lacks a belief in gods" or "believes that gods don't exist". Or if you want to go with the distinction of weak atheism and strong atheism or something in-between (like I would consider myself) I'm fine with that too. If you want to call yourself "agnostic atheist" I'm fine with that too.

I would like to know exactly where this "lack of belief" definition comes from and why it's so popular, it's just not commonly supported by the dictionaries I'm aware of, including Romanian ones.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

http://dexonline.ro/definitie/ateism

Rough translations:

DEX '98 (1998) - Denial of God's existence and of any other deities; conception based on this denial (Note by "denial" I mean rejection, not that you know it's true but pretend it isn't.)
NODEX (2002) - Conception that rejects religion and the existence of all deity
DN (1986) - Materialistic conception that rejects religion, faith in the supernatural and the existence of all deity, of miracles and of afterlife; rejection of God

And so it goes on...

Now let's take a dictionary like Merriam Webster:

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

You might say disbelief is lack of belief, well not exactly:

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

So that implies you are at least aware of the concept of God and have decided that's it's probably bollocks. You're not simply neutral or undecided. So by this definition babies and animals are not atheists because they can't even comprehend these ideas.

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

So what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Frenger]

Okay let me just say first of all that I don't think it's terribly productive to debate the definition of atheism. Bottom line is we don't believe in gods. So I don't particularly care whether or not someone "lacks a belief in gods" or "believes that gods don't exist". Or if you want to go with the distinction of weak atheism and strong atheism or something in-between (like I would consider myself) I'm fine with that too. If you want to call yourself "agnostic atheist" I'm fine with that too.

I completely agree, it isn't very productive, however the attempt to define it was a result of Vyckro continually misunderstanding what being an atheist actually meant, equating it with communism and other such nonsense. I just wanted a reference page for people to point him to when he want on one of his ridiculous rants.

I would like to know exactly where this "lack of belief" definition comes from and why it's so popular, it's just not commonly supported by the dictionaries I'm aware of, including Romanian ones.

Again, I think you're right in that it isn't a dictionary definition. I suppose the problem comes from theists saying that "so, you don't believe in a god? Prove it". For me it just keeps the burden of proof on the right side. For all intensive purposes I don't believe in a god but because of the lack of evidence, not because I can show that gods don't exist.

So what are your thoughts on this?

For people like me and you we know what we mean when we say "we don't believe in gods", however it's a difficult definition for some theists to understand, they see that as a position of faith similar to theirs. By saying we "lack believe in gods" we are making sure there is no mistaking our atheism for a truth claim.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The real problem is that the meaning of the word has changed from its origin due to the "New Atheists" - read "anti-theists", which is not the same as "atheist", without belief in god(s).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[pog12156]

Way i see it atheism is best explained in two steps for those who try to define it as a worldview, ideology, or lifestyle.

1) Atheism: lacking the belief in the existance of a god or gods.

2) Any questions or confusions Refer to #1.


If that dosnt solve the confusion then the person you're talking to is beyond help. Its really a very simple concept.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I would like to know exactly where this "lack of belief" definition comes from and why it's so popular, it's just not commonly supported by the dictionaries I'm aware of, including Romanian ones.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

http://dexonline.ro/definitie/ateism

Rough translations:

DEX '98 (1998) - Denial of God's existence and of any other deities; conception based on this denial (Note by "denial" I mean rejection, not that you know it's true but pretend it isn't.)
NODEX (2002) - Conception that rejects religion and the existence of all deity
DN (1986) - Materialistic conception that rejects religion, faith in the supernatural and the existence of all deity, of miracles and of afterlife; rejection of God

And so it goes on...

Now let's take a dictionary like Merriam Webster:

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Well, a slight problem here, namely that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

You might say disbelief is lack of belief, well not exactly:

Actually, yes, exactly. The prefix 'dis', like the prefix 'a', is a privative, which means that it denotes the absence of something, in this case theism. It can also denote the negation of something, but here we're interested in the privative.

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Well, that just reinforces my point. The prefix doesn't only denote negation, it also denotes privation. Let me demonstrate:

T: God exists
A: I don't believe you

There, I disbelieve. This is not, you'll note, belief in the negation, it's simply disbelief.

So that implies you are at least aware of the concept of God and have decided that's it's probably bollocks. You're not simply neutral or undecided. So by this definition babies and animals are not atheists because they can't even comprehend these ideas.

Except, of course, that this rests upon a fallacious premise, namely that the prefix necessarily denotes negation. It doesn't. Thus, babies and rocks are atheist. It's a bit absurd to refer to rocks as atheists, but in a robust definition, that's the kind of tautology you end up with.

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

That definition is simply wrong, except for the first sense. The word was coined by Thomas Huxley, and when he coined it, he was very specific about what he meant by it. Gnosticism, and it's privative, are concerned only with knowledge, specifically the possibility thereof. To define it as not possessing knowledge would be pretty much redundant, because in the context of this discussion, everybody would be agnostic, because nobody has any knowledge with regard to the existence of a deity.


As for the topic, there is only one definition that can be considered rigorous, namely the privative 'having no belief', for a very simple reason. Of all the people who describe themselves as atheists, there is only one characteristic trait that is shared by all of them, namely that they don't possess an active belief in the existence of a deity. Thus, this description is sufficient, and no other baggage need be attached. Further, anybody who does not fall into this category cannot be described as an atheist. Thus, it is necessary. With the twin attributes of sufficiency and necessity, we have a rigorous definition. This single characteristic, namely 'not having an active belief in a deity', DEFINES what it is to be an atheist, and it does so completely. There are other things that can accompany this, but none of them are necessary to define atheism, and none of them are sufficient in and of themselves to characterise atheism.

This is how rigorous definitions work, as opposed to vernacular definitions, such as those found in dictionaries. Those who engage properly in the art of semantics, such as real philosophers (as opposed to apologists and navel-gazers) warn against reliance on such tools as vernacular definitions, because they constitute an argumentum ad populum.

Now should it be demonstrated categorically that any entity that could reasonably be defined as a deity actually exists, I will remain an atheist! But how can that be, I hear you cry? Well, at that point, what constitutes a robust definition will change. Well, I don't have a deity. whether one actually exists or not. It isn't mine, and I'm not its. I will still not be in possession of a deity, so the privative will still apply, although it will apply to my possession, rather than to the belief. Thus, I would remain an atheist, but what it actually entails to be an atheist will be different.

Here endeth, and all that.

edited to add:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"-had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ["¦] To my great satisfaction the term took.

 

[unkerpaulie]

If we define atheist as the guy who says

T: God exists
A: I don't believe you

then what is the term for the guy who says

T: God exists
A: No he does not!

 

[unkerpaulie]

If atheist is defined as the person that says they have no belief in god, or don't belive in god, then what's the term for the person that says they believe that god does not exist?

 

[Gnug215]

Hi unkerpaulie, and welcome aboard.

Don't worry about your "double-post". It's just because we were a bit late with approving your first post. We have a first post approval policy due to spammers, so...

To try to answer your question, I think some people would define it thusly:

If we define atheist as the guy who says

T: God exists
A: I don't believe you

This would actually be an "agnostic atheist".

While this guy:

then what is the term for the guy who says

T: God exists
A: No he does not!

... would be a "gnostic atheist".

A bit clunky, I guess, but I think that's the most precise (if not only) answer we have... short of "god denier!"

 

[unkerpaulie]

I see the distinction from this angle:

Question: Does God exist?
Answer: Yes = theist
Answer: No = atheist
Answer: I don't know = agnostic

This keeps it simple and avoids a lot of semantic gymnastics. I also think that atheists who define their belief as a lack of a belief in God, rather than a belief in the non-existence of God, are mislabeling themselves, since agnostics, by definition, also lack a belief in God. Therefore I think the term "agnostic atheist" is unnecessary, and confuses the actual definition of atheist. As shown above, either you "know" that God exists, or you don't, and if you don't, then you are agnostic by definition.